I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

uplanderguy

The '78 midsize GM's were really more of a radical downsizing than even the '77's. The wheelbases shrunk by as much as almost eight inches, which was more than the Chevy's 5.5 inch shrink for the '77's. I thought the designs were much-more radical too. Although, the midsizes were the last GM cars that I liked a lot.

Our '93 Caprice Classic had a low right front passenger seat and high floor. My wife was always rearranging herself in that seat, pushing against the plastic lower door panel resulting in squishing and squeaking sounds, LOL.

When my '81 Monte Carlo was stolen, I got a Mercury Cougar two-door as a rental. It was the one that looked like a Fairmont. It just screamed 'cheap' to me in comparison to the Monte Carlo. It had a visible seam at eye-level on the C-pillar which was filled in with a piece of fiberglas or plastic. And since it was missing one wheel cover I could see that it only had four lugnuts per wheel.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

The '78 midsize GM's were really more of a radical downsizing than even the '77's. The wheelbases shrunk by as much as almost eight inches, which was more than the Chevy's 5.5 inch shrink for the '77's. I thought the designs were much-more radical too. Although, the midsizes were the last GM cars that I liked a lot.

I think the '78-up midsizers also were subject to a lot of weight-saving that did not quite work out, from the lighter TH-200 transmission, to the 7.5" rear end, to the frame and body structures. I remember an article in one of the magazines at introduction time in the fall of '77 that said the frames were so lightweight that one being shown to journalists could be made to flex with just a kick on one of the corners. I know our '78 Grand LeMans Safari had a lot of flex in the body too. Unfortunate.

uplanderguy said:

When my '81 Monte Carlo was stolen, I got a Mercury Cougar two-door as a rental. It was the one that looked like a Fairmont. It just screamed 'cheap' to me in comparison to the Monte Carlo. It had a visible seam at eye-level on the C-pillar which was filled in with a piece of fiberglas or plastic. And since it was missing one wheel cover I could see that it only had four lugnuts per wheel.

Ford never did seem to totally address that aspect. The original Fairmont was a very cheap-feeling car in a lot of areas. Some of it was just due to lighter weight structures, like the doors. But I remember us having a rental and there seemed to be no insulation at all in the roof above the headliner. I was driving it on a rainy day and was stopped in traffic under a phone or power line that crossed the street. The water drops falling off the line and hitting the roof made a loud "plonk!" sound I had never heard in a vehicle before. Made you wonder what else they had cut corners on. And first impressions were not good in base-level models that were painfully plain inside.

uplanderguy

For all the things you mentioned, as I've said before, at least the GM midsizes felt like small big cars. Ford's felt like bigger small cars. I do believe GM's were priced higher.

andre1969

If GM had downsized the intermediates using the same percentages as the big cars, a '78 Malibu sedan would have ended up around 203" long, on a 111" wheelbase. That would have put it a bit bigger than a Nova (111" wb, and 199.6" long) and a bit smaller than, say, a Diplomat (112.7" wb, 205-206" long).

When GM downsized the big cars for '77, I think they were setting out to prove that the new cars could do everything a genuine big car could do, but in a package the same size as an intermediate. And, for the most part, it did. The only thing they really gave up was towing capacity (I think the '76 could tow up to 7000 lb, versus 5000 for '77?), and cargo capacity in the wagon models. They did give up about 3-4" in shoulder room, but the downsized cars still had about 61" of shoulder room, which put them in range of what big cars traditionally were.

For '78, they were probably trying to prove that a new-sized midsized car could do everything an old-school one could, but in a package the size of a compact, if not a bit smaller. So that's probably why they set out to downsize the Malibu even more radically. The only problem is, those old-school intermediates, and full-sizers, were over-built in many ways. and pretty rugged. You could trim a lot of excess off of a full-sized car, and still have something that's pretty rugged.

But with compacts in those days, not so much. While they were outdated and inefficient, by today's standards, it's not like you could simply come out with something the size and weight of a Nova, Granada, etc, and build it with the same sort of ruggedness of a 4000 lb old-school intermediate. About the most rugged "compact" back then I can think of would be the '77-79 Diplomat/LeBaron, but they were the biggest, heaviest "compacts" around...big enough to be marketed as intermediates soon after, and in later years, even passed off as an alternative to a full-sized car.

