Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Are you in the market for a new car and having a hard time finding affordable options? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by 2/26 for more details.

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

1103110321034103610371079

Comments

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,029
    andre, re.: B bodies for 1980--there are times I like an '80 Bonneville coupe, no vinyl top, no body side moldings, those aluminum wheels that sort-of looked like a snowflake, and you could still get the bucket seat-and-console interior. I'm too lazy to check, but I'd hope you could still get a 350 in one in '80.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    edited September 2020
    Good news and bad news on the 1980 Bonneville. You could get a 350 in the sedan/coupe, and it was even the desireable Olds 350. BUT, you had to get it in the California market. The rest of the United States was stuck with the Buick 231 or the Pontiac 265/301 V8s. On the Safari wagon, a Buick 350-4bbl was optional (replaced with the Olds 350-4 for Cali). The bucket seat/console thing was pretty cool, too. I think it was lifted out of the Grand Prix, to save on production costs.

    The Delta 88 and LeSabre still offered 350s in their coupes and sedans for 1980. And, according to the sales brochure at least, you could get bucket seats in a console in their coupes, as well. I guess it would make sense in the LeSabre especially, since they were still offering the turbo V6 in it.

    I actually think the 1980 Impala 2-door is a good looking car. Unfortunately, its interior is pretty basic.

    GM, at least, still made the B- (and C-body) 2-doors more low-slung coupes, although with the angular lines it might not have been that apparent. With the Ford Panthers, the 2-doors were considered sedans, and I'm convinced shared the same windshields and rear windows as their 4-door counterparts. The plus side of that, is that the 2-door Panthers were a bit roomier in the back seat than the GM B-body coupes, although they were all roomy enough for most people.

    Oh, as for the Toyota Cressida, I've heard it referred to as a 4-door Supra. Now that could just be because it used the same 6-cyl engine, but I wonder if the two might have shared some of their body architecture, as well? That's one reason the '68-79 Nova was a bit cramped inside, given its external dimensions, because it shared a lot of its structure with the Camaro. But, on the plus side, it tended to give the Nova the edge in handling, compared to other compacts of the era, and made it a top choice in the compact police car field.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 179,897
    The Cressida was a holdover from the early '80s, when Toyota and Nissan were sending over their JDM luxury models to compete with BMW, etc. The 810/Maxima was also RWD/Inline 6 at one time.

    I liked those cars, but like the BMW, they were awfully expensive, compared to the competition.

    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    My 1985 Consumer Guide auto issue has a Cressida in it, and I think it was the highest rated car they had. I think it scored something like 78 out of a possible 100 points maximum. However, it would have been impossible for a car to score 100, because of the variety of categories. They had 20 different categories, where they would rate from 1-5. But, some of the categories were direct opposites of each other. For instance, a big, roomy car isn't going to handle well, accelerate all that well, or get good fuel economy. But, the Cressida was a good combination of just about everything on their list. I think it was also priced close to $18,000!

    Back then, for a car to score a "5" for acceleration, I think it had to do 0-60 in 9.5 seconds or less. At least, I remember the Cressida coming in at 9.6 and getting a "4", while they had a few cars that did around 9.4, and I think they got rated a "5". They didn't actually have a table telling how they broke down the scoring, unfortunately.

    It's amazing how times have changed. Are there even any cars on the market anymore that take as long as 9.5 seconds to get from 0-60? I just googled the Chevy Spark and C&D got a 0-60 time of 10.7 seconds. So, there is that. But I guess, not much else.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    edited September 2020
    One thing I just though of, when I mentioned the Bonneville's engine choices a few posts back, just how far the mighty had fallen. I had a 1969 Bonneville 4-door hardtop, that I bought from my cousin. He said it had a 400 under the hood, however, I remember looking up the stats, and a 428 with 360 hp was actually standard. However, I think the 400 was a credit option. Even by '76, the Bonneville still had a 400-4bbl standard, with a 455-4 optional.

    But then, when downsizing hit, the Bonneville's standard engine became the Pontiac 301-2bbl. In California, I think you were forced to get the Olds 350. At least, it was still a step above the Chevies, which used the 250 inline 6, or the Catalina, Delta 88, and LeSabre, which came with a 231 V6 standard, but it was a far cry from the good old days. But then in 1980, to make the 231 standard in the Bonneville, even...what a slap in the face!!

