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

Mr_Shiftright

A low mileage taxi cab with nice seats.

fintail

Saw a powder blue W115 240D on I90 - in the slow lane, but keeping up. Probably took 30 seconds to hit that speed :shades:

andre1969

My stepfather had an uncle who had a late 40's DeSoto Diplomat when he lived overseas. I remember seeing some old photos of it about 20 years ago.

I've heard that the Diplomat was actually pretty common as an export model...but I guess it just depends on where it was exported to. I remember seeing DeSotos show up in two different Aussie movies. One was a '59 in "Road Warrior" an the other was a '58 in, I kid you not, "The Cars that Eat People". They were actually Firesweeps though, not Diplomats.

fintail

I have to imagine a 2 door HT would be pretty uncommon, and that it surviving in rust-loving Britain is even more unusual. Apparently the car still exists today, but is now red.

hpmctorque

Not to mention that '69 Impalas were huge gas guzzlers with performance that was nothing to write home about. In fairness to Chevy, though, we're talking about a low period for Detroit, not just Chevy.

boomchek

It now looks very dated. It's hard to understand how big a splash it made when they first came out, looking at it now. It really does nothing for me.

I feel this way about most 90s luxury cars, especially from Japan. The features they had back then might have been exclusive to the luxury automotive segement, but now can be found in pretty much any car.

If you take an early to mid 90s Acura Legend, Infiniti Q45 or even the Lexuses, the only thing that's special about them is maybe the leather interiors, power seats, heated front seats, auto climate control (single zone mostly), and CD changers. Maybe the rides are cushier and a tad quiter when compared to new compacts now, but equipment wise they're nothing special.

boomchek

If it was on the freeway it was probably running at its top speed too :sick:

uplanderguy

Could still get a 427 in full-size Chevys in '69. Although that's not a high point for me, year-wise, I think there are a lot of performance buffs who would strongly disagree.

jljac

I would vote for 1969 as the high water mark for American performance cars and I think that model year would get the most votes. If there is some other model year that should have the prize, say what it is.

I actually favor 1968 as the first year of the coke-bottle shaped Dodge Charger, but the Charger was much the same in 1969 plus the Boss 302 Mustang arrived in 1969, which is my favorite Mustang. I like the looks of the 1970 Camaro & Firebird better than the 1969 models, but I don't think they were faster.

ab348

I prefer 1970 only because the was the year the GM intermediate muscle cars broke the 400 cubic inch barrier, with 455s in Olds, Buick and Pontiac and Chevy's 454. I am also partial to the 1970 Plymouth Sport Fury and the Mopar E-body cars of that year.

boomchek

My previous place where I worked has this 69 GT500. I was in charge of photographing inventory and putting it online for them and shot this one. Very nice car and practically flawless in like new condition. Not too crazy about the maroon color but otherwise a nice car.

69 GT500

hpmctorque

Sure, but the percentage of 427s in relation ot total production was deminimus. Also, in reference to my comment, gas mileage was even worse with the big engines.

fintail

No price = we're ashamed to post it? :shades:

Saw a Subaru Justy today, along with an early 90s Alfa Spider. Not long ago the question was asked what do big old ladies (as opposed to little old ladies) drive - I saw the answer today, a 97-99 S500 that looks like it came off the showroom floor last week.

boomchek

The managers wanted to post it with no price as it's a unique car.

texases

Saw a full convertible version of a BMW 2002 or 1600 (it had the round tail lights and pre-'73 bumpers). Any way to know which one?

hpmctorque

The last time I saw a Justy was over two years ago. They were rugged little cars, when equipped with manual transmission, but unavailability of parts sent many to the crusher. The Justy provided a low cost way to have AWD, an option.

A while back I read that Subaru was going to reintroduce a sub-compact in North America, but I haven't seen anything lately.

hpmctorque

Now there's a big old lady with taste, and sense. No cartoonish Justy or Alfa Spyder for her.

andre1969

I've often heard 1970 mentioned as the peak of performance, as well. I don't know, though, if its because 1970 was where it peaked, higher than 1969? Or if it was because in 1971 some of the engines started getting de-tuned, and the manufacturers began releasing net hp ratings, and so people just look at 1970 as the last good year, before it all went to hell?

hpmctorque

I think the detuning started with the '68 model year, but in some cases the manufacturers compensated, or overcompensated, by increasing displacement. The '67s generally idled smoother and quieter than the '68s.

Maybe someone with more knowledge than me, or a better memory, can tell us what the '68s were required to have that the '67s didn't. I believe they lowered compressions in '68, but don't know why.

fintail

A few years ago, my brother tried to find a nice one - couldn't do it. IIRC the automatic in those was troublesome, and I have to imagine, painfully slow.

