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

boomchek

Since we use metric in Canada, the 100k km mark is a big deal, although it's only about 60k miles.

120,000 miles sounds better than 200,000kms too. :shades:

fintail

That's right - there's a psychological component to it, too - 5 digits vs 6. It impacts depreciation/resale value, too - highlines seem to be less desirable when they hit 50K, then a little worse every additional 10K. And when something like an S/7/A8 hits 100K miles, it becomes a leper to many.

boomchek

Yes it is all psychological.

For example 100k miles is about 160k and change kms.

But 120k miles, only 20k miles more is already almost 200k kms (193k to be exact) but we just count it as 200k kms, which is a lot already.

hpmctorque

Thanks for posting the photo, TJC. It looks like it's impeccably maintained.

stickguy

it's all what you are used to.

I consider a Lacrosse, Charger, taurus to be a gigantic car, almost too big for normal use. IOW, barges.

Of course, I also thought the last generation Accord was a whale.

though for some reason, the Odyssey always seemed to be almost compact. Probably because the hood was so short and low. Lots to back up, but easy to see out of, and nice square corners.

actually, proving I am not a size a phobic, the easiest thing I drove to place close? A Freightliner FS diesel Ryder truck with a 26' box. Slab windshield, sloped off hood, etc. Could put that baby reaaaaal close to the car in front...

tjc78

It's got some battle scars, but otherwise in great shape. Pop kept it nice.

fintail

200K kms is only 125K miles, IIRC. And once you get into that range, you're rolling dice if buying a highline car. I wouldn't want anything British with those miles. A 200K km 123 or 126 wouldn't make me blink, if the car has good history, of course.

On the obscure car topic, I saw a preview for the "Norman Bates" TV series, looks like the mother drives a MB W108 sedan.

lemko

Really? I consider a LaCrosse barely a midsize. My wife's car looks downright petite compared to the rest of the fleet. The Charger's proportions are good, but it's sort of M-body-sh: not quite a full-size car, but not a midsize either. The Taurus is just an ungainly mess. A normal size car is a Grand Marquis.

andre1969

Sometimes though, smaller cars can feel bulkier and more cumbersome than they really are. For instance, my 2000 Park Ave is 206.8" long, on a 113.8" wb, but it feels a bit "bigger" than that would suggest. But then my '79 New Yorkers are something like 221.3", on a 118.5" wb, but somehow manage to not feel as cumbersome as those dimensions might lead you to believe. I think part of it is that the NYer's are more squared off, so I can judge better with the front. And, I can see the decklid through the rearview mirror. With the Park Ave, I can't see the decklid, and looking forward I just see a vague shape of the hood as it slopes down. But, that's better than my old Intrepid, where i couldn't see the hood at all, unless I leaned forward!

The R-body also has a fairly tight turning circle, for a car its size. I don't know what the official figure is, but it doesn't feel that bad in most driving. The Park Ave, however, isn't so hot IMO. I just tried looking it up, and I think it's around 40 feet. IIRC, my old Intrepid, ~203" long on a 113" wb, had a 37.6 foot turning circle. It was a pretty nimble car, although a pain to parallel park because of the bad visibility!

I think the old R-body might actually have a tighter turning circle than the smaller M-body that sort of filled in as Chrysler's "full-size" car after the R- went away. At least, going from memory, my old '89 Gran Fury seemed to turn a bit wide. Good handling car for the most part, which it should be, as it used to be a police car. But, not so hot in tight corners, despite a 112.7" wb compared to the R-'s 118.5, and probably close to a foot and a half less length.

I guess I just have it in my mind that a "proper" full sized car should have a wheelbase of around 116" or more, be around 210"+, have 60+" of shoulder room, 20+ cubic feet of trunk space, and around 110+ cubic feet of passenger volume. But then, many cars that I'd consider "proper" full sizers wouldn't make all those categories. For instance, the Ford/Mercury Panthers are on a 114.3/114.7" wb, depending on the year. And the R-body only has 108 cubic feet of interior volume, according to the EPA at least. And often there are midsized, or even compact cars, that have more legroom than some full-sizers.

tjc78

And often there are midsized, or even compact cars, that have more legroom than some full-sizers

That is due to the FWD design. They really can squeeze out some great interior volume despite being fairly compact outside.