    I guess about the only way Pontiac could have made the 1980 Bonneville roughly comparable to the 1969 in terms of power/prestige, would have been to hold over the 220 hp version of the 400, that was last used in the 1979 Trans Am. But, I'm sure the EPA and CAFE people would have had a fit!

    Or, I wonder how the 301 turbo would have done, in something like a Bonneville?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,623
    Back in the day, my dad had a friend with an 85-88 style Cressida. It had that button tufted interior style, but in leather. It always struck me as funny, given how modern the car looked from the outside.

    Went to pick up the fintail this morning, and noticed a new resident in the garage:



    Even more obscure, it's a convertible - not a cabriolet top, but a convertible conversion.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 14,535
    And best of all, it's a Cadillac! :laughing:

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,029
    I'm still a sucker for that style of Eldorado, although it'd have to be a '79 or '80 for the engines. I think someone in Styling said "Think of the '67!" when it was being drawn.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    edited September 2020

    I'm still a sucker for that style of Eldorado, although it'd have to be a '79 or '80 for the engines. I think someone in Styling said "Think of the '67!" when it was being drawn.

    I do remember reading that, initially, the stylists wanted to try to continue the style of the '78 Eldorado, but in downsized form. However, once they realized that if they wanted to keep the proportioning similar, the resulting car would be about 48" tall. Headroom would be almost non-existent, and the car would be essentially useless. So, they had to go in a totally different direction.

    It definitely does bear more of a resemblance to the '67 Eldorado, than it does the '78! It's a shame that they didn't find a way to make at least one version of that design, either the Eldorado or Toronado, have hidden headlights. What was that Pierre Cardin aftermarket conversion called...the Evolution or something like that? It was pretty cool...or would have been, if it hadn't been for that excessive overhang.

    It really is a shame that the engines on those cars went to crap so quickly. I did a search on 0-60 times, and found 9.7 seconds for a '79 Eldorado, which would have had the Olds 350. Although surprisingly, I found 12.9 seconds for a 1985 Eldorado Touring Coupe, with the aluminum 249/4.1 V8, which is better than I would have thought.

    I also found a 0-60 time of 10.5 seconds for the 1980 Seville, which I recognize from a test that C&D or MT did of flagship cars that year. The other two were a Mark VI and 5th Ave. The Mark VI did fairly well too, at 10.9 seconds. It had the 351, IIRC, instead of just the 302. The 5th Avenue, alas, just had a 318-2bbl, choked down to 120 hp that year. 0-60 was 14.1 seconds. You could get a 360-2bbl as an option, which only had 130 hp, but a lot more torque most likely. There was also a 318-4bbl, with 155 hp, but it was only CA/high-altitude. Some sources say you could get the hot (for the time) 360-4bbl, but I'm pretty sure that was police-car-only by that time.

    The first-gen, Nova-based Seville always seems to have a good reputation, and tends to be more highly regarded than the pimpier 1980-85. But interestingly, the only 0-60 times I see for it are 12.8 for a '76 and 13.6 for a '77. I would have thought the first-gen would have been a better performer than that? At least, I never would have suspected an '80, even with the 368, would have been quicker. It was a little lighter, but not much...still in excess of 4,000 lb.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 40,805
    there is a hoarder guy in my neighborhood (junk keeps accumulating alongside his house, and I have seen the garage door up and it is scary) that also has cars. On the driveway, under covers (I don't think any of them have ever moved) are a C3 vette (plastic rear bumper), a barge Caddy sedan d'ville (I thinks 80s vintage RWD) and an Allante. Recent addition is a 1970ish El Camino. That isn't covered and actually seems to be used. out in the road is a 80s vintage F250 that looks a little ratty. Don't think that moves either.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    Speaking of hoarding...
    I'm sure I posted this before, but the previous owner of the house I bought had this in the yard...


    When I showed an interest in it (along the lines of "Hey, that's pretty cool!"), she offered to throw it into the deal. Wisely, I passed. :p
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 40,805
    I would have made it a condition of the offer.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    I guess this is what it could theoretically look like, if you threw enough money at it?

