Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"

lemmer

2WD Chevys and Fords from the early '90s look like lowriders compared to newer models. Did truck users needs change in a 10 year period to where they need a step ladder to get into a 2WD F150? The same goes for Suburbans, Tahoes, etc., which makes even less sense to me. And the weight has gotten unreal at the same time.

Mr_Shiftright

'51 Packard --- grandma's car. No thanks.

'88 Lincoln -- LOVE the gold grille. Is this like worshipping a Golden Calf, only with less fun attached? The nice thing about bad taste is that you don't know you have it!

Stepside -- hey, a truck is a truck for most people, so unless you're delivering coal on weekends as a moonlighting job, what does the size of the bed matter? If you can't strap it, hang it or balance it off a short bed, you probably shouldn't be carrying it IMO. :P

texases

'51 Packard --- grandma's car. No thanks.

Hey - I resemble that remark! My dad had one, but at least he put a Buick OHV V8 in it...long story...

xwesx

As for securing a load, I've yet to see anything to beat the row of nasty-looking hooks around the perimeter of the bed of my 1974 Mazda pickup (R.I.P.).

Hahah; no doubt that the row of hooks on those old imports were unbeatable for restraining a load.

When I said "securing a load," I meant the process of doing so, not the anchor points actually keeping it restrained.

Andre -

With today's trucks driving like oversized cars, there is quite a bit of machinery and technology added to accomplish that feat. I am sure they used the extra space to make the ride as comfy as possible for today's average, coddled user.

I would be hesitant to load a modern 3/4 ton truck with the stuff I put on mine. I limit the loads to about 4000#, which tends to be about the most that will fit even if the truck could carry more. For the average truck buyer these days, I agree with Shifty that a 6' bed is more than adequate because the bed is just not used enough to warrant occupying the majority of the vehicle, as it does with an 8' bed, standard cab pickup. I think the best recent development in pickups is the crew cab w/ 4' bed option 1/2 tons (and mid-size pickups), like the F150 have nowadays. It recognizes the fact that the truck is used more for its passenger space than its cargo space, so why haul around the added length? Besides, 1/2 ton pickups cannot haul enough weight to warrant an 8' bed. I can fill the entire bed on my truck with gravel or soil to heaping. Do that to a 1/2 ton truck (with an 8' bed) and its nose would be pointed to the sky. :P

But, again, my argument for the stepside was merely in terms of access. And, if you are accessing the bed of your truck every time (or multiple times) you use it, you want the best access you can get.

Process for accessing the bed of a stepside:
1. step easily onto the platform on either side of the truck.
2. step into the bed -or- onto the rail (for tall loads)

Process for accessing the bed of a fleetside:
1. walk around to the tailgate
2. open the tailgate (or use bumper as step)
3. jump or lift into bed of truck
Optional, hoist self into bed from either side using the tire as a step.

Any way you cut it, the stepside has two extra, safe points of access to the bed.

stickguy

I agree, for most personal use (as with my former '91 Nissan xtra cp), 6' is more than enough, and the horter ones (even a Ridgeline size) is plenty.

One neat thing on the new FOrds (other than the step and handle) is the bed extender. I thought the usual design (big metal thing) was stupid, since it took up 1/2 the bed when not in use.

Well, Ford addad a folding plastic version. Folds in quarters agains the side of the box when not in use, and folds out to enclose the tailgate. Really a clever design, that easily extends the bed when you need it.

xwesx

I agree.

But, one should note about the one-piece metal "flipping" bed extenders that they also serve to hold bags of groceries in place when the tailgate is closed. For many, that is a handy little feature!

If it were strictly up to me, as a single-vehicle family (aside from special/no use vehicles, like my pickup), I would get a mid-size pickup - either a Nissan or Honda. Why? Compact overall size, sedan-like cabin for the family, plus a small bed for cargo, and some towing capacity. With a small Maxi-Dump trailer in tow I have all the load capacity of my 3/4 ton '69 (without a trailer). And all with one vehicle (plus a trailer)! I could retire my poor old truck and give it the restoration it deserves. On the rare occasions I would need to haul a larger trailer, I could use my '69 without "worrying" about load wear/damage to the truck.

bumpy

Did truck users needs change in a 10 year period to where they need a step ladder to get into a 2WD F150?