The Justy name lived on in other markets, but as rebadged tiny cars.

wevk

My neighbor showed me his 1957 Bel Air "barn find" still in the barn. In storage since 1978 72k miles rust free totally original paint & interior. 283, 3 on the tree no PS or PB.

ab348

I don't think they lowered compression very much in '68, if at all. On my '68 Cutlass the literature says the main thing they did was to put in the thermostatically-controlled air cleaner so that the engine got warm air fed into it when the engine was cold. They may have messed with timing and advance a bit too, but the emission controls on most 1968 cars were pretty minimal, though the inferior Chevy V-8s had that air pump injection system tacked on...

andys120

Saw a full convertible version of a BMW 2002 or 1600 (it had the round tail lights and pre-'73 bumpers). Any way to know which one?

Either the Baur convertible or the full cabrio were grey market cars, never imported thru official channels. If anyone were to go thru the trouble they'd likely go for the 2002 but the full convertibles were extremely rare anywhere in the world. I've never seen one myself.

andys120

1970 is considered the high water mark but it would be a mistake to think of the following years as "falling off a cliff" performance-wise. The were plenty of good performing and good running cars around until 1974 when really strict smog and bumper regulations went into effect. That's when it really went to hell and stayed there until the advent of catalytic converters and EFI.

hpmctorque

Thanks for the information. That sounds right to me. The emission controls were indeed minimal compared to what came after 1970, but '68 is when emission controls were initiated. Catalytic convertors were first installed on virtually all Big Three cars in '75.

kyfdx

1972 was the year they switched to net HP ratings, instead of gross.. so, many people mistakenly think that was the year that everything went in the crapper...

But, I think it was the catalytic converter that really did it... as you note, in '75...

I had a 302 V-8 in 1977 that was rated at 135 HP...

tjc78

I had a 302 V-8 in 1977 that was rated at 135 HP...

Just think that 12 years later (with EFI) that same 302 wasn't making much more!

Reference: 89 Lincoln Town Car 150HP (160 w/duals).

jljac

But, I think it was the catalytic converter that really did it... as you note, in '75...

I don't blame the catalyic converters for loss of performance. I think that the worst performance was the few years before they arrived. My family had a 1967 Chevy with a 283 V-8 and then a 1974 Chevy with the 400 V-8. The 1974 was terrible. It seemed much slower than the 1967 and did not start well in cold weather. That year the car would not start unless the seat belts were fastened.

andre1969

But, I think it was the catalytic converter that really did it... as you note, in '75...

I think there are actually two factors at play here, that tend to get intertwined. When it comes to mainstream cars, the catalytic converter was actually a bit of a Godsend. The cars were more driveable, easier to start, warmed up better, got better economy, and so on, than their '73-74 counterparts, which were choked down with a lot of rudimentary crap that really killed power and economy.

However, because of CAFE restrictions and such, most manufacturers ended up dropping the few high-performance engines that were left, because they would sink the fuel economy averages. For instance, in 1974, the Camaro still offered a 245 hp 350. For 1975, the top offering was a 155 hp 350.

Pontiac tended to reserve performance for their bigger engines, although they did still have a 200 hp 350. Top dog that year was a 290 hp 455, an engine that would have probably been a good 375+ in gross terms. For '75, top 350 was a 175 hp unit (and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the California/high-altitude P-code 4-bbl.) Top 455 that year was a severely-toned down 205 hp unit.

I think the auto makers could have continued with these high-output monsters, even with catalytic converters. But, with high insurance rates, expensive gasoline, and CAFE breathing down their necks, there just wasn't that much demand.

With more plebian, mainstream cars, performance seemed to improve from 1975-78, but then a second round of emissions standards started choking them down again.

If you think that 139 hp '77 302 was bad, be thankful you didn't buy a few years earlier. In 1975 it only had 122!

texases

I agree, the strict emissions regs were harder to meet with a cat. It was the regs, not the cat, that caused the large power falloff. Cat + fuel injection was the combination that brought performance back.

andre1969

My family had a 1967 Chevy with a 283 V-8 and then a 1974 Chevy with the 400 V-8. The 1974 was terrible. It seemed much slower than the 1967 and did not start well in cold weather.

It very well could have been. The 400 was usually a dog of a motor...sort of a workhorse. Designed to move a lot of weight, but not necessarily very quickly. In 1975 it only had 150 hp, although there was a 180 hp version that was used in the full-sized wagons, and as an option on the midsized cars.

The '67 283 would've had 195 hp gross, which probably translates to around 130-140 net (the 200 hp 307 dropped to 130 when they released net figures). In theory, the '74 would have an advantage of using the 3-speed THM tranny (400 I'm guessing, in a big car), while the '67 would've just had a 2-speed Powerglide.