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 40,805
    that is pretty. I was not thinking of throwing money at it. More like occasionally pulling out the tools and taking parts off of it. Maybe sit behind the wheel and make vroom vroom noises.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    I'll admit, I did briefly entertain the idea of keeping it. But, there are million $+ homes in this neighborhood, and one of them abuts my property. And, while the previous owner said she never had any trouble, it would be just my luck that someone would call Code Enforcement on me, for having it.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,029
    Funny. A Stude buddy of mine, 81 years old with a fleet of Studes, lives off the road in a Cape Cod style house surrounded by million-dollar OH houses. In fact, Lebron has a home pretty near his. His cars are out of sight though, from the road.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 15,389
    Parts on that Cougar are worth something.
    2020 Ford Explorer XLT, 2019 Lincoln MKZ Reserve 1
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,623
    Saw an early Geo Storm on the road today, those are getting thin on the ground. Also a late 60s looking Beetle and a W202 C43 AMG.
  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyPosts: 11,650
    First generation NSX. I hadn’t seen one in years.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2019 Volvo S60 T6 Inscription

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 40,805
    I saw one too. Just don’t remember where!

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    Wow, just to show how much the times have changed, check out this old review of a 1980 Caprice coupe, with the 229 V6. 0-60 in a all of 18.5 seconds. OUCH!

    https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1980-chevrolet-caprice-the-times-they-are-a-changin/

    I always wondered how bad a Mopar R-body would have been with the standard slant six. It was choked down to 90 hp that year. I think I've seen old 0-60 times of Dodge Diplomats and Miradas with the slant six at something like 16.7-17 seconds, and they're no lightweights, themselves. So maybe something like a 1980 Newport, St. Regis, or Gran Fury with the slant six wouldn't really be any worse than that Caprice with the 229?

    I think Ford really made the right decision with their Panthers, making them standard V8 from the get-go. Although once that tiny 255 V8 came out, I'd imagine it was pretty bad.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,029
    edited September 2020
    I wonder how the 229 compared with acceleration of the inline 250 six which you could get in the '77-79 Caprice?

    I knew a girl in my class whose parents traded in their '72 Caprice Sport Sedan for a new '77 Caprice Classic sedan in the brochure two-tone blue. It was a six. A year later, they traded on a two-tone green fully-loaded '78 Caprice Classic sedan, with a V8. ;)

    Reminds me of elderly Mr. Parry in our neighborhood who bought new two-door Impalas every few years and kept them beautifully clean and maintained. He bought a new '65 Impala Sport Coupe with six. A year later he bought a new '66 Impala Sport Coupe with V8. And trading annually was not his custom. :)

    That link you posted showed two consecutive pics that show the dramatic differences between the '79 and '80 Caprice coupes. The '80 doesn't do a single thing for me....especially losing that wraparound rear window, IMHO.

    I did like what they called the 'geometic' Custom Wheel Cover on the '80 and '81's. Looked like a wheel in the brochure, but I don't believe I ever saw one on a real car.

    When my Dad bought that green '80 Monte Carlo I posted here a week or so ago, he and I test-drove a new silver '80 Impala Coupe, V6, as he'd liked the '77 305 Impala coupe he bought new so well. We were underwhelmed. Still had the plasticky Impala dash, but the upper 1/3 or so was black plastic instead of color-keyed. The seat trim was plainer than the '77. My Dad noticed the turn signal indicators were little arrows on the '80, different apparently, LOL. I'm glad he bought the Monte Carlo.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,029
    On an 'original cars' site on Facebook, a fellow posted this pic of a car his grandfather bought new and which now has 34K miles, a Plum Mist (I think it was) '67 Impala Sport Sedan, in Meadville, PA, which is about 25 miles north of where I grew up. I remember the name of the dealer there, as he hung on a good while after '67.

    What makes this Impala special, besides the low-mileage and rare color, IMHO is that it has the optional skirts, rare on an Impala. I normally dislike skirts but the sill trim follows along on the skirt, which I like, and it's so true, I think you can tell how solid the quarters around the skirts are. It also has the optional running lights. I always assumed these were cornering lights, but one of his pics shows them both on with the headlights. My grandparents' '67 Impala had black trim in these front corners. The wheel opening trim in front is normally only seen on SS models that year, which makes me think when you ordered skirts, you got the front wheel opening moldings as well. I think every '67 I have seen with skirts, has these moldings.

    The car's a 327, with Powerglide (of course). Too bad it's not the optional Turbo-Hydramatic, which you could get on a 327 that year.