Lemko, the new LaCrosse is probably as big as midsize gets before being classified as a large car. The only thing really small on the LaCrosse is the trunk.

andre1969

Lemko, the new LaCrosse is probably as big as midsize gets before being classified as a large car. The only thing really small on the LaCrosse is the trunk.

I'm curious what the interior volume of the new LaCrosse is. The EPA has a misprint, showing it at 100 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 16 cubic foot trunk. Those are the specs for the old W-body LaCrosse, which did have a larger trunk, but a tight back seat.

The EPA rates my Park Ave at 111 cubic feet of passenger volume, and 19 cubic feet of trunk space. That's probably the largest interior of any car I've ever owned, as they list my old '85 LeSabre at a slightly less 110 cubic feet (although a bit larger trunk, 21 cubic feet). But still, the car just doesn't feel all that "huge".

Most cars today have generous sounding interior volumes because of headroom. Adding an inch of headroom will inflate the interior volume more than adding an inch of shoulder room. Or an inch of legroom. And, I think this is where "your mileage will vary". If you already have enough headroom in any given car, adding more probably won't really make it feel bigger to you. But, adding shoulder room or legroom definitely makes it feel more noticeable.

That is due to the FWD design. They really can squeeze out some great interior volume despite being fairly compact outside.

A lot of it simply has to do with styling, I think. Even back in the old RWD days, often a smaller car would have more legroom than the bigger cars. The best example of this is the old Dodge Dart. Consumer Reports noted that the '68 Dart sedan they tested had more legroom, front and rear, than the '68 Impala they tested. Of course, the Impala is a lot more curvy and sleek, and sexy, even in 4-door form, than the boxier, upright, more conservative Dart.

And, having had a couple Darts, and full-sized '67 and '69 Pontiacs, I can vouch for CR. At least in front seat legroom. My '67 Catalina, a convertible, definitely has more room in back than my Dart hardtops did, but up front the Darts were roomier. The '69 Bonneville was a 4-door hardtop, so naturally its back seat was larger as well, but the Darts were still a bit better up front.

tjc78

According to Motor Trend,


•Internal dimensions: front headroom (inches): 38.0, rear headroom (inches): 37.3, front hip room (inches): 55.2, rear hip room (inches): 53.9, front leg room (inches): 41.7, rear leg room (inches): 40.5, front shoulder room (inches): 57.4, rear shoulder room (inches): 56.0 and interior volume (cu ft): 101.7

So its only a little bigger in volume than the outgoing model, but it's certainly larger in the rear seat area. The trunk is only 10.8, I think our Elantra's was bigger.

andre1969

I wonder if that 10.8 cubic feet is for the eAssist model? I thought the regular models were more like 13?

I'm surprised the new LaCrosse only has 41.7" of front legroom. It definitely feels plenty roomy to me. My old Intrepid was something like 42.2", but it felt tight. I think my Park Ave is 42.4", but it feels like more than .2" compared to the Intrepid!

Sometimes though, those legroom measurements seem to have no rhyme or reason. I think my Ram is only 41.0", but it feels fine to me.

texases

Saw a RED early 70s (? no big bumpers) E type' convertible with the top down going the other way this morning. Even the chrome wire wheels looked good (sorry, Shifty).

As to interior room, I've often found small cars roomier for the driver. My family's '68 Valiant was roomy, just like the Dart. My '83 GTI is a great example. When I sold it I looked at an Infiniti Q45 - claustrophobic in there. And while I'm not a box car fan, I did look at the xB just because of the huge interior. That's another reason for all the CUV buying, they're ROOMY, even the Escape/Rav4 sized ones.

tjc78

You know I think those measurements were from an E-assist.