I think GM was also realizing that the typical buyer of a '78 Malibu didn't need to cart around 6 passengers on a regular basis, or tow a 4000 lb trailer...if you wanted that, you'd buy a full-sizer. And Ford and Chrysler had no real plans to offer direct replacements to their aging intermediates. GM was really the only manufacturer to offer a downsized intermediate, in my opinion, until the 1986 Taurus! Everything else in the interim that was passed off as a midsize, had its origins as a compact. So, with the markets changing, GM probably figured they could engineer some of the ruggedness out of the Malibu for '78. Although, in some ways, they might have gone too far.

uplanderguy

When I was in college, I daydreamed about ordering a black '78 Malibu Classic coupe, 305, gold cloth interior. 50/50 front seat, F41, bumper rub strips, Monte Carlo instrument cluster with gauges, floor mats, tinted glass, remote-control LH mirror, AM/FM radio with rear seat speaker, cruise control, whitewalls, and the sport wheel covers. Wish I was able to buy one, or have one now. An unusual, and still fairly-responsible, 'old' car by today's standards.

I knew a girl in college who in around '80 or '81 bought something close--but hers was a '78 Landau coupe, light metallic blue with white landau top and white vinyl bucket seat interior with blue dash and carpet and seat belts, with the 'right' wheel covers and instrument cluster. It had 16K miles. I wonder how long she drove it.

kyfdx

When I was in college, I daydreamed about ordering a black '78 Malibu Classic coupe

I knew a girl in college

Considering statement #2, statement #1 is just sad...

uplanderguy

I wonder what happened to her, and the car. She was a big ol' farm girl, nice gal though.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

I wonder what happened to her, and the car. She was a big ol' farm girl, nice gal though.

Well, they do make the Rockin' World Go 'Round! I dated a big girl back in '92-93. We had a ton of fun together. Wait...well, you know what I mean

Hell, she was willing to watch "Duel" with me...that's not exactly a chick flick!

thebean

andre1969 said:

uplanderguy said:

I wonder what happened to her, and the car. She was a big ol' farm girl, nice gal though.

Well, they do make the Rockin' World Go 'Round! I dated a big girl back in '92-93. We had a ton of fun together. Wait...well, you know what I mean

Hell, she was willing to watch "Duel" with me...that's not exactly a chick flick!

Love big girls - shade in the summer and warmth in the winter. Of course, they can say the same thing about me.

explorerx4

Posted this pic in another discussion referencing showrooms, which is where I saw this.
It seems like it should be posted here.

thebean

Is that a ‘77 T-Bird?

andre1969

I think it's a '79. Something about the grille texture.

Mr_Shiftright

And this is in a showroom because.....?

omarman

Looks like a price tag on the windshield. Hard to see it clearly on my screen. $13,971 maybe.

texases

A nice round number 🤔

stickguy

on a commercial (not sure for what, I think insurance), they had as a prop a yellow Duster, just like the one I used to have.

Mr_Shiftright

omarman said:

Looks like a price tag on the windshield. Hard to see it clearly on my screen. $13,971 maybe.

Yeah well good luck with that price. More like half that is market value. Maybe it's got like 22 miles on it or Elvis owned it?

omarman

If seller claims that 1979 Thunderbird was owned by Elvis then they will need documentation, a witness and a Ouija board. Otherwise we're back to "half that" price.

explorerx4

The price on the tag was $13.971. I forgot to look at what year it is.
Kind of a plain dark red interior.

ab348

Last year the nearby Ford dealer had a pristine '79 T-bird on their used car lot. Can't imagine someone traded it in as it looked like it came out of a collection. Maybe they bought it from an estate. Whatever, since I always liked them when they were new I stopped in on a Sunday to look at it. It too had the base bench seat interior and I had forgotten how plain-jane they looked with that. The way Ford reduced the sticker on these was to equip them much like a Torino, and you had to option them up a lot to get something worthy of a Thunderbird.

Mr_Shiftright

As the story goes, the styling on the late 70s/early 80s Fords got so bad that even the staff got sick of what they were doing. This lead of course to the much more svoopy doopy T-Bird and Taurus, which I suspect brought Ford back from the brink of Malaise Apocalypse.

ab348

Gene Bordinat was head of Ford styling in those days and there was a certain look he liked. Mostly squared edges, fat hips, wide chrome trim, a big slab of a dash, etc. Plus the worst battering-ram chrome bumpers in the industry. Apparently Bordinat liked going to the Dearborn Inn bar with the boys from Styling in the afternoons too. Good old days in Dearborn.

fintail

77-79 T-Birds are a guilty pleasure of mine, I kind of like the styling. I'd want a loaded T-tops model on turbine wheels.

I posted an Aerostar as a rarity yesterday, I have seen 3 in the past 24 hours. One was even a LWB AWD model, all looked in decent enough condition for their age. I assume these didn't have the 3.8.