Yep, they turned into soccer mom appliances instead of work vehicles.

lemko

Well, how about that little "cane" and ladder on the tailgate of the new Ford trucks?

andre1969

Besides, 1/2 ton pickups cannot haul enough weight to warrant an 8' bed. I can fill the entire bed on my truck with gravel or soil to heaping. Do that to a 1/2 ton truck (with an 8' bed) and its nose would be pointed to the sky.

I've had situations with my truck, where the 8 foot bed is nice. Such as hauling junk to the dump, tree limbs, etc. Examples where you have a lot of volume, but not a lot of mass. I did discover though, that it doesn't take much to load a half-ton truck up to its GVWR. But with a smaller bed, I guess I could have just cut those tree limbs down into smaller pieces. I took a load of firewood to my Mom & stepdad's, pretty much filling up the bed level, with a slight rise towards the center. I didn't even think about how much weight that was, but my stepdad said it was a ton, easy.

Back in early 2006, I hauled some topsoil with it. There's a place just up the street from me that sells dirt, mulch, gravel, etc. I remember the guy there said that a cubic yard of topsoil weighs about 2800 pounds. I bought either 3 or 4 cubic yards of it (can't remember which now), and drove it back one load at a time. I *almost* did that successfully, except for the final load. I was getting pretty tired by that time, so I pulled the truck into my yard, backed it into place, and then just let it sit while I took a break.

While I was sitting there on my stoop, sipping on a beer, I heard two distinct cracks, one right after the other. I didn't realize what they were at first. But then a couple days later, I noticed the twin tailpipes, which come out on the driver's side just behind the rear wheel, were hanging at a funny angle. I kicked at them and saw they were loose. They had snapped off where they come out of the back of the muffler, and were just sort of hanging over the rear axle. Now admittedly, they were pretty rusty where that seam had been, but I'm guessing the weight of that load pushed the body/frame down far enough that the tailpipes got pinched at the rear axle, and the stress caused them to snap.

Anyway, the next time I need dirt, I'm just going to have it delivered! A cubic yard doesn't go very far, as I discovered, and neither to 3 or 4. I think the next time I need dirt, I'm just going to order a dumptruck load. That's something like 14 cubic yards, and they only charge about 55 bucks to deliver. 55 bucks beats the heck out of 14 trips in the pickup, and shoveling out the bed 14 times!

jlflemmons

As a young man working summers, my boss sent me to pick up some concrete culverts in a 1/2ton, 6cyl, 3spd column shift pickup. This was before I could gauge weight by visual estimation, and the guys at the job site put three 20" by 6' joints in the truck. All the way back across town I had fun doing 'wheelies' every time I had to start out from a dead stop. Not to mention the way the front tires would slide every time I had to turn.

Ah, to be young and stupid. :shades:

bumpy

They only have a handrail and stepladder because the open tailgate is 4 feet off the ground, so that soccer moms can feel like they "command the road" or some BS like that.

oregonboy

It's not just soccer moms. It's also the guys who need to express their virility by having a bigger truck than the next bozo. How else can you explain used trucks advertised: "Lifted, 38" mudders, never been off-road." :P

james

xwesx

I am not even going to relay the kind of loads I used to put on an '87 Toyota. But, three 6' concrete culverts is an insane amount of weight. I would guess that one of those could max out a 1/2 ton easy. There is no way I would put more than a pair in my truck, and I can be rather optimistic about loading it... :P

lemmer

There are several guys in my neighborhood who drive F250s and F350s double cab 4X4s. They are always as shiny as new. Probably they are building contractors, but their workers seem to make it to the sites in '88 Accords and Luminas.

It's possible they have these trucks to out-manly their wives who drive Yukon XLs.

andre1969

was back in 1987, when it was still my Granddad's. Back then it had a fiberglass camper shell on it, which made it very easy to overload if you filled it with a bunch of small, heavy items.

Well, I worked at a veterinary clinic part time after school back then. The grocery store a few doors down was expanding, so we had to move to another location about a half mile away. The movers showed up that morning, drunk. Nearly backed their moving van into the building. And at one point, they had the ramp down in back, one of the guys was standing on it, and the driver tried to back up again. The ramp caught at the curb and buckled upward, throwing the guy off. At that point, the owner of the vet clinic just sent them home, and we decided to just do all the moving ourselves. Granddad unwisely let me borrow the Silverado.