Yeah the leg room number is misleading. I usually have the seat all the way back in most cars, but not in the LaCrosse. There must be one portion of the footwell or seat that throws off the measurement. Legroom front and rear is one thing that isn't lacking.

Oh and on topic a late 80s Buick Century this morning looking very bad but flying along 295 right with me.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, yes, those pimpy chrome wires. Well, the understatement of wires painted in a satin silver takes courage and confidence--what else can I say? :P

You have to admit, attempting to adorn a gorgeous E-Type convertible with even MORE adornment does seem to be over-decorating.

lemko

...Ford Model T truck "rat rod" on Oxford Avenue 1/2 block south of Bleigh in NE Philly.

stickguy

Tex, good point about space. We have a 2013 RDX, which is ~184" long. So to Andre and TJC, something in the sub-compact class.

but interior wise, it is huge. lots of stretch out room in the front, even plenty of elbow room and a nice wide console. And the rear seat is like a limo.

all this in something about the length of a new Dart.

the height for headroom and upright seating really does make a difference.

andys120

It's not unusual in Arizona to see elderly compact and economy cars running around in good driver condition. Apparently the lack of humidity preserves the body and chrome trim and if they're not parked in the sun too much the interiors hold up so you'll often see Novas, Fairmonts, Hornets, Valiants and the like in good condition but yesterday I saw something really amazing.

I was sitting outside in a a cafe (all right it was a brewpub) and this guy pulls up in a 1970s Ford Maverick in showroom condition with perfect paint and chrome. It was obviously a restoration but I have no idea why anyone would put that kind of time and money into a Maverick.

The car was a very light blue with a vinyl hardtop and chromed steel Magnum 500 wheels, the only thing missing was white lettering on the tires. Other than the Grabber I don't recall any upscale versions of the Mav, nor did I see any badging indicating what version it was.

Well it was something to see.

hpmctorque

"I have no idea why anyone would put that kind of time and money into a Maverick."

The simple reason is it gets a lot of looks, comments and questions. In a word, attention. Would you have referred to the new Focus as "really amazing" and "something to see?"

The The LDO (Luxury Decor Option?) was a fancy Maverick. It dressed up the regular ones pretty nicely.

tjc78

I have no idea why anyone would put that kind of time and money into a Maverick.

Maybe it was his late fathers or something along those lines.

andys120

The simple reason is it gets a lot of looks, comments and questions. In a word, attention.

Well you could get even more looks and attention by putting the time and money into something that was good looking and nice to drive. At the end of the day it's just a gussied up economy car and not a very good one at that.

For example I'd rather see a restored Corvair or Datsun 510.

kyfdx

Maybe it had a 302?

omarman

My oldest brother got a new Maverick Grabber in 1972 and there were a couple other special editions too.

There was the 1972 Sprint editions of the Pinto, Maverick and Mustang. I remember seeing a pretty funny TV commercial for the these cars starring an actor doing an over-the-top John Wayne imitation..."wah-huh!"

They later did a Stallion edition of the Pinto, Maverick and Mustang II. A friend in high school got a new Maverick Stallion just before we graduated but I've never actually seen a Pinto Stallion except in pics.

kyfdx

My first new car was a '77 Cobra II.. :surprise:

I've learned a few things, since then...

ab348

We bought a new 4-door LDO Maverick in '74, white with a brown vinyl roof and tan interior. It was actually really nice inside for a Maverick, with reclining front bucket seats that looked to have been taken from the Euro Capri, shag carpet on the floor, etc. Of course it still had the textured painted metal interior doors, cheap plastic lock button escutcheons that broke quickly, and maybe the worst build quality ever. The thing was junk in about 4 years.

Mr_Shiftright

I've seen cars restored that you would assume no one on earth would care about that much.

uplanderguy

An adorable redheaded cheerleader in my high school drove a light blue Maverick LDO, 302 engine, back in the mid'70's. Her grandfather was the Ford dealer in town. That's the best thing I remember about those cars!

I do recall the vinyl on the buckets looked soft and I seem to remember Ford using "glove soft" in their advertising of the car's interior.