However, the '74 was probably held back by a tall 2.56:1 axle ratio. I dunno what axle a Powerglide would've used in '67, but I'd guess around a 3.00 or shorter. The 283 probably liked to rev more easily too, as it only had a 3.00" stroke, compared to 3.75" for the 400.

Then, there was weight. My old car book lists the base weight of a '67 Impala 4-door V-8 at around 3600 lb. For the '74, it's 4200!

It's amazing, isn't it, what a difference 7 years can make?

As for 0-60 times, I remember Consumer Reports testing a '68 Impala with the 307/Powerglide, and getting 0-60 in 14.5 seconds. I'd imagine a 67 with the 283 would be similar?

Popular Mechanics got a '76 Caprice Classic with a 400 to do 0-60 in 12.8 seconds. However, in '76, the 400 was back up to 175 hp. Or, probably more accurately, the 150 hp version was simply dropped and the old 180 hp version was choked to 175.

So, given those rough equivalents, I could easily see a '67 Impala 283 being quicker than a '74 with the 400, especially when you toss in the sputtering, stalling, and other drivability issues the '74 probably had.

ab348

When GM brought out their '75 models with the catalytic converters driveability vastly improved compared to the '73/'74 models. Those earlier cars had carbs that were leaned way out, timing severely retarded, etc, that made them just awful to drive. The cats let them back off on some of those extreme settings and made them much better cars. Of course, the high energy electronic ignition added at the same time helped a lot too. Points were never a great thing.

uplanderguy

Absolutely correct.

We had a '73 Nova six new, and while it was a great value for what you got, that six was awful in the mornings. You just could not take off in it after a cold start. It'd stall two or three times. We also had a new '74 Impala 350 2-barrel. While it was not a fast car, and only once did we manage to get 14 mpg when we checked it on a trip, it did not have driveability issues at all compared to the '73 six. I have always heard over the years that catalytic converters and high energy ignition much-improved driveability in that period, as well as MPG, come that next '75 model year.

andre1969

Did the HEI ignition have any disadvantages? My '76 LeMans had issues with its distributor, which was the type that had the HEI built in with it. My mechanic swapped it out for some aftermarket thing that had a separate coil mounted to the firewall. He swore that GM's HEI sucked.

However, I tend to take everything he says with a grain of salt, as he's a Mopar man. :P

fintail

Saw a 356 today (same one twice) and an old Morgan this morning.

explorerx4

Went to Lime Rock today for their car show.
The track is about 1.5 miles long, and they had cars displayed for just about the whole thing, sometimes on both sides, except the down hill portion.
I'll try to set up a link to the pictures in the next day or so.
There was some great stuff.

ab348

GM built a few gazillion engines with HEI so I think it was pretty good. I know the cars I had with it gave me no problems at all, except for my '79 Park Avenue, but that was after 22 years of service when a wire broke. I do think, though, that maybe they tried to get a bit too cute with the engineering of it all, by including the coil in the distributor cap. That led to a lot of little wires and tiny screws packed into a small area, so they could be a bit delicate. But I like them, and they are often the unit of choice when converting an earlier GM points ignition system to electronic ignition.

fintail

Later on this afternoon saw a cool "California style" 60s VW pickup, 82-84 Cressida, E28 M5 (really!)

imidazol97

I tried the link to the pictures. It won't let me see them other than the first one. I can't find anything to click other than the continue button that requires signing up for Snapfish. Ain't gonna happen.

Snapfish is trying to extort information out of me to let me view the 240 pictures by requiring that I sign up for Snapfish with name, address, email, telephone, social security number, etc.!

I recommend Photobucket.com

explorerx4

I deleted the link. I haven't used their sharing before, so maybe I'm not doing something right.

imidazol97

I do know I was able to put pictures into separate albums and make those individual folders public on photobucket. To my knowledge, viewers did not have to sign in to view them. I have viewed others' car pictures on photobucket with signing in.

jljac

When GM brought out their '75 models with the catalytic converters driveability vastly improved compared to the '73/'74 models. Those earlier cars had carbs that were leaned way out, timing severely retarded, etc, that made them just awful to drive. The cats let them back off on some of those extreme settings and made them much better cars.

I agree with everything said above. Catalytic converters are not the reason for lower performance. Performance improved after they arrived, but not because they arrived. Fuel injection, better ingition systems and overhead cams are the reason for improved performance. The 4-cylinder motors of today with catalytic converters more power than the six cylinder engines of the 1960s-1970s without them. More and more cars are using V-6 engines to get the power of V-8s. I recently read an article that said that Lincolns and Buicks are now using V-6 engines as standard with V-8s as an option.

andre1969

Heck, many of today's 4-cyl engines are more powerful than a lot of V-8's from the 60's and 70's! Not necessarily the high-performance engines and massive big-blocks, but certainly your run-of the-mill smallblock.