At one point, I loaded all of the dog and cat food that we had into the back of it. I didn't even think about it as we were packing the back of that truck, but those 40-50 pound bags of dog food, not to mention the cans, add up quickly. I hopped in the cab and started off for the new location, and I could tell that the truck was sitting awfully low, and just seemed wobbly. I guess because of the 8-foot bed, and the longer wheelbase, and the bulk of the load placed forward, the truck sat down fairly evenly, as opposed to making the front-end point up.

The exit from that shopping plaza was down a steep hill, and then a left turn onto a 4-lane divided road. I remember the truck's brakes seeming awfully inadequate as I went down that hill, but I did manage to stop at the stop sign. When I took the turn and that truck started listing like the Andrea Doria, I got a little scared! I took it VERY easy the rest of the way to the new site!

When we unloaded that truck, I tried to keep a mental tally of what all was coming out of it. I figure I had stuffed at least 4,000 pounds of dog and cat food back there. I guess it's a miracle I didn't do any permanent damage to that truck! :surprise: And I never did tell Granddad, Lord rest his soul.

qbrozen

'51 Packard --- grandma's car. No thanks.

Really? Huh. In what sense? I think it looks pretty sleek for 1951, no?

And at some angles, for some reason, the nose kind of reminds me of early Tbirds.

andre1969

Probably they are building contractors, but their workers seem to make it to the sites in '88 Accords and Luminas.

My uncle works in construction, and for years would drive a truck to work. However, the most extravagant he ever got was a used 1994 GMC Sierra 3/4 ton, 4wd, extended cab, 8-foot bed, 6.5 Diesel. It was constantly in the shop, so he traded it after about 6-7 months, for the '97 Silverado 1/2 ton, RWD, extended cab, short bed V-6 he has now.

Once that truck started getting up there in miles, he bought a new '03 Toyota Corolla, and it's done just fine on the construction site. It looks like crap when he throws all of his tools and work clothes and such in it, but it serves its purpose just as well as that Silverado does. And uses about half the gas.

andre1969

That Packard might seem kind of dowdy to some people because it's a 4-door sedan, in a somewhat drab color. I agree with you though, that for 1951, that car seems really sleek and modern. Honestly, all you'd have to do is give it a wraparound windshield, tuck in those rear quarter panels a bit, and give it a bit of a tailfin, and it would still pass off as a 1956 model.

I think the thing that really makes it look modern to me is the low, flat hood, which is more or less level with the tops of the fenders. Most cars in 1951 still had tall hoods and low fenders.

Mr_Shiftright

Slow, heavy, clumsy, antiquated engine, drab colors and styles. Why do you think '51 Fords and Mercs made it into cultural icons of the "hot rod" era, and Cadillacs the "glam" era of Hollywood, and the Packard was passed over?

Packard was a very conservative company known for good engineering, but there's nothing sexy about them in that era of their history. They're like a sturdy brown suit you wear to church. :P

bumpy

I loaded up the Accent with a whole pile of sodas and water one day I think it ended up being over 800 pounds between the trunk and back seat. I was basically riding on the rear bump stops the whole way, and I think that's part of the reason why it needs new struts now.

qbrozen

Well, OK, fair enough. But I think I'll count myself lucky that I can find beauty in the $11k classic while everyone else can fight tooth and nail over their $150k cars.

But I still have to be envious of andre and his love of $3k-$5k boats from the '70s.

Mr_Shiftright

Looking at a car and driving it can be two different things and can change a new buyer's attitude very quickly.

Nothing WRONG with Grandma...she has dignity and wisdom and all that... :P

texases

"Looking at a car and driving it can be two different things and can change a new buyer's attitude very quickly."

Same point a writer once made about finally driving his dream car, a '55 Chevy. Something to the effect that 'all that great styling wasn't visible once inside the car, and the driving experience was no great shakes.'

andre1969

But I still have to be envious of andre and his love of $3k-$5k boats from the '70s.

Yeah, I wish I could rationalize my unhealthy attraction to those big pimpy loveboats, but it's hard to put it into words.

When it comes to stuff like that '51 Packard though, I guess I go against the tide because I think it's kinda cool. If I saw one at a car show, it would probably catch my attention quicker than a '57 Chevy or 1964.5 Mustang would. Even if those others are more desireable cars, they've just been done to death at this point. Where at least the Packard is something unique, that you don't see all the time. Plus, I like the fact that Packard is sort of a time capsule, a look into how cars really were back then, drab color, sedan body style, and all. Often when you go to car shows or watch a movie that takes place in the past, they give the impression that all people drove back in the day was flashy red fully loaded convertibles and hardtops.

andre1969

Same point a writer once made about finally driving his dream car, a '55 Chevy. Something to the effect that 'all that great styling wasn't visible once inside the car, and the driving experience was no great shakes.

