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

roadburner

Now that I have a job that's considered to be law enforcement Ford and Chevrolet no longer produce pursuit versions of the Camaro or Mustang. They are all SUVs or trucks- which don't interest me even a little bit. In fact, the only police "car" available is the Charger, but I simply can't abide a column shift and a bench seat. And it's not all that quick anyway.

andre1969

When was the last time a police version of the Camaro or Mustang was offered? I tried looking up the Michigan State Police tests, which are often considered to be the "Bible" of police car tests. But, it doesn't look like they tested a Camaro or Mustang in years. Here's their website, which has pdf files of their tests going back to 2010: https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/58643585.jpg

I have a book that covers Mopar police cars from 1979-94, and shows the MSP tests, up through 1993, and back then a Camaro or Mustang often made it into the mix. For instance, for '93, they tested a Mustang "SSP 5.0L" and a Chevy Camaro "B4C 5.7L".

roadburner

Louisville Metro has(had?) a current Mustang in their unmarked fleet, but I don't believe it's a special police edition.

explorerx4

I would think the end of the Fox body was the end of the SSP Mustangs.

roadburner

andre1969 said:

When was the last time a police version of the Camaro or Mustang was offered? I tried looking up the Michigan State Police tests, which are often considered to be the "Bible" of police car tests. But, it doesn't look like they tested a Camaro or Mustang in years. Here's their website, which has pdf files of their tests going back to 2010: https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/58643585.jpg

I have a book that covers Mopar police cars from 1979-94, and shows the MSP tests, up through 1993, and back then a Camaro or Mustang often made it into the mix. For instance, for '93, they tested a Mustang "SSP 5.0L" and a Chevy Camaro "B4C 5.7L".

One of my assistants was Commonwealth's Attorney for Jefferson County KY; the county provided him with a car. They were going to give him a Crown Vic but he asked for a Camaro B4C instead. The county didn't complain because it was casually less expensive, IIRC.
The best I'll be able to do is buy a BMW motorcycle at a discount.

explorerx4

They didn't miss a place to put chrome on the '58.
Music is annoying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m7ekFKRAZg

uplanderguy

I'm a domestic guy, grew up GM, but that car is dreadful to me. Harley Earl at the end.

andre1969

I have to admit, that for everything that's wrong with the '58 Buick, I still find it oddly appealing. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's too much. But somehow, it all manages to flow better than you might expect.

The GM car that bugs me the most for '58 is actually Oldsmobile. It's overly chromey, like the Buick, but also seems an odd mix-and-match of shapes. For instance, up front, the bumper/grille look like they're designed for a more rounded-off car, but the upper part, around the headlights and hood, is oddly squared off. And that chrome feature that surrounds the headlights, and then peels back to the front doors, does nothing for the looks of the car.

And out back, while it used to be a common pastime for people to draw musical notes over those four streaks, on picutres of '58 Oldsmobiles, the feature that bugs me the most is the taillight treatment. It almost looks like they lopped off the rear of the car, slathered it in chrome, and then stuck it back on. And the high-mounted round lights make it look top heavy.

One thing I notice that's a bit curious about the '58 Olds...it seems like most of the ones I see, both in pictures and real life, tend to be in tasteful, muted colors. It's almost like the designers knew the car was too much, so they tried to counteract that somewhat, by offering nice colors. And, they kept the two-toning to a minimum. I think it was just a roof contrast. I'm surprised they didn't try to color in that streak that comes back off the headlights. Or color in the clef-lines in the rear!

I do like that shade of blue on the '58 Buick, though. And the red on the wheels is a pretty nice contrast, I think.

fintail

I notice those old time Mustang SSPs are manuals - I wonder if that could even exist in a pursuit car today, as there are probably even cops who can't drive a stick.

Only in 1958 could an Edsel be far from the most overdone car.

fintail

A couple more old TPiRs. First, October 1960:



A 220SE ponton cabrio, final run, as the W111s would take over soon. This was the top of the line ponton, and is a six figure car today. No MSRP, as it was in a showcase type game. I wonder what color it was - described as having a red interior. Pretty nice car.

