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

stever

Mr_Shiftright said:

The AMG name suffering severe dilution by that time.

Guess it was a good thing that Aufrecht didn't spell his name Oufrecht.

Otherwise there'd be a bunch of OMG Mercedes running around....

Mr_Shiftright

fintail said:

Some good parts I am sure, but that ship has also set sail. Just like that CLK, it might be worth 15K mint? Only if a labor of love.

You wouldn't even WANT to drive it with that 5-speed transmission.

hpmctorque

Mr_Shiftright said:

fintail said:

Some good parts I am sure, but that ship has also set sail. Just like that CLK, it might be worth 15K mint? Only if a labor of love.

You wouldn't even WANT to drive it with that 5-speed transmission.

No, why? Weren't all BMWs of that era better with manuals? After all, they were long on refinement, but torque output didn't compare with the honking big V8s in domestic luxury cars. My guess is that a far greater percentage of those big Beemers were sold with manual transmissions in Europe than with automatics.

fintail

I think car would be too big to be good. The pretense of sport becomes kind of funny once a car is of a certain size or mass. MB offered a 5-speed (Europe) in the W126 and even earlier W140 - a curiosity, but I doubt I would want to deal with it every day. The car is too big and heavy, and a manual just doesn't fit the character of the car.

hpmctorque

For '84 the 733i had a 4-speed automatic, which was better than the 3-speed they had previously. If I was looking for a 733i, which I think would be a neat car to own, it wouldn't matter whether it had the 4-speed automatic or 5-speed manual. I'd prefer the manual over the 3-speed, though, even though the 3-speed wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. I'd use the car as a weekend cruiser during road salt free days.

ab348

hpmctorque said:

A neighbor of mine bought a new 1985 LeBaron convertible just like the one below, yellow, but with the naturally aspirated 2.2. He drove it for a few years, always with the top down when weather permitted. He loved that car, and frequently had a smile on his face when he drove it. It goes to show how even a mundane K-car can be loved. Sadly, Gene passed before his LeBaron died, and his widow sold it.

Interesting story about this young guy and his turbo K convert! Do you remember these?

http://autoweek.com/article/car-life/dr-iacocca-or-how-i-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-lebaron

Sure do, though the kid in that story comes across as a doofus. It does have disc brakes and parts are not hard to find.

One of the scariest things I ever saw was a LeBaron convertible like that catch fire on a street here. I don't know how it got started but the burning of the interior and ragtop makes for quite the conflagration. The lady owner was standing on the sidewalk some distance away just watching it go up - nothing anyone short of the fire dept. could do about it.

uplanderguy

A LeBaron convert on fire reminds me of "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles"!

fintail

The 5-speed 733 would be a good weekend curiosity, and something to take to shows. I don't know how fun it might be to drive. I am amused BMW used a 3-speed so late, maybe some kind of latent automatic hate in the engineering department there. MB had a 4-speed by 1962 or so.

Mr_Shiftright

It's a very heavy, clunky transmission. It's like shifting a locomotive.

uplanderguy

Speaking of car fires, all my old cars had the cheap, green-knobbed battery cut-off switch. I didn't get them for battery-saving, but more for fear of old wiring and possible critters in my garage that is attached to our house. I felt it was cheap insurance and I have heard of old-car fires in garages (although no one I know). I'm pretty surprised how friends of mine think "meh" about having one on their old cars. One told me, and he's probably right--"new cars have higher-pressure fuel systems and fires are more prevalent there". Maybe, but most anytime I see a car on fire alongside the road, it's an old car. For ten bucks, I'd rather not worry about it.

What do folks here think?

texases

Good idea. It's the old fuel lines that deteriorate, crack, and then fire time!
My first car ('65 Mustang) burned to the ground when a relative (we passed that car on twice after I had it) was driving on the freeway - fuel line to the carb broke, sprayed the exhaust, fire came back through the rusted 'fire wall', he had to jump out while the car was still moving. Luckily no major injuries...

hpmctorque

fintail said:

The 5-speed 733 would be a good weekend curiosity, and something to take to shows. I don't know how fun it might be to drive. I am amused BMW used a 3-speed so late, maybe some kind of latent automatic hate in the engineering department there. MB had a 4-speed by 1962 or so.