Mr_Shiftright

A surviving example of the first car BMW ever made:

roadburner

Dixi.

stickguy

I don't see a kink at the C pillar, so can't be a real BMW.

uplanderguy

RE Late seventies Ford styling--I think the Deuce had a look he liked too--slab sides, blunt front and rear; square instrument panel. It's all what you're used to of course, but I never liked Lincolns of that era.

uplanderguy

Speaking of Ford, I see the last Taurus was assembled in Chicago Friday, although the plant is not closing.

sda

Where as the GM sedans being cancelled are of recent design, Ford really let the Taurus die on the vine. Same with the Lincoln MK(?) version. Too many MKs to keep up with, and am glad Lincoln is going back to giving their vehicles names like Continental, Nautilus.

uplanderguy

The Sonic, Malibu, Camaro, and Corvette will remain. The Impala is so much nicer than the Taurus IMHO, and it tested better too, per the magazines.

texases

stickguy said:

on a commercial (not sure for what, I think insurance), they had as a prop a yellow Duster, just like the one I used to have.

We must have been watching the same show. Out at a restaurant, TV had a basketball game on. Pointed it out to my wife and friends, they knew me when I had a green ‘72 with a white roof. 

berri

I think Ford is good at rwd stuff, so the next gen Explorer going into the Chicago plant should be interesting. I'm guessing the current styling is popular because the 2020 looks similar, although really underneath it is very changed.

berri

I think the latest Taurus was just too cramped for its size vice a lot of the competition. Not a very impressive ending given the big bang it produced when first introduced in 1996. Sad

stickguy

I just read a preview test of the new Explorer. sounds like it is a nice improvement, and much roomier (even switching to RWD layout). The platform was originally also supposed to be used for the replacement big sedans, so if they changed their minds and decided to do a new Taurus or big Lincoln after all, they already have much of the work done.

sda

Mom had an ‘87 Taurus LX which was the premium model at the time. It drove and rode much nicer than dad’s ‘95 Cutlass Ciera SL. Of course the Ciera was on the much older ‘A’ platform. Oddly the Ciera was quieter at highway speeds than the more aerodynamic Taurus. Both cars were reliable and essentially trouble free. Mom traded the Taurus in ‘99 for a lovely ‘98 Aurora, her favorite car, ever.

andre1969

berri said:

I think the latest Taurus was just too cramped for its size vice a lot of the competition. Not a very impressive ending given the big bang it produced when first introduced in 1996. Sad

I think the problem with the Taurus, and most cars of its ilk, is simply that full-sized cars became too emasculated, for lack of a better word, in the second wave of downsizing. Not performance-wise, but in overall capability. In the first wave, cars like the '77 B/C bodies, '79 Panthers, and '79 Mopar R-bodies, could pretty much do everything their oversized forebears could do. They could still cart around 6 people, carry 20+ cubic feet of luggage, and tow around 5,000 lb when properly equipped. They were also the right cars at the right time, as we started coping with higher gasoline prices that seemed here to stay. And, while even these cars were a bit ill-timed for the second oil embargo, a 1980 Caprice still would have weathered it much better than a '76!

But then, the second wave never really got off the ground in the same way, and GM was the only one really committed to it, with the '85 Electra/Ninety-Eight/DeVille, and then the LeSabre/88 the following year. These cars were designed during a recession/fuel crisis, but by the time they were launched the fuel was flowing cheap and free again. Plus, buyers were starting to discover trucks, SUVs (although they weren't called that yet), and minivans. And the traditional full-sized cars that were still around continued to sell fairly well. GM's second-wave cars also gave up quite a bit, this time. They were still a six-seater, in the sense they had six seatbelts. But, they were essentially trimmed to a roomy 4-seater, with a midsized, 15-16 cubic foot trunk. Towing capacity was severely cut, as well.

Chrysler never really got into this "second wave" of full-sized downsizing, until the 1993 Intrepid/Concorde, I guess. For awhile they tried to pass off the Gran Fury/Diplomat/5th Ave as a "full-sized" car, but these were just heavily modified Volares and Aspens, which were originally launched as a compact. And then they tried to replace these with the Dynasty and New Yorker/5th Ave/Imperial, but being based on K-cars, they were just too narrow inside to really be taken seriously as "full-sized".

I don't know if you could say Ford ever really did get in on a second wave of downsizing its big cars, because the Panthers held on for so long, and really didn't have a direct replacement. The 500/Montego came out in 2005, as sort of a Taurus replacement, but then the old Taurus hung on for a bit. They actually were pretty roomy, as I recall, so maybe they could be considered Ford's second wave? They were re-badged as Taurus/Sable for 2008-2009. When it was redesigned for 2010, with only a Taurus version (well, Lincoln had its version, but the Sable was dropped), it seemed like it was about the same size on the outside, but they managed to cut the interior volume. The trunk was still pretty big, but inside it just felt like a 4-seater. Up front, the seats seem narrow, with a center console that takes up too much room. For most people's needs, I think a Ford Fusion probably fits the bill just as well, and anybody who want's "full sized" is going with a crossover, full-frame SUV, or truck.

uplanderguy

I'd still enjoy owning a current Impala Premier. A strip of chrome down the side! Magazines say it tests very well too. I like the styling better than the Buick version that's newer. I'm guessing I'll never own one though.

andre1969

I drove the current Impala a few years ago, at the GM show in Carlisle, PA. Back in the "good old days", when GM themselves had a bit more invested in that show. This was just driving around on the show field, so you couldn't really stomp on it or anything, but I got to at least get a feel for the car. I thought it was pretty nice. It was a $40K car, which sounded like a lot, but I thought it would have made a suitable replacement for my 2000 Park Ave, for the most part. A similar level car, despite being badged as a Chevy.