  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    I looked up the '79 Impala 4.1/250 on www.automobile-catalog.com, and they list it as only having 90 hp and 175 ft-lb of torque. But I swear, I've never seen the 250 rated that low. I was always under the impression it took to emissions controls a bit better than Ford's 200 and 250, and the Mopar 225.

    Anyway, they list the '77 at 115 hp, 195 ft-lb of torque, but the '78 is also listed at 90 hp and 175 ft-lb, which I have trouble believing. Unfortunately, the sales brochures don't list hp or torque, by that time, so I can't cross reference them.

    Somehow, I have a feeling the 4.1 was a little quicker from 0-60, because of the slightly greater torque. Even though the '80 was a little lighter. The '80 229 also used the lighter weight THM200 transmission, whereas the '79 used the THM350, so I don't know how much the extra beef of the 350 might have sapped a bit of power? The THM200 also used a quicker first gear, 2.74:1, whereas the THM350 was 2.52:1. And, googling around, it looks like the 250-6cyl hit that 195 ft-lb of torque at 1600 rpm, while the 229 hit its 175 peak a bit higher, at 2000. So that might have given the 250 a bit of an edge.
  • I bought a damaged 67 Chevy II SS in the plum color in late 80"s .I looked the color code up in 1966 info by mistake , did not find a match and assumed it was a custom non stock repaint as I had never seen that color on any Chevy. Really did not matter as I wanted to paint it red anyway.

    An old friend was body shop instructor at vocational school, so it got stripped for free and he took it home to paint in his shop.
  • sdasda Indian Land, SCPosts: 3,942
    andre1969 said:

    Wow, just to show how much the times have changed, check out this old review of a 1980 Caprice coupe, with the 229 V6. 0-60 in a all of 18.5 seconds. OUCH!

    https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1980-chevrolet-caprice-the-times-they-are-a-changin/

    I always wondered how bad a Mopar R-body would have been with the standard slant six. It was choked down to 90 hp that year. I think I've seen old 0-60 times of Dodge Diplomats and Miradas with the slant six at something like 16.7-17 seconds, and they're no lightweights, themselves. So maybe something like a 1980 Newport, St. Regis, or Gran Fury with the slant six wouldn't really be any worse than that Caprice with the 229?

    I think Ford really made the right decision with their Panthers, making them standard V8 from the get-go. Although once that tiny 255 V8 came out, I'd imagine it was pretty bad.

    Wow, that is dangerously approaching Chevette, Rabbit diesel slow! That poor engine probably didn't last long or create good will to the new Chevy owner with such an excuse for performance.

    2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    Oops...looks like I overlooked one little detail, when I mentioned that 90 hp 250 inline-6. Turns out, that was what the California version was choked down to, at least according to automobile-catalogue.com. They list the federal version at 115 hp, 190 ft-lb, at least in '79.

    Interestingly, they also show a difference in the 305. The federal version was 130 hp, but the CA version was choked slightly, to 125. And they list the 350 at 170 hp federal, and 165 for California.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,029
    I remember the 305 in our '77 Impala was 145 hp. The 350 was 170 in '77 also. I lobbied hard for a Firethorn 350 coupe which was $200 more than our bright red 305. Dad wouldn't bite.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,029
    I see in the comments section of that article link, someone posted a CR review of an '80 Impala with the V6 that did 0-60 in 15.9, three seconds quicker than the other mag. That's a pretty large difference....although 15.9 is still abysmal.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367

    I see in the comments section of that article link, someone posted a CR review of an '80 Impala with the V6 that did 0-60 in 15.9, three seconds quicker than the other mag. That's a pretty large difference....although 15.9 is still abysmal.

    Interesting...I just saw that comment, and noticed they compared it to the '79 they tested. I remember the '79 test, because it had a Dodge St. Regis in it. Also an LTD. The 305-2bbl used in the big cars was stifled to 130 hp that year, which is probably why GM started experimenting with the 4-bbl on the 305. However, that first year you could only get the 305-4 on the midsized cars. Kind of a shame, because it had 160 hp, not too far off from the 170 on the 350. The 318 was down to 135 hp, and Ford's 302 only had 129!

    As for 0-60 times, the Chevy was 15.4, while the St. Regis was a pathetic 15.9. The Ford, despite having the least hp, managed 13.9 IIRC.