I think dislike for automatics had something to do with BMW being later to the game with their 4-speed automatic than MB. However, I think comparing your 4-speed automatic with BMM's is a bit like comparing apples to oranges because, if I remember correctly, your 4-speed, like GM's 1940-1955 Hydramatic, doesn't employ a torque converter. I believe, but am not certain, that the 733's 4-speed has a torque converter. The absence of a torque converter has the effect that your transmission acts like an automatic on lockout in each of its four gears. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the more gears that type of transmission has, the less the chance for the engine to lug, unless it downshifts. With the Hydramatic, the downshift only occurred from 4th to 3rd, by flooring the accelerator. Although you could downshift in manually in any gear with the introduction of "dual-range" Hydramatic in 1952 (a big improvement), you couldn't downshift from, say, 3rd to 2nd by flooring the accelerator (well, okay, you could by employing a weird type of maneuver that fewer than 1% of drivers even knew or even cared about, so I won't get into that). Torque converters help smooth the shifts between gears and, more importantly in my estimation, give the gears more flexibility in matching engine revs more closely to the engine's ideal operating comfort level (for want of a better term). Whereas your engine revs in each gear are speed proportional with your transmission, the torque converter allows the engine to increase revs in each gear in greater than a speed proportional manner, thereby reducing the chances of lugging.

The only time I drove a Fintail automatic was many years ago, from Chicago to Madison, WI, for a dealer. I liked the car, but I don't recall whether the transmission lever permits manual downshifts from 3rd to 2nd, and from 2nd to 1st, like the dual-range Hydramatic did. I'm guessing it does, if the MD engineers used Hydramatic as a model. Maybe it even permits downshifts at partial throttle, which would be an improvement over all 1940-1955 Hydramatics. I'm not sure that MB used Hydramatic as a model for its earlier automatics, but I'm just guessing that they did, since GM was a leader in automatics until Chrysler introduced Torqueflyte in the '56 Imperial, and in the rest of the Chrysler brands in '57.

So, BMW's 3 speed wasn't an old design for its day. It's just that the 4-speed was better. In fact,

fintail

Yes, that's right, no torque converter. I wasn't comparing the units directly really, but thinking that MB started working on more advanced automatics earlier. I'd be certain the 1962 MB automatic was ahead of the 1962 BMW equivalent (as it should have been, BMW wasn't quite as prestigious yet, and in Europe, automatic = luxury). I also suspect that in 1979, the MB unit was more advanced, as it fit the character of more of the cars, if not the majority of MBs built even then. I think these revvy 6cyl engines really need that 4th or even 5th gear for better highway driving, as they seem high strung over 60 mph or so.

The fintail unit can be manually downshifted in all gears, but downshift from 2nd to 1st is with the button under the throttle rather than with the shift lever - 1st isn't manually selectable at all with the lever (1st isn't on the indicator), and it starts out in 2nd unless one uses the floor button method or starts out in with 2nd selected via the lever.

It will also automatically downshift from 4th to 3rd to 2nd etc, but doesn't often do so, it likes to loaf along in a higher gear than many drivers might want for city-suburban driving. I do a bit of manual shifting in the car.

A funny maybe Germanic feature is on the indicator of first gen cars like mine, neutral is "0" gear.

hpmctorque said:

I think dislike for automatics had something to do with BMW being later to the game with their 4-speed automatic than MB. However, I think comparing your 4-speed automatic with BMM's is a bit like comparing apples to oranges because, if I remember correctly, your 4-speed, like GM's 1940-1955 Hydramatic, doesn't employ a torque converter. I believe, but am not certain, that the 733's 4-speed has a torque converter. The absence of a torque converter has the effect that your transmission acts like an automatic on lockout in each of its four gears. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the more gears that type of transmission has, the less the chance for the engine to lug, unless it downshifts. With the Hydramatic, the downshift only occurred from 4th to 3rd, by flooring the accelerator. Although you could downshift in manually in any gear with the introduction of "dual-range" Hydramatic in 1952 (a big improvement), you couldn't downshift from, say, 3rd to 2nd by flooring the accelerator (well, okay, you could by employing a weird type of maneuver that fewer than 1% of drivers even knew or even cared about, so I won't get into that). Torque converters help smooth the shifts between gears and, more importantly in my estimation, give the gears more flexibility in matching engine revs more closely to the engine's ideal operating comfort level (for want of a better term). Whereas your engine revs in each gear are speed proportional with your transmission, the torque converter allows the engine to increase revs in each gear in greater than a speed proportional manner, thereby reducing the chances of lugging.