Mr_Shiftright

I saw one of these restored, at no small expense. Know what it is?

fintail

Maverick Stallion - I remember there was one of those in town when I was a teenager. Silver and black with a stallion emblem on the front fenders.

fintail

Some less developed world variant of a Triumph Herald.

Mr_Shiftright

from India,that's right!

hpmctorque

In addition to the negatives you mentioned, '74 was the worst year for emission controls, worse than '73 even. I apologize if you already know this, but most '74s ran badly, had poor performance, and miserable gas mileage. Not that '75 was great, by any means, but most domestic cars, including all Mavericks, had catalytic converters. These permitted the engines to be tuned to run better.

lemko

I've seen all three versions of the Stallion package in the Ford dealer's showroom down the street when I was a kid: Mustang, Maverick, and Pinto.

andre1969

I wonder if emissions controls in Canada were much different in those days, compared to the US?

I think for the most part, my family lucked out and missed 1973-74 when it comes to cars. Although one of my grandmother's friends had what was either a 1974 Caprice or 1975 Impala...can't remember now. I remember Granddad saying it had a 454 and fuel economy was in the single digits. My great-uncle had a 1974 Impala with a 400. He did a lot of trailer towing with it. I don't remember much about it, except that by 1984 it was pretty rusty, and he gave it to his neighbor, who pulled the engine out and used it in some race car he was building.

My grandparents on my Dad's side of the family had a '75 Dart Swinger that stalled out at random, and the dealer never could fix. I've heard that in Chrysler's case, they were bit late, in the respect that the '74 slant six wasn't too bad, but the '75 was. The engine and transmission were still pretty indestructible, but carb problems, stalling, etc were more common.

There was some kind of provision that, for a few years, let some manufacturers get by without a catalytic converter, but I don't remember what criteria had to be met. I had a friend who drover her parents' old '76 AMC Hornet wagon. It didn't have a catalytic converter on it, and one year, they got into a tangle at the emissions station because of it. I think they had to actually write to American Motors to get documentation to support that the car was exempt from a catalytic converter.

lemko

My Grandpop had a dark green 1974 Chevrolet Impala sedan and it appeared to hold up well. He traded it for a new black 1980 Impala. I believe his car had the 350 V-8.

andre1969

Uncle Buddy's '74 Impala was a white coupe. I can't remember though, if it was the hardtop coupe or the fixed-window, Caprice-like version. It had rusted out so badly along the lower body that he ended up taking some sheetmetal and pop-riveting it over the rust-out, and then painting it white to match!

It got replaced by a white 1984 Monte Carlo that just had the 229 V-6. By that time, I think they were done with trailering. Plus, they had bought a 1980 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup that was probably better suited to towing than that Impala had been.

hpmctorque

In answer to your question, Canada's emissions laws were less stringent than ours in the '70s.

I believe all '75 domestic GM and Ford Motor Co. cars had catalytic converters. In the case of Chrysler Corp. cars, some '75s were equipped with catalytic converters and some weren't. For example, Aspens and Volares were offered with a choice regarding catalytic converters. Some people back then objected to catalytic converters because they didn't like being compelled to use unleaded gas, for whatever reason(s). Some European brands, such as Mercedes, BMW and Volvo lagged behind the Detroit 3 in adopting catalytic converters.

You're right about American Motors.

lemko

...silvery light blue Mercedes 190D 2.2 near Bleigh and Oxford Avenue in NE Philly. An older couple were inside and the car looked to be in decent shape except for a nasty ding in the passenger side rear door.

fintail

That'll be a leisurely performer.