I actually had a bit of that experience with my '76 LeMans. I've always had a thing for the '76-77 LeMans ever since my Dad took me to see "Smokey and the Bandit". I know most normal kids would've been infatuated with the black Trans Am with the screaming chicken on its hood, but for some reason those LeMans police cars intrigued me. We had a '75 LeMans at the time, which I thought was an ugly looking thing, but I really liked the models with the quad rectangular headlights.

Still, it was something I always admired for the style, and not necessarily the substance behind that style. Back in early 2001, a '76 coupe showed up for sale at a local park and sell lot up the street from me. I forget how much they wanted for it; I want to say $1200 but can't remember for sure. It looked good from a distance, but up close was kinda rusty, had holes in the trunk floor, and had issues with the trunk lock. When I started it up my first thought was "that don't sound like a V-8!" And sure enough, it just had a Chevy 250 inline 6 under the hood. I remember sitting behind the wheel thinking that it wasn't as comfortable as I thought it would be. For as big as it was, it wasn't exactly commodious inside. In fact, I think my '68 Dart actually had more legroom, but the seats were a bit better in this car. Oh, and I found some paperwork in the glovebox. Turns out this "park and sell" lot actually owned this LeMans, and had only paid $200 for it!

Anyway, I passed, mainly because of the rust and the fact that I didn't want to drive a roughly 3800 pound car that only had a 105-110 hp straight six to move it. Oh, and it was brown, not exactly my favorite color in a car.

Well, 4 years later, I found this nice '76 Grand LeMans coupe on eBay and bought it. It has a power seat, which helps immensely with comfort. Whereas the manual seat is sort of low and doesn't go back that far, the power seat can be tilted, to an almost obscene angle. If I wanted to, I could tilt it to where I couldn't even reach the pedals! This car also has a 350-4bbl, which you think would eliminate any acceleration problems the 6-cyl might have had.

Still, once I actually drove this car, it just didn't wow me like I thought it would. I mean, I liked it enough to go through with the deal, and I'm still glad I bought the car, but I guess after roughly 28 years of idolizing it, the car just couldn't live up to my expectations.

But then on the flip side of that, when I first slipped behind the wheel of my '79 5th Ave, it just felt...well...right, somehow. Like that car and me belonged together. And almost as if to seal that bond, the power seat failed, exactly where I needed it to be! I got the same feeling when I bought that blue $500 base New Yorker last May. Even though I've cussed that car out when its left me stranded, it just feels so right behind the wheel.

Maybe there's just a perfect fit for everybody out there, and, for better or worse, Mopar's R-body is my perfect fit? :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

You've got to bond with an old car. If you don't like, you won't forgive anything it does, and you'll nit-pick it to death until you get rid of it. Sometimes I think people unconsciously even PUNISH cars they never really liked but were afraid to admit to that.

On the other hand, if you love a car, you will endure any number of indignities and humiliations so as to experience the "magic moment" when you and the car are "right" together.

Of course, a car can't push its luck. I've had a few cars I loved but they got so bad and so unruly and so preposterously unreliable that my love turned to scorn. Any reference to Saab Turbos is purely co-incidental.

fintail

Almost restrained, for 1958

gsemike

Decent starting point for a hot rod? The price is probably optimistic

Wildly optimistic price

True project Vette I can't see how you'd come out right on this

This T Bird looks good

Cheesey paint job included

This Chevelle looks good

Project in progress

This Dart looks good too

it needs rod bearings which i a very cheap easy job He's dreaming trying to get 2500 for his 12 year old dead Talon

Mr_Shiftright

'79 Vette---oh, that's a howler--as if you can correct a spun bearing by taking the old one out and putting in a new one---YEAH RIGHT---that'll work for about 100 miles.

1958 T-Bird -- only re-affirmes my vote as 1958 being the Waterloo of the American car industry.

71 Chevelle -- looks very decent indeed. However, you'll be one of ten thousand at an auto show.

'50 Chevy -- Hmmm......reminds me of MacBeth, when he says he's in the middle of a lake of blood and whether he goes forward or retreats, it's going to be just as bad.