    It's interesting how erratic some of those 0-60 times can be. 15.9 seconds, while nothing to brag about, sounds about what I'd expect, from a 229 in a full-sized car. And, in all fairness, even back in the old days, your typical full-sized car with a 6-cyl would usually do 0-60 in around 15-17 seconds, at least until they started porking up, and getting emissions-strangled, in the 70's. But 18.5 sounds bad. I wonder what would account for that wide variance? Plus, usually a buff rag like C&D or MT would usually get a better 0-60 time out of a car than CR or Consumer Guide, but here it was just the opposite! I mean, I understand it's not a given that two identical cars will perform exactly the same, as there can be a variance in weather, elevation, test weight, etc. But that seems like a pretty wide margin!

    Here's an article on the 1979 LTD: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1979-ford-ltd-corpulence-condensed/

    It mentions a couple old reviews. Both had 351-2bbls. Consumer Guide got 0-60 in 13.9 seconds, while Car and Driver was good for 11.2. However, the CG car was listed at 132 hp, 268 ft-lb of torque, and an 8.3:1 compression ratio. The C&D one was 145 hp, 273 ft-lb, and an 8.0:1 compression. Both used a tall 2.26:1 axle.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 179,897
    The 302 in my '77 Cobra II, with a tiny 2-bbl registered at 135 HP

    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 14,491
    My Econoline van has a choke cable, but I installed an automatic choke on the carburetor, so it isn't hooked up to anything. I'm thinking I will convert it over to an EFI system at some point... if I can find the motivation!
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,623
    Saw a white Pagoda SL this afternoon, unknown model but by the white on red color combo and white steering wheel, I am leaning towards an earlier model. Also recently saw a maybe 96-99 Bonneville SSEi - the facelift of the first car. It had wheels that were kind of a mesh, but also "directional", didn't seem familiar but didn't look aftermarket.

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 13,029
    Back for a second to the '80 Caprice Classic--I remember one of the magazines--I'll guess it was C&D or MT--saying about the '80, "It's lost the crisp, chiseled look it was born with". I agreed then, and now.

    Funny how all the '80 B&C bodies were lighter than in '79, but they looked heavier.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367

    Funny how all the '80 B&C bodies were lighter than in '79, but they looked heavier.

    According to my old car encyclopedia, all of the 1980 B-body coupes as having a base weight of under 3400 lb, except for the Catalina and Bonneville. The Impala coupe was actually the lightest, at 3344 lb, with the V6. With the other models, they don't break out V6/V8 stats, so they publish the average of the two weights (but the price for the V6).

    I'd imagine a Delta 88 or LeSabre with the 231 would have been lighter than the Impala with the 229, because the Buick block was lighter. I can't figure why the Pontiacs are coming in so chunky though, unless the publishers simply goofed up and listed the V8 weights and not the average? They also mention the Bonneville as having a 301 standard, while the sales brochure says 231 was standard, although the 265 was standard on the Brougham.

    They list the Catalina coupe at 3534 lb, the Bonneville coupe at 3616, and the Bonneville Brougham coupe at 3659.

    For comparison, the Ford LTD started at 3447 for a 2-door. My book doesn't list the weight of the "S" version, so this is actually the next step up. Considering the LTD had a standard V8, I'm impressed at how lightweight that is. To me, the Panthers back then had sort of a heavy look to them...possibly because of the more squared-off styling.

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyPosts: 11,650
    The base early Panthers could be had with really low option loads, combine that with the 255 V8 and they would be fairy lightweight.

    I’d suspect most were ordered with the 302, AC and the nicer interior pushing them at least 500 pounds heavier.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2019 Volvo S60 T6 Inscription

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 14,535
    I know back in the early '70s the GM A-bodies from different divisions actually had slight differences under the skin as well. While a roof panel stamping might be identical, for example, they used different structural designs underneath. I don't know if that lasted until 1980 with the B-body cars but that could explain some weight differences if a Buick, for example, had a more robust build than the Chevy.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    edited October 2020
    I heard that, with the 1980 re-skin, Buick and Olds used more weight-saving techniques than Pontiac and Chevy. For 1980, specifically, the differences weren't huge, according to my old car book. But I do recall my 1985 Consumer Guide testing a LeSabre coupe with a 307, a Caprice sedan with a 262, a Delta 88 sedan with a 307, and a Parisienne sedan with a 305.