And another for @uplanderguy - January 1963:





They promoted the heck out of this one, with a very long description. Cullen called it "a dream". MSRP $4855.

These were half hour shows, with fewer prizes and games, but the prizes were almost always nicer than anything on the current version of the show.

xwesx

roadburner said:

I was looking at a LX 5.0 droptop back in 1992 when I thought I might have opposition in the 1993 election- a domestic vehicle and a parade car wouldn't hurt.. A friend of my father had a demo 1992 with an automatic. It was a dog. I couldn't find a 5.0 convertible with a manual so I gave up and ended up with an E24 M6.

Well, that's a pretty good substitute; I doubt anyone would even notice the difference.

uplanderguy

Neat that they showed the Avanti with the glovebox beauty vanity open. I hate the mirrors out on the fenders. I've seen factory photos of them there and on the doors. Most of the factory photos, even then, show cars without outside mirrors.

That Avanti is a supercharged one from the little emblem on the front fender.

xwesx

uplanderguy said:

Neat that they showed the Avanti with the glovebox beauty vanity open. I hate the mirrors out on the fenders. I've seen factory photos of them there and on the doors. Most of the factory photos, even then, show cars without outside mirrors.

That Avanti is a supercharged one from the little emblem on the front fender.

The front end styling on the Avanti was horrendous, even for the era, but that interior is so much more inviting and practical than what you see in nearly every other car of the day.

uplanderguy

You say horrendous; I say 'clean'. On drawings of the car before one was ever built, Loewy's notes include "NO GRILLE!".

I think when we've seen thousands of Big Three cars, whatever they turned out ended up looking 'normal'. Only 4,643 Avantis built by Studebaker in about 18 months.

Most Studebaker products are way-different, but that's endearing to me. Add to that they were built in my lifetime and that I even have foggy memories of riding by the dealer in my town, I've come to love them--mostly '62's and later.

It's a bit tighter now, but when I bought my first one in 1988, I was amazed to learn of the N.O.S. and reproduction parts situation, and at low prices. I had a doubter or two on Edmunds about that in fact, until I put a link to the largest parts vendor's catalog. At that point, they were still located in South Bend. Absolutely the question I get most from people is "Where do you get parts?". For the later cars, my favorites, the parts situation is excellent.

xwesx

uplanderguy said:

You say horrendous; I say 'clean'. On drawings of the car before one was ever built, Loewy's notes include "NO GRILLE!".

There's a lot to like, for sure.

I don't have any concern about the lack of grille; it's the awkward combination of that smooth, long surface with round lights, and then sandwiched between the sharp fender protrusions... it just isn't kind to the eyes. They have a pleasant, flowing look at nearly every angle that hides the front end; I find the juxtaposition of design cues in that area unattractive.

ab348

xwesx said:

The front end styling on the Avanti was horrendous, even for the era, but that interior is so much more inviting and practical than what you see in nearly every other car of the day.

The front end was different for the times, but I always liked it, especially the early ones with round headlight bezels. You could argue that Ford copied it on the 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and the first aero Crown Vics in 1992.

uplanderguy

Sometimes the round headlights seem 'bug eyed', but I'm not sure I like the square-enclosed headlights for '64 (and all Avanti II's) better. I tend to vascillate back-and-forth. Sometimes I like the non-woodgrain interior of the '63 best, but latter '64's had thicker front-seat backs, which to me looks better.

andre1969

For me, I think the biggest problem with the Avanti is that they just couldn't figure out how to work the headlights into that design. The original style, with the round headlights, just seem at odds with the rest of the car. I think if they're going to go with something that clean and sleek, they should have just gone all the way and given it hidden headlights. With the way the fender blades jut out so far, and the area between them is recessed, it just puts the headlights too close together, in my opinion.

When they were doing the reproductions in later years, I think the style with the round headlights in the square bezels was an improvement. But again, there's just nothing they could do about the headlight spacing. They were going to be close together, no matter what.