The only time I drove a Fintail automatic was many years ago, from Chicago to Madison, WI, for a dealer. I liked the car, but I don't recall whether the transmission lever permits manual downshifts from 3rd to 2nd, and from 2nd to 1st, like the dual-range Hydramatic did. I'm guessing it does, if the MD engineers used Hydramatic as a model. Maybe it even permits downshifts at partial throttle, which would be an improvement over all 1940-1955 Hydramatics. I'm not sure that MB used Hydramatic as a model for its earlier automatics, but I'm just guessing that they did, since GM was a leader in automatics until Chrysler introduced Torqueflyte in the '56 Imperial, and in the rest of the Chrysler brands in '57.

So, BMW's 3 speed wasn't an old design for its day. It's just that the 4-speed was better. In fact,

andre1969

I knew two people who had LeBaron convertibles. The first was a friend back in college. He had an '85 LeBaron with the 2.2, and then an '86 with the 2.5. They were both okay cars, nothing spectacular, but he enjoyed them while he had them. The second was a guy I knew from a local DeSoto club. On the DeSoto front, he first had a 1950 Custom sedan, and then a 1955 Fireflite Coronado sedan. Soon after I bought my '67 Catalina convertible, it gave him the convertible itch, but he tried to satisfy that itch with, of all things, an '83 or '84 LeBaron convertible, with the 2.6. He didn't have it for long, and soon replaced it with one of those Aussie Mercury Capri convertibles. But, he didn't really like that, either. So, he replaced it with a 1972 Corvette...not a convertible, but it did have a removeable roof section, so I guess it was like 2/3 of the convertible experience.

Now that I think about it, my '67 Catalina gave someone else the convertible itch. One of my co-workers, who had a Dodge Ram pickup, went out and traded it on a Sebring convertible the weekend after going for a ride in my Catalina. That Sebring ended up being a turd, as I recall, but I can't remember the specifics.

berri

I wish they still made big car convertibles. I liked the room. The Mustang I rented in Hawaii was nice enough, but low and would have preferred more seating and trunk room.

andre1969

Yeah, I'd love a modern big-car convertible, too. I wonder what the last somewhat-big convertible was? When convertibles made a comeback in the early 80's, GM offered a convertible version of the Riviera and Eldorado, which I believe was contracted out to ASC or some place like that? I don't think there was officially a Toronado version, but I know I've seen them.

fintail

There's a big car convertible on the market now, but it's not the most affordable (although far cheaper than the Anglo brands):

texases

Not that big, though - while called an "E", it's not much bigger than the "C" coupe, I think. Just checked, just about identical to the C coupe.

berri

I like the older one. I just has class.

I'm thinking the last factory built big car convertible from D3 was maybe 1975 and GM. I think Ford makes the latest Mustang convertible in one of their factories (maybe flat a rock in Michigan), but that is a smaller car.

ab348

texases said:

Not that big, though - while called an "E", it's not much bigger than the "C" coupe, I think. Just checked, just about identical to the C coupe.

Actually they are also coming out with a S class cabrio, but it isn't an actual S-class car as it is on the shorter wheelbase of the coupe. Look at the zero legroom in the rear seat in one of the pics here:

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2017-mercedes-benz-s550-mercedes-amg-s63-cabriolet-photos-and-info-news

sda

andre1969 said:

I knew two people who had LeBaron convertibles. The first was a friend back in college. He had an '85 LeBaron with the 2.2, and then an '86 with the 2.5. They were both okay cars, nothing spectacular, but he enjoyed them while he had them. The second was a guy I knew from a local DeSoto club. On the DeSoto front, he first had a 1950 Custom sedan, and then a 1955 Fireflite Coronado sedan. Soon after I bought my '67 Catalina convertible, it gave him the convertible itch, but he tried to satisfy that itch with, of all things, an '83 or '84 LeBaron convertible, with the 2.6. He didn't have it for long, and soon replaced it with one of those Aussie Mercury Capri convertibles. But, he didn't really like that, either. So, he replaced it with a 1972 Corvette...not a convertible, but it did have a removeable roof section, so I guess it was like 2/3 of the convertible experience.