Saw a ~83 300SD turbo today, in that yellowy off white color from the period. Little old lady driver, car in very nice condition, purring almost inaudibly.

stickguy

a few blocks away there is a guy with a 1st generation Rabbit diesel, and occasionally I would get behind it on the way to work. A bit tired looking, but did not smoke too much. but what always gave me a laugh is that it has a trailer hitch and ball on it. What the heck could something like that tow? The newspaper?

tjc78

Bike rack probably.

explorerx4

on a flatbed. Nice light metallic blue with white top. Right after that, an early beige F series pickup. Looked good for a while, until I saw a big rust hole over the front wheel.

ab348

The situation in Canada re emissions back then seemed to be hit or miss in regard to what manufacturers did. Our standards were less stringent than the American ones then, and I remember seeing many new Ford products on dealer lots back then with large stickers in the window along with all the other stuff the factory stuck on the windows that said "For Canada Only" or words to that effect. But I don't think all manufacturers did that. GM cars here had catalysts in '75 just like in the US. I don't think our Maverick had any particular driveability problems - it just was a poor car. It had the 250 CID "Big Six" but I honestly wonder if it was much different than if it had a 170 or 200. It didn't have much power at all. But that was probably a good thing since it had terrible brakes and a squirrely chassis.

We had a '74 Impala with the 350 at the same time and it had terrible driveability. It was so leaned out that it would almost die when you tipped into the throttle, then jerk forward. It only ran well when the choke was still on and kept it from running so lean. The '75 Hornet Sportabout that replaced it had the AMC 258 six and that ran well and even seemed to have a lot more punch than the Maverick.

hpmctorque

Interesting. None of what you said surprises me. With the benefit of hindsight the best approach to car ownership from, say '72-'74, would have been to buy the best low mileage pre-'72 that one could find. Allowing for exceptions, and depending on make and model, cars slowly improved from '75 on.

stickguy

not likely a rack, since it is an old guy (even compared to me) and he has a ball on the hitch. So must tow some kind of trailer.

stickguy

hit 50 and sunny today, so a few old cars out. Saw a really nice looking (must be fresh red paint) GTO or Lemans convertible (69 or 70 I would say), and a same vintage Malibu 2 door.

andys120

Diesels have loads of torque so even a small displacement four cylinder will have much more towing capacity than if it was gas-powered. The old guy probably has a canoe or rowboat.

andre1969

My perception could be wrong, but it seems to me that GM's 250-6 and AMC's 232/258-6 cyl engines did fairly well in the 1970's, with regards to emissions controls, whereas the Mopar slant six and Ford's 250 had more issues.

In the case of the slant six, it tended to run cool, so making it conform to emissions standards, which made it run hotter, caused problems with it. The slant six also had a long stroke, which made it naturally torquey, but not a good revver. I wonder if that might have caused problems with conforming to emissions as well?

I don't know what the issue was with Ford's 250, but once they started using net figured for horsepower, it never had more than 98. In 1975, my old car book actually lists it at 72 hp! I've wondered if that was a misprint though. Most years, it was usually at least 90.

The Chevy 250 was usually good for 105-110 hp I think, although it might have been choked down to 100 once or twice. The 250 was usually good for around 110 hp, but in one year, 1976, it only had 98 hp in the Matador, yet 120 in the Pacer. Again, that could be a misprint.

The Mopar slant six started the 70's with 110 hp (145 gross), but in 1972, there was a California version that was choked to 100. A few years later, I think they were all down to around 95, but then they recovered a bit, to 100. In 1977, they even had a 2-bbl version that put out 110 hp. But, by 1980, the 2-bbl went away, and the 1-bbl was down to a measly 85.

stickguy

well, back in my HS/College days, I had the pleasure of owning 2 different 6 cyl AMCs (don't remember if 3.8 or 4.2, and back then they did badge the Gremlin in liters. I think mine was a 3.8). I also owned a Duster slant 6. The AMCs were a Gremlin and a Hornet. And for good measure, a '67 Camaro straight 6.

the 70s models from what I remember were fine. Solid, started and ran no problem, didn't have any notable drive-ability issues that I remember.

I think the real problem with the slant 6 was later in the 70s, when you got into the Aspen/Volare days. Which I assumed meant lean burn? A HS friend used their family Aspen wagon. What a dog. Ran like crap, and had a tendency to stall every time you made a left turn. That was fun!