I think the Buick Riviera had a similar problem. I think the '63-64 is a gorgeous car overall. I just don't like the headlights. They're too close together, and they seem kind of tacked on. But in '65, with the hidden headlights, perfection!

uplanderguy

Yeah, the four headlights of the Riv are too close together for my eyes, and I'm not a fan of the wide chrome things on the corners. Given all that, a '65 is still my favorite Riv.

sda

The 65 Riviera was super sharp. I like the 66/67 as well. Classy, clean, strong presence.

fintail

You know I am a weirdo, I like the round lights. The front fender spears/blades are a little iffy, but the round lights seem very European to me.

Options described on the car were floor mounted automatic, pushbutton transistor radio, 2 exterior mirrors, whitewall tires, front and rear seatbelts. Along with the vanity, they also made it a point to mention the safety padding, "aircraft throttle type controls", and the door latches. Engine was described as a "Jet Thrust V8".

They also showed off the rear seat trunk pass-through:

uplanderguy said:

You say horrendous; I say 'clean'. On drawings of the car before one was ever built, Loewy's notes include "NO GRILLE!".

I think when we've seen thousands of Big Three cars, whatever they turned out ended up looking 'normal'. Only 4,643 Avantis built by Studebaker in about 18 months.

Most Studebaker products are way-different, but that's endearing to me. Add to that they were built in my lifetime and that I even have foggy memories of riding by the dealer in my town, I've come to love them--mostly '62's and later.

It's a bit tighter now, but when I bought my first one in 1988, I was amazed to learn of the N.O.S. and reproduction parts situation, and at low prices. I had a doubter or two on Edmunds about that in fact, until I put a link to the largest parts vendor's catalog. At that point, they were still located in South Bend. Absolutely the question I get most from people is "Where do you get parts?". For the later cars, my favorites, the parts situation is excellent.

andre1969

One thing that must have looked really modern on that Avanti, was how close to flush the window glass was to the sheetmetal of the door. There was very little "shoulder" or whatever you want to call it, compared to most cars of the time.

uplanderguy

I always liked the thin-blade look of the bumpers. I had an Aurora model kit of an Avanti long before I'd ever seen a real one. My dealer friend said they never sold one, but had one in from their zone office for three days to let people test-drive. A turquoise R1. My friend said people who drove it just wanted to 'hot dog' it and he had no serious inquiries on it in our small town.

I also always liked the nose-down attitude of the Studebaker Avanti, which went away with the Avanti II as the Chevy engine was taller than the Stude engine. Avanti II also had reduced-radius front wheel openings, which I don't care for at all.

This is a two-minute video by the Peabody-Essex Museum, about a '64 Avanti loaned them. I saw this car at a national meet once and it was as nice a stock Avanti as I'd ever seen in person. The owner (in the video) was from New Hampshire. Some of the interior changes were phased in but this was the first car with the square headlight enclosures. You may say "how could he remember the serial number?" but it's R-4892.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjgYCNCEGBQ

He died in 2019. He had participated in the retrieval of a hijacked TWA airplane in 1985--story included in his obit here:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/obituaries/2019/07/28/pilot-richard-vaux-who-retrieved-hijacked-twa-jet-from-beirut-dies/aqEIHDUNMhVmtt7lod8eWM/story.html

andre1969

Okay, dumb trivia time. You know those seatbelt interlocks they had back in 1973, where the car would not start unless you had your seatbelt fastened? And, if you put a bag of groceries or other item heavy enough in the passenger seat, you had to buckle it in, as well, or the car wouldn't start? Well, was that a GM-only thing, or was it federally mandated for all cars that year?

The reason I'm wondering, is because I'll watch "Barnaby Jones" every once in awhile. It's one of those shows I don't remember us watching when I was a kid, and I never saw it in reruns until about a year ago, when MeTV started showing it. Now Barnaby would get a new full-sized Ford every season. It was always brown, and always a 2-door. Well in the first season he had a '73. In the second season, I can't tell if it's a '73 or '74, but it looks like the same car. Anyway, he's NEVER wearing his seatbelt. You'll see him hop in the car and take off, and every time he gets out of the car, you can see the seatbelt was never fastened.