    Off the top of my head, the LeSabre was around 3530 lb, and the Delta 88 was 3576. The Parisienne was around 3675, but I'm drawing a blank on the Caprice. I want to say it was still in the 3500-3600 range. They also tested a Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, and I want to say those were each around 3800 lb. They were all well-equipped cars.

    They also tested a Fleetwood Brougham sedan, which had the aluminum 249. I remember it being something like 4000-4200 lb.

    I dunno if it's true anymore (or if it has been in recent memory), but I've heard that a/c adds about 150-175 lb to the weight of a car. I used to think that power windows added a lot, until the first time I held a power window motor in my hand, from my 1979 5th Ave. Each motor is only a couple of pounds, although I guess all the wiring and switches might add up? I wonder how much a power seat adds?

    I don't know where, exactly, Olds and Buick cut weight compared to Chevy/Pontiac...although by 1983 a Parisienne was virtually identical to a Caprice/Impala. I've seen engine weight charts that put a 231 V6 at 375 lb, while a Chevy 200/229/262 V6 is around 425, so that could account for some variance. I usually see the generic Chevy smallblock quoted at 575 lb, with the excuse being that while it had low reciprocating mass, it was a weak block, and was beefed up sort of hodge-podge, after the fact, rather than being properly redesigned. Of course, that excuse usually came from the Ford, or Mopar crowd.

    I don't know what the "quoted" weight of an Olds 307 is. I've heard that the block is beefier than a Chevy block, but has a lot of nickel mixed in with its iron construction, which makes it stronger, yet lighter. Oh, one other thing...by 1985, I think the B-body with a 305 was using whatever they called the 4-speed version of the THM350 transmission...700-R4 or something like that? The 307 in an Olds or Buick used the THM200-R4. So I don't know how much of a weight savings there was in transmissions.

    I remember my grandmother's '85 LeSabre had gas struts to hold up the hood, which probably saved a few pounds. I think Chevy/Pontiac and the Delta 88 used the heavier spring-type hinges. So, they definitely gave the various divisions some autonomy in details that you might think would be standardized.

    I seem to recall those struts started getting a bit weak around 1994, too, and we started keeping a broom handle in the trunk. :(

    I really need to dig out that 1985 Consumer Guide of mine, rather than just going on memory. Hopefully I'm not having too many Ronald Reagan moments with this stuff I'm regurgitating :p
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 14,491
    edited October 2020
    There was a time when I used the old stick/broom handle trick as well. Eventually I realized that the $50 and five minutes of my time to replace failed struts was so worth the investment that I was embarrassed to employ such shortcuts any longer. :D
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    Eh, that's too blue for my blood! :p When I bought my second '79 New Yorker, the midnight blue "Nightwatch" one, it came with a broom handle as well, as the struts for the trunk were shot. Chrysler used a "normal" type of hinge/support for the hood, but went with struts for the trunk. I'll confess, I actually went so far as to buy some new struts for it, but never found the ambition to put them on.

    And now, years later, I'm probably just going to strip a few good parts off of that car, and try to sell the rest for parts. So, I'll probably just save those struts, for if my 5th Ave ever has a strut failure.

    Oh, oddly, Chrysler made a change in 1981 for the R-body, switching to a more normal torsion-bar type of support for the trunk. I wonder if they did that because the struts in those days had a high failure rate? Anyway, the R-body was discontinued half-way through the 1981 model year, so it almost seems like a waste of money to make the change.

    FWIW, the struts on my '79 5th Ave's trunk are still holding strong. In fact, a couple years ago at one of the Mopar shows, someone commented on the fact they still worked fine. I guess it's a bigger deal than I figured.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,623
    Interesting. I get to correct Murilee Martin - a W110 230 is actually an I6, in basic tune. Looks like a manual car too, which would give it cred with some enthusiasts, but that one looks pretty far gone. Same basic clock as in all fintails, these seldom work on cars I have seen - mine has never worked, but if it as easy as minor adjustments, maybe I could give it a shot. I didn't expect it to have a metal movement.

    Here's a shot showing the dash in my car, with the same clock:



    tjc78 said:
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    I had to laugh at this comment... "With a Detroit car of this era, chances that the clock will work— or even be easily repairable— approach nil."