Talon -- another "easy" bearing job? Don't these guys study Engine Rebuilding 101? You can't put a new bearing on a crankshaft throw that has just eaten a bearing. Must be removed, and either polished expertly or turned. Which means entire engine disassembly. Which means "not easy".

andre1969

What about that '65 T-bird? Is that a decent price? I have to admit the '64-66 T-bird is a guilty pleasure of mine. I've heard they handle like crap, and even as powerful as the engines are, they aren't that fast. And I'm sure "marginal" is a generous adjective to use for the braking. But I still like 'em.

I think I actually like the '66, with its taller, more finely detailed grille the best. But unfortunately in '66, they started making a lot of them with a huge rear pillar that totally eliminated the roll-down window, creating a huge blind spot. I know a true hardtop was still available, but it seems like that style wasn't too popular that year.

stickguy

Well, if the Vette was otherwise clean, and you for some reason wanted a '79 Vette, and the price came way down, I suppose you could throw a crate motor in it and maybe turn it into a decent little performance car.

Oh, and 4K for a plain Jane '74 Duster? Original paint isn't worth that much (this thing isn't a Duesenberg). Now, if it was a 340 sport/4 speed car, I would be all over it!

Mr_Shiftright

65 Bird price seems decent if the car is really ready to roll and has no bad things lurking in there somewhere.

You're right, they do handle and brake with a total lack of competence. Shameful I guess is a fair word. Don't know as you can do much about that. Also, they suck gas so fast many first time owners think the gauge needs repair or that they should be bending down and looking for the gas faucet that someone left open.

On the plus side, they have lots of gadgets to play with and they cruise well in a straight line. A car for the mature and stately collector car owner.

Investment Grade of D (keeps pace with inflation), Fun Grade 2.5 out of 5. (not a wide smile, maybe a smirk)

fintail

For the money one could do a lot worse, if it isn't rotten

jlflemmons

I had forgotten the steering wheel hub on those Fords. Reminds me of the business end of a toilet plunger.

lemko

Yeah, truth is, most people drove mundane sedans and wagons, often with plain old blackwall tires and dog dish hubcaps. I think something like a 1961 Chevrolet Biscayne 2-door sedan with a six would attract my attention sooner than ANOTHER 1964 1/2 Mustang or 1957 Chevrolet two-door hardtop. A car show full of 1964.5 Mustangs, '57 Chevies, and 1955-56 T-Birds would be a pretty boring affair for me.

Heck, I love those big 1970s cars myself. Here's a weird scenario, but for the movie "Back to the Future," my version of present day Hill Valley would've been 1974-78 Chrysler New Yorkers, Dodge Royal Monacos, Plymouth Gran Furies, 1971-76 full-size B and C body Buicks, Oldsmobiles, Cadillacs, Pontiac Grand Villes and Bonnevilles, Chevrolet Impalas and Caprices, Mercury Marquises, Lincoln Continentals, and Ford LTDs cruising the streets as the song "Power of Love" blared in the background. That would've made a greater impact on me instead of seeing all those wussy subcompacts on the streets instead.

lemko

I'd say the 1977-era GM B and C body cars seem to have the perfect fit for me.

andre1969

I'd say the 1977-era GM B and C body cars seem to have the perfect fit for me.

Yeah, they're also very comfy cars. Actually, most reviewers of the time put GM's B- and C-bodies first in most respects, Ford's "Panthers" (Crown Vic/Grand Marquis) in second place, and Mopar's R-bodies a distant 3rd.

One thing I really like about the Mopars though, is that the front doors are large, and even with the seat all the way back, the B-pillar doesn't block my vision to the sides like it would in the Ford and GM cars. Also, the R-bodies seem to have less intrusion of stuff like the transmission, driveshaft hump, dashboard, rear wheel wells, etc. And since it's unitized, you don't have frame rails taking away floor space. The R-body seems to have a bit more legroom up front than the GM and Ford cars. However, the GM and Ford cars have a lot more headroom.

Another thing I like about the Mopars, and this is a minor nitpick, but the rear door windows roll down further than in the GM cars. About 3/4 of the way in the cheaper models, and all the way in the New Yorkers, although admittedly, the roll-down window in the NYer is considerably smaller. Oh, and as far as I know, every R-body came with full gauges, standard.