It's actually a pretty cool show. Sort of a Jed Clampett meets Jim Rockford. One other detail that bugs me though...whenever they show a car coming to a stop, even one that's not that extreme, it seems like it nosedives more than it should, and then rocks a couple of times. Now, I don't have much experience with Ford products from the 70's, but did Fords tend to be that bouncy? It seems like the GM and Mopar products from that era that I see on tv aren't nearly as bad. I mean, they're more bouncy than your typical modern car, but in comparison, watching the Fords rock after coming to a stop is almost enough to induce seat-sickness!

stickguy

it was federal. Though I don't recall it being an interlock that prevented it from starting. Maybe a buzzer you could not turn off? But it was a long time ago, and my memory ain't what it used to be.

I do remember though at the time, my Grandmother at her (evil) VW 412 wagon. And the little old lady did not like belts, so she kept the belts buckled behind the front seats. Though the way she drove, really should have had it on!

xwesx

andre1969 said:

For me, I think the biggest problem with the Avanti is that they just couldn't figure out how to work the headlights into that design. The original style, with the round headlights, just seem at odds with the rest of the car. I think if they're going to go with something that clean and sleek, they should have just gone all the way and given it hidden headlights. With the way the fender blades jut out so far, and the area between them is recessed, it just puts the headlights too close together, in my opinion.

When they were doing the reproductions in later years, I think the style with the round headlights in the square bezels was an improvement. But again, there's just nothing they could do about the headlight spacing. They were going to be close together, no matter what.

I think the Buick Riviera had a similar problem. I think the '63-64 is a gorgeous car overall. I just don't like the headlights. They're too close together, and they seem kind of tacked on. But in '65, with the hidden headlights, perfection!

I agree on the Avanti assessment. It's just a matter of transitions, for me. The various design elements clash with one another, and there is nothing to transition/blend the styling.

uplanderguy

The ignition interlock in the U.S. was only on 1974-model cars. The car would not start with weight in the seat and the combined seat/shoulder belts not used. The car would start if you sat "off" the seat and started it, but then you'd have non-stop seat-belt buzzer happening. Lots of folks unhooked it all, but as my Dad said, "We paid for it, may as well use it". I'm pretty sure I remember that late in the model year it was discontinued, as so many people complained. On Chevys, I seem to remember the base prices going down $13 at that point.

ab348

The interlock never was mandated in Canada, but our '74 Maverick would have had the constant seat belt buzzer feature. I say would have had because even though we bought it nearly new as a dealer demo, they had already taken a pair of wire cutters to the circuitry under the seat when we got it. I suppose that was easier than trying to find the connector and disconnecting it.

uplanderguy

I agree on the Avanti assessment. It's just a matter of transitions, for me. The various design elements clash with one another, and there is nothing to transition/blend the styling.

In an era of short-hood, long-deck, the Avanti was the reverse, and curved side glass still wasn't much of a big thing when the car was introduced in the summer of '62. As is visible in the pic of the turquoise one above, 'tumblehome' (tucked-under along the bottom) was still pretty unheard-of in the time but was all over the place in the seventies.

The quarter window was copied by Gremlin (a dubious honor, LOL) but also by Cougar in '83. To this day, too, when I see a '77-79 full-size Chevy coupe in profile, the way I view the wraparound rear window reminds me of the view of the Avanti rear glass in profile.

In 1993 I went to South Bend for a thirtieth-anniversary Avanti get-together, and Tom Kellogg, one of the three designers of the car under Loewy, stopped and asked me for directions, which I enjoyed. I know this term is way-overused, but later when I spoke with him there, he said "I consider the car 'organic'". He later designed motor homes, boats, household things, furniture, etc. California guy.

Well, I used to get reprimanded for mentioning Studebaker too much in this forum, so I'll wrap it up for now!

Unlike most people, I don't care for the '63 Corvette Sting Ray's styling. Fake scoops all over the place, frame around the door windows, retractable headlights that leave a seam and more importantly, look like hell up, hard black plastic crinkle on the instrument panel, and to me, the split-window idea was insane. Paint it silver, and it looks to me like something from a late-fifties cornball sci-fi flick. I'm fully aware that the market disagrees. I'd take a '64 Corvette over it all day long.