    Dunno about the 1960's, specifically, but my '76 Grand LeMans has a clock, And yup, you guessed it...it doesn't work! The '85 Silverado I used to have, had a clock as well. Granddad bought that truck new, and Grandmom ended up giving it to my Mom and stepdad around 1995. They sold it to me in 2002...a point of contention with Grandmom, but to be fair, they did put some money into it. I'm not sure when, exactly, the clock stopped working. I do remember a ticking sound, and I think the second hand would go around, but not the minute or hour hand.

    The three '79 R-bodies I've owned all have/had digital clocks, and they work/worked fine. One thing I find a bit odd about the digital clock in my '03 Regal...it actually runs fast. I don't think I've ever seen that. Usually they slowly lose time. And, usually, the last thing a Buick owner wants to do, is speed up time! :p
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 14,491
    edited October 2020
    My grandmother had a 1973 Eldorado. At the time she owned it (my memories are mid-80s), the clock worked fine. My mother had the car for several years after that... though I don't recall clock function at that point. I do recall that my mother let that thing go to heck; kinda sad, to be honest, because my grandmother really takes good care of her cars.

    The same can be said for the 2000 panther that my grandparents bought new. They owned it for about 14 years before gifting it to my mother, and it was practically in new condition at that point. Now? Well, it is looking rather tired....
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,623
    I remember when I was a kid, a young relative had a first gen Ford Granada - by then just an older car for someone to use up and find another. It had an unusual clock, like this:

    image

    It worked - even then I was kind of amazed. I remember seeing blank spots for 60s car clocks, just a blank clockface design.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 14,535
    I bought a used original clock years ago for my Cutlass, mostly to fill the blanked-off hole in the dash and provide some light there at night. It didn’t work so I took it apart. The Borg mechanism GM used is pretty simple with an electromagnet, a set of contact points, a clock spring and a mechanical clock mechanism. I am not a clock whiz but could see why it failed and fixed it. Doesn’t keep great time but it keeps on ticking.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,367
    Wasn't the Granada/Monarch one of the first cars to have a digital clock as an option? My one friend, who's a Panther lover and has gone through four of them, had a '77 Cordoba as his first car, and it had the "window shade" type clock, sort of like those alarm clocks where the numbers would flip over. The '79 Newport I had was the oldest car I ever had with a digital clock, but I'd imagine it wasn't the first. One thing that was cool about it though, was that it had shiny blackout trim rather than woodgrain, so the numbers sort of blended in and seemed to float in the dash.

    Other than that Newport and the two '79 New Yorkers, ever other digital-clock car I've owned has had the clock built into the radio.
  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyPosts: 11,650
    fintail said:

    I remember when I was a kid, a young relative had a first gen Ford Granada - by then just an older car for someone to use up and find another. It had an unusual clock, like this:

    image

    It worked - even then I was kind of amazed. I remember seeing blank spots for 60s car clocks, just a blank clockface design.

    My 79 Continental had a similar clock except it was a Cartier, lol

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2019 Volvo S60 T6 Inscription

  • sdasda Indian Land, SCPosts: 3,942
    ab348 said:

    I bought a used original clock years ago for my Cutlass, mostly to fill the blanked-off hole in the dash and provide some light there at night. It didn’t work so I took it apart. The Borg mechanism GM used is pretty simple with an electromagnet, a set of contact points, a clock spring and a mechanical clock mechanism. I am not a clock whiz but could see why it failed and fixed it. Doesn’t keep great time but it keeps on ticking.

    I always disliked the blank spot in my grandmother’s 68 Cutlass S where the clock would’ve been. The clock really completes and dresses up the look of the three instrument pods.

    2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav

  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,623
    I remember when I was a little kid, an old guy I think my parents knew had a new car, and we rode in it. It was an early K car, and it had a "Chronometer" LED style digital clock that I am pretty sure was its own component, not part of the radio/
    andre1969 said:

    Wasn't the Granada/Monarch one of the first cars to have a digital clock as an option? My one friend, who's a Panther lover and has gone through four of them, had a '77 Cordoba as his first car, and it had the "window shade" type clock, sort of like those alarm clocks where the numbers would flip over. The '79 Newport I had was the oldest car I ever had with a digital clock, but I'd imagine it wasn't the first. One thing that was cool about it though, was that it had shiny blackout trim rather than woodgrain, so the numbers sort of blended in and seemed to float in the dash.

    Other than that Newport and the two '79 New Yorkers, ever other digital-clock car I've owned has had the clock built into the radio.

Sign In or Register to comment.