I think if Chrysler had the money to build these cars right, they would have been much more competent and probably stayed on the market longer. But by 1979, they were on the verge of bankruptcy, and were fast running out of resources. Although somehow, they managed to find a way to improve the quality of the 1980 R-bodies. Fit and finish was better, they were less prone to rusting, the aluminum bumpers with the peeling chrome were replaced with steel bumpers, etc.

fintail

As an avid BTTF fan who has over-analyzed the movies, I think the choice of cars for 1985 Hill Valley was to show both the automotive malaise still being seen at the time, and the inroads made by the Japanese (remember, in 1955 when Doc sees the little camcorder, he says it doesn't work because it was made in Japan, and Marty says Japan is where "all the best stuff" comes from). I remember a huge amount of Japanese cars on the streets, and not many of the typical domestics of the time - even for California.

Probably the most prominent domestic of the movie (in 1985) is Jennifer's dad's AMC Eagle wagon, or the wrecked Nova being towed into the McFly's driveway....or maybe the Jeep or Ford Ranger Marty hitches a ride on whie skateboarding. But these are all pretty much bit parts.

andre1969

I remember a huge amount of Japanese cars on the streets, and not many of the typical domestics of the time - even for California.

That's one thing I really noticed in the old NBC episodes of "Mama's Family", whenever they'd do outdoor scenes on location. I'm guessing they just went out on location in Burbank or somewhere near the Warner Bros lot. In fact, I've actually seen the Mama's Family house in a T-mobile commercial, the one where the guy goes out to get the mail and the neighbor shouts "DEAD MAN WALKING".

Still, for what was supposed to be a rural midwestern town, there were an awful lot of Japanese imports out on the streets!

bumpy

Who let the dogs out?

Seems like a nice enough example.

"but not the best on gas"

This could be fixed up and flipped on the other coast for 3x the asking price.

The fate of old FWD Cadillacs, that pmoc guy notwithstanding.

fintail

I am pretty sure the filming location for Mama's Family (I'll admit I watch it a few times a week) is around Bushnell Ave. in Pasadena - the same area used for the 1955 neighborhood (tree lined streets and prewar houses) in BTTF. I remember that episode when she learns to drive, with so many period imports on the road. Not typical for 1984 Missouri I am sure. Also, in the episode where she runs for mayor, they actually use an exterior shot of a different house in a scene. Bad continuity.

I haven't seen that commercial...I'll have to keep an eye out for it. I am kind of a geek for filming locations and locations used in multiple pieces.

fintail

That W124 would probably be asked for double that here at least...but where were they made until 2006? :confuse:

That Caddy...he's a couple of decimal points off.

bumpy

The old Ssangyong Chairman was basically a licensed W124 under the sheet metal.

fintail

Oh that thing, I forgot about Ssangyong with the weird names. And the Musso (good for Italian nationalists?) that had MB engines.

andre1969

Also, in the episode where she runs for mayor, they actually use an exterior shot of a different house in a scene. Bad continuity.

FWIW, that's the house they use in the T-mobile commercial. You can also see it in the epsiode where Mama buys the '73-74 Nova that self destructs. I remember it blew up near a corner that had a street sign, but I never paid attention to the name of the street. Guess I'll have to Tivo that episode when it comes on again and see if it's readable.

lemko

Mama or the previous owner must've been pretty rough on that 1973-74 Nova as I remember those cars as being pretty tough to kill. Shoot, there were still PLENTY of 1968-74 Novas on the streets back in 1984. Most of 'em probably have been wrecked or hot-rodded by now.

By the way, I imagine despite what a joke Al Bundy's Dodge, (in reality a Plymouth Gold Duster) was also a pretty decent car regardless of whether it was a Slant Six, 318 V-8 or a 340 V-8. Any info on the Bundymobile out there?

fintail

More than you ever wanted to know

fintail

I'd be interested to know that name, with the wonders of google earth it is easy to pinpoint the locations. If I ever find myself in that area, I want to check out these filming locations.

andre1969

I actually found an address... 1019 Montrose Ave, South Pasadena, CA, 91030. At least, that's what it says on the Internet Movie Database. However, the house that comes up appears to be a 1-story with a hip roof. Not the 2-story used in the old NBC episodes or the cape cod/bungalow used in the syndicated eps.

Supposedly, they shot part of "Halloween" on that street, too.

fintail

Interesting...yeah, I see nothing on google earth at that location that has the same roof pattern as the house in the credits for the show. The looks of that street could be where some exterior shots were done. I even looked on zillow, which has good birds eye views...that Montrose address is not even close to the 2-story house with the porch and large front dormer as seen in the credits.

That location looks to be no more than a mile from where the BTTF scenes were done, too.

Geez, we're obsessive :P