As they say, opinions are like....well, you know, but I enjoy reading everybody's here.

I know by C2 fans this is considered retrograde, but here is my dream Corvette, in the color I'd want too. It says Kennedy-era/'Route 66' to me, and some of the sins of the '58-61 were cleaned up. I'd be very, very happy even with the smallest 327 and Powerglide in one (this one is a fuelie which is of course desirable):



Funny, one of my better Stude buddies says "The '62 is the worst 'Vette. Make up your mind; is it a roadster in front or a Sting Ray in back?!", LOL.

stickguy

ab348 said:

The interlock never was mandated in Canada, but our '74 Maverick would have had the constant seat belt buzzer feature. I say would have had because even though we bought it nearly new as a dealer demo, they had already taken a pair of wire cutters to the circuitry under the seat when we got it. I suppose that was easier than trying to find the connector and disconnecting it.

even easier, was just putting on the seatbelt.

uplanderguy

even easier, was just putting on the seatbelt.

The interlock feature got my parents to wear seatbelts for the first time I could remember, and they did forever after that, even when subsequent cars didn't have the feature.

uplanderguy

One last Avanti comment, about the Youngstown era ('86-90). Guy who was my best man worked there then. They utilized the Monte Carlo chassis and engine while it was still available. He said around the plant, people called them "AvantiCarlos" or "MontAvantis", which to me was hilarious.

roadburner

uplanderguy said:

The ignition interlock in the U.S. was only on 1974-model cars. The car would not start with weight in the seat and the combined seat/shoulder belts not used. The car would start if you sat "off" the seat and started it, but then you'd have non-stop seat-belt buzzer happening. Lots of folks unhooked it all, but as my Dad said, "We paid for it, may as well use it". I'm pretty sure I remember that late in the model year it was discontinued, as so many people complained. On Chevys, I seem to remember the base prices going down $13 at that point.

I got my 1974 Monte Carlo back from its first service with the interlock wires cut.

uplanderguy

My friend's parents bought a new '74 Monte Carlo Landau about the time my parents bought a '74 Impala Sport Coupe. I remember the Monte's sticker was $4,440 and ours was $4,408 (I remember stupid stuff like that like a steel trap). I thought the Monte was soooo much nicer. But I seem to remember thinking the front seat back was reclined unnaturally. Bench seat. Do you remember anything like that?

ab348

I remember seeing many Colonnade-era Pontiac LeMans with bench seats that appeared to be overly reclined. But my ‘77 didn’t seem out of the ordinary.

fintail

3 ~1990 throwbacks on the road today: Reatta, Chrysler TC by Maserati, Mighty Max.

And another old TPiR, 1959. Very loaded Thunderbird - power everything including seat, AC, leather. MSRP $4999.10 - this sticks in my head because everyone overbid on it, the nearest bid being 90 cents over, which amused the host. These cars must have had serious cachet, the contestants bid it high. Funny to think the Avanti, 4 years later, was cheaper - seems like a better value for something more exotic, to me, but I know the Thunderbird name was coveted:



And an oddity from the showcase, a mobile home. Not a 5th wheel or a camper or a motorhome, an actual mobile home, the kind people live in. Never seen one of those on a TPiR before:

uplanderguy

When I was a kid I liked the Square Birds, but when I look at them now, the rear wheel looks pretty forward on the car, with a fair amount of rear overhang. I don't remember off the top of my head the wheelbase, but it must have not been that long.

andre1969

Those T-birds were on a 113" wheelbase, in both '58-60 and '61-63. Even the '64-66 were only fractionally longer, at 113.2". And, that's one thing I notice, too, on the '58-60. The rear axle just looks too far forward, and throws off the proportions a bit. Almost like they tried to mate a small car and a big car together at the B-pillar (or where the B-pillar would be if it wasn't a hardtop or convertible).