I guess those smallblocks still might have the advantage of torque, though. Your typical 302/305/307/318 was usually good for around 245-260 ft-lb or so, while the average 350/351/360 was probably good for around 260-300 depending on setup.

But, with the advantage of more transmission gears, broader torque curves, better revving engines, and quicker axle ratios, I imagine all those advancements make up for the lack of torque, and then some.

As for Lincoln and Buick, they've pretty much eliminated V-8's altogether these days! I think the only Lincoln that still uses a V-8 is the Navigator...the cars are all V-6 I believe. And, believe it or not, Buick is mainly 4-cyl these days! The Verano and Regal are 4-cyl only, and a 4-cyl is standard in the LaCrosse.

omarman

In 1977 Mercedes was selling their 6.9 sedan with a SOHC fuel-injected V8 rated at just 250 net hp. And that was something like a $40,000 car back then. What would it cost now? $150K? Nobody had the right recipe for performance/efficiency until later, better generations of engine control computers were developed.

andre1969

In 1977 Mercedes was selling their 6.9 sedan with a SOHC fuel-injected V8 rated at just 250 net hp. And that was something like a $40,000 car back then. What would it cost now? $150K?

That's still pretty impressive for the time, though. And being SOHC and fuel injected, it probably had a wider power range, and better performance than that 250 hp would let on. I googled the 77 6.9, and it looks like it was good for 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds, and one source said it had a top speed of 144 mph! Dunno if that's real, or just a calculation though?

By 1977, the Corvette was down to a pair of 350's with 180 or 210 hp. Pontiac got 200 hp out of their 400...but only in the Trans Am or Can Am. It was only 180 in regular cars. The Olds 403 offered 185 hp, with a 200 hp option on the Toronado. Ford's 460 was down to 197 in most cars, 208 in Lincolns.

I think Chrysler still had a 440 that put out around 240-250 hp...but only in police cars. In civilian cars it was more like 195-205. I've seen a test of a 1978 Dodge Monaco with the 440, from the Michigan State Police, I believe. 0-60 was 9.2 seconds, and top speed was 132 mph.

So for the time, that Benz 6.9 was probably about the best blend of performance and efficiency as there was at the time, for a car of that size. Of course, as you point out, it definitely came at a price! Compared to $40K, a Cadillac Seville was a bargain at rougly $13,500...and that was the most expensive Caddy at the time, unless you opted for the limo.

Mr_Shiftright

problem with the 6.9 was that for the money, the reliability was disgraceful. Great riding and handling car though, if you could afford to keep it running after the massive warranty claims were all cashed in. I'm rather surprised that the American owners didn't come to Mercedes headquarters in Montvale with pitchforks and torches. Probable reason was that Benz pretty much stood behind their cars, problems and all.

fintail

6.9 was a special car, equivalent to an S65 today - which can run up to around 200K. 6.9 had limited slip, air suspension, and was probably capable of getting up to 150 given enough road - I assume it was the fastest sedan in the world at the time. The final run 6.9 also had optional ABS in other markets.

Like shifty mentions, maintenance nightmare - along the lines of the 600, it exemplified the German fetish of being complex for the sake of complexity. It's a wonderful car when everything is working right, but that wasn't always all the time. They aren't worth much money today relative to their status at the time, and many today are beyond reasonable salvation.

ab348

My '68 Cutlass and 2011 Regal Turbo weigh about the same, but the Regal can run rings around the Cutlass and also outperform it in a straight line. That's using a 2.0L 4-cylinder that they say puts out 220 HP and 258 lb-ft of torque and often is criticized by certain sites (*cough*Edmunds*cough*) for being an underachiever. Of course a 6-speed transmission helps a lot as compared to the Cutlass having a 2-speed and a 2.78 rear end. I'm a believer now in boosted 4-cylinder engines.

andre1969

I'm sure nobody would ever do this, but I wonder what the end result would be if you took something like that Regal drivetrain and put it in something like, say, a 76 Regal?

My guess is that it would probably perform better in that car than any powertrain option availabe for the Regal in '76. According to my old car book, Buick no longer offered a big block in the Century/Regal for '76, leaving a 165 Buick 350 as the top engine. But even the big 455 only had 205 hp that year. And swapping out it and the heavy THM400 transmission for the modern turbo-4 and 6-speed would save a lot of weight, I'm sure.

I'm kinda curious about the new Regal. I see them pop up occasionally at car sites, and it does seem like a lot of car for the money. Here's one with the turbo, sunroof, leather, etc, for around $29K. Seems reasonable to me.

ab348

That red Regal is in the best color combo they come in, and is a helluva deal. I happened to build one on GM Canada's site today exactly like that one and it priced out at just over $40K.

The turbo is the only one to buy unless you are going overboard and getting the GS.