One detail I didn't like about it though, is that it seemed a bit narrow in the back. At some point, I forget when, now, GM started tapering their cars, so that the back seat seemed noticeably narrower than in the front. I just looked up the specs on the current Impala... 57.9" of shoulder room up front, 56.9" in the back. So, essentially, a comfy 4 seater.

For comparison, my 2003 Regal is rated 58.1" up front, 57.1" in the back. I'm surprised that the Impala's actually a bit narrower! But, shoulder room never was my issue with the W-body; it was always legroom in the back seat. My 2000 Park Ave was rated 59.2" up front and 58.7" in back. I'm still a bit old fashioned though...in my opinion any full-sized car worth a damn needs at least 60" of shoulder room!

explorerx4

In the parking lot of a local assisted living facility. A light copper colored SL500 with black top and monoblock wheels.

uplanderguy

I don't have the dimensions, but friends of mine have had two of the current-gen Impalas. I rode in the previous one ('15 LTZ). It struck me as as big as a 5-series BMW or mid-or-large-size M-B. Just based on my perception. It absolutely felt like a luxury car.

tjc78

I had the LaCrosse version (2012). It was a solid feeling large car. Wife and I both loved it.

andre1969

Mr_Shiftright said:

As the story goes, the styling on the late 70s/early 80s Fords got so bad that even the staff got sick of what they were doing. This lead of course to the much more svoopy doopy T-Bird and Taurus, which I suspect brought Ford back from the brink of Malaise Apocalypse.

A lot of those Ford stylists jumped ship to Chrysler in the 70's, some of them even before Iacocca. I think the first Mopar to really show the influence of that was the '79 R-body. It had a crisp, clean, chiseled look to it, although it was more low-slung and swoopier than the Ford Panthers. That was probably a reflection on the fact that, whereas the Panther was a new-from-the-ground-up full-size, the R-body was just the old '71-78 intermediates, heavily modified, and passed off as a "full size".

I think the influence was even more noticeable in 1980, when the Aspen/Volare got a facelift that really squared them off, and made them look like a Fairmont. And the 1980 Cordoba/Mirada bear a strong resemblance to the '77-79 LTD-II coupe.

tjc78

@andre1969
I think your comments about the sedans are spot on. The 500/Montego was large inside and drove nicely. The problem was the engine was anemic compared to the competitors.

The current Taurus is simply tiny inside compared to its exterior dimensions. I’d say some compacts feel roomier. Huge center console and the tiniest driver footwell. My size 12s weren’t comfortable at all.

Mr_Shiftright

stickguy said:

I don't see a kink at the C pillar, so can't be a real BMW.

At least you don't have to register the crank handle with BMW before you install it.

This early BMW lives a few blocks from me. It's based on the British Austin 7, built under license by BMW, which, prior to 1927, only built motorcycles. They bought the "Dixi" company and with some improvements, like metric fasteners and better shocks, made this humble little car as their first. The factory was in Eisenbach, which was eventually overrun by the Russians. BMW never got it back either.

fintail

On the road this morning, saw an orange Maverick 2 door, big bumpers. Slightly dirty, but looked to be in excellent condition otherwise. Also saw a very clean first gen Taurus driven by a young woman, grandma's hand me down, perhaps.

kyfdx

Uber-rare: VW Phaeton on I-75 (and, not on a tow truck)

ab348

Speaking of Gene Bordinat and that era of Ford design, here is a link to a lengthy transcript of a long, rambling interview with him conducted by Dave Crippen shortly after Bordinat's retirement:

http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Design/Bordinat_interview.htm

It actually has very little to do with styling and design but a whole lot to do with the personalities and internal politics within Ford from the late '40s through the '70s. Unfiltered and sometimes gossipy and crude, it is nevertheless fascinating.

berri

What a hellhole. If Detroit wasn't an oligopoly back then, I wonder if Ford Motor Co. would have held on?

fintail

Saw a custom VW fastback, and a Nissan Figaro.

xwesx

omarman said:

If seller claims that 1979 Thunderbird was owned by Elvis then they will need documentation, a witness and a Ouija board. Otherwise we're back to "half that" price.

How would a '79 be owned by Elvis? I'm pretty sure he passed in '77.