The proportioning seems better to me, on the '61-63 and 64-66 models.

explorerx4

Wasn't that long rear overhang 'the look' back then? I don't find it unusual, although those squarebirds are not my favorite.

xwesx

uplanderguy said:

I know by C2 fans this is considered retrograde, but here is my dream Corvette, in the color I'd want too. It says Kennedy-era/'Route 66' to me, and some of the sins of the '58-61 were cleaned up. I'd be very, very happy even with the smallest 327 and Powerglide in one (this one is a fuelie which is of course desirable):
Funny, one of my better Stude buddies says "The '62 is the worst 'Vette. Make up your mind; is it a roadster in front or a Sting Ray in back?!", LOL.

Can't disagree with you on that!

As an aside, the one thing I really hate about most pop-up lights is how ridiculous they look on the car when they're up. The front-mounted hidden lamps are about the only ones tolerable, but, really, this was a design thing that I'm glad faded.

uplanderguy

Me too. I really was never a fan of hideaway headlights.

sda

I liked the hideaway lights that were integrated with the grille and when the light doors were open it just looked like a conventional grille with external headlights. The 66-67 Riviera, 67-68 Eldorado, 67-69 T-bird are good examples. This is when they still finished off the headlight opening with matching grille or surround when the light doors are open. Later a lot of manufacturers cheapened out and didn’t finish out the headlight opening when the light doors were open and that just looks unfinished and cheap.

uplanderguy

I grew up mostly looking at Chevys and few had hideaway lights--Corvettes, Camaro Rally Sports for the first three model years, a few '68 and '69 Caprices. When the cars got older, often the trim/doors didn't line up with the grille; one would be open while the other is closed, etc. I get the appeal of 'hideaway', but then you see the seams where they are....not all that 'hideaway'! LOL.

I'm mentioned before here; I generally can't stand seeing seams. Worst offenders to me: the boxy Zephyr-type Cougar of '81 and '82--horizontal seam right at eye-level on the C-pillar--and the sharper grille styling of the '68 Cadillac, BUT you can see seams where the '67 grille was! Runner-up worst offenders: '73 and '74 Nova, where the slanted-inwards '68-72 grille used to be, and the '82-83 Malibu, same thing--you can see the seams where the '78-81 grille used to be. Ugh.

andre1969

One thing that bugs me about some cars with hidden headlights, is when the headlight covers get misaligned. I don't mind the seam itself so much, but when they try to carry the texture of the grille over to the headlight cover, and the cover doesn't line up right, it looks messy.

For instance, I think the '68 Impala is one that's hard to get right. The cover has a bit of body color on the top, then a heavy chrome strip, and then the grille pattern. On top of that, it has the additional problem where the grille has openings, but the covers are solid, with black paint, and when the light hits it the wrong way, it doesn't look right.

I think the '68 LTD pulls the look off more successfully. Part of it may be that the headlight cover doesn't stray out of the grille area, like it does on the Chevy, so it's just easier to integrate.

texases

Speaking of Corvettes, saw a '74 or so one last weekend, looked to be in good shape, black paint, no smoke or odd noises as it passed.

uplanderguy

One of the car mags used to refer to C3 Corvettes as 'flying d_____", LOL. For years I never liked them. But now, if I saw a nice, stock, one, I'd go out of my way to look at it. I guess it's exciting compared to today's stuff.

I worked with a guy who had a chamois-colored '77. He liked it. I rode in it. For bucket seats, those were the flattest, thinnest seats! I also remember you could hardly look out the windshield over the hood and those front fenders!

I thought the '74 rear-end revision was positive, and I liked the hatch addition to the '78 models.

texases

By 'the '74 rear-end revision', you mean replacing the chrome bumpers with the tapered plastic one? I like the chrome better.

uplanderguy

Yeah, I like the shape better is all, although now that I think of it, the rear piece of the '74 has a seam right down the middle.

kyfdx

uplanderguy said:

Yeah, I like the shape better is all, although now that I think of it, the rear piece of the '74 has a seam right down the middle.

They fixed that in '75

texases

uplanderguy said:

Yeah, I like the shape better is all, although now that I think of it, the rear piece of the '74 has a seam right down the middle.

OK, I understand. So which do you prefer, that version or the '80+ one, with the spoiler?