Now that I think about it, my '67 Catalina gave someone else the convertible itch. One of my co-workers, who had a Dodge Ram pickup, went out and traded it on a Sebring convertible the weekend after going for a ride in my Catalina. That Sebring ended up being a turd, as I recall, but I can't remember the specifics.

I had a fairly rare 92 GTC LeBaron convert. I think it had the lower output 2.5 turbo. It did have the premium perforated leather interior, CD player, pretty much all equipment except the trip computer. What made it different was that it had a 5 speed manual and low profile tires (Eagle GTs). It had 19000 mile on it when I bought it as a weekend car. Didn't keep it long, and regret (20/20 hindsight) for not owning it longer. I need to scan some pictures and will post when I get a chance. It was a looker--black/black and the dark charcoal gray interior.

fintail

The pic I posted is the S cabrio (which is already in production and even in the Sixt fleet in Germany). Not identical to the sedan, but it's still not exactly small.

andre1969

sda said:

I had a fairly rare 92 GTC LeBaron convert. I think it had the lower output 2.5 turbo. It did have the premium perforated leather interior, CD player, pretty much all equipment except the trip computer. What made it different was that it had a 5 speed manual and low profile tires (Eagle GTs). It had 19000 mile on it when I bought it as a weekend car. Didn't keep it long, and regret (20/20 hindsight) for not owning it longer. I need to scan some pictures and will post when I get a chance. It was a looker--black/black and the dark charcoal gray interior.

I thought those '87+ LeBaron coupes and convertibles were good looking cars, especially the models with the hidden headlights. Every once in awhile I'll see one pop up for sale, and think about it for a moment. When I was married, we had an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe that I bought from my uncle, which he himself had bought used in 1990. It was a really nice car, but really started going to crap after around 90,000 miles. To be fair, that was also when we divorced, and I let her have that car, and she didn't take care of it. It had also been stolen (and recovered) a few times, both while married and after the divorce. And I doubt the joy riders were very considerate of it. Ours was kind of a champagne/driftwood color, similar to my Park Avenue, with a light brown leather interior.

sda

Scanning this time went quickly. Here are some photos of my 92 LeBaron GTC which I owned in 95.

sda

Two more--

1976 Cutlass Supreme wagon. Dark forest green with tan interior. 3rd rear facing seat. 350 4bbl. This was dad's first new car. We moved back to the US from France and dad didn't have time to find a nice used car. I drove this car to my senior prom!

1995 Olds Cutlass Ciera SL. Dad's last new car purchase and last car that he's driven. Sadly, he is legally blind, though can still see somewhat. He gave this to me in 06 and I drove it for about two years. It was a good reliable, comfortable A-B transportation, nothing more.

ab348

@sda I like all 3 of those vehicles! The Ciera was a very underrated daily driver sort of car by then. I remember looking for a nice wagon version of one of them. Your dad was an Oldsmobile man I presume?

stickguy

I always thought that version Lebaron was one of the best designs ever. Not just for the time. the only thing I don't like is the steering wheel!

hpmctorque

fintail said:

Yes, that's right, no torque converter. I wasn't comparing the units directly really, but thinking that MB started working on more advanced automatics earlier. I'd be certain the 1962 MB automatic was ahead of the 1962 BMW equivalent (as it should have been, BMW wasn't quite as prestigious yet, and in Europe, automatic = luxury). I also suspect that in 1979, the MB unit was more advanced, as it fit the character of more of the cars, if not the majority of MBs built even then. I think these revvy 6cyl engines really need that 4th or even 5th gear for better highway driving, as they seem high strung over 60 mph or so.

The fintail unit can be manually downshifted in all gears, but downshift from 2nd to 1st is with the button under the throttle rather than with the shift lever - 1st isn't manually selectable at all with the lever (1st isn't on the indicator), and it starts out in 2nd unless one uses the floor button method or starts out in with 2nd selected via the lever.

It will also automatically downshift from 4th to 3rd to 2nd etc, but doesn't often do so, it likes to loaf along in a higher gear than many drivers might want for city-suburban driving. I do a bit of manual shifting in the car.

A funny maybe Germanic feature is on the indicator of first gen cars like mine, neutral is "0" gear.

hpmctorque said:

I think dislike for automatics had something to do with BMW being later to the game with their 4-speed automatic than MB. However, I think comparing your 4-speed automatic with BMM's is a bit like comparing apples to oranges because, if I remember correctly, your 4-speed, like GM's 1940-1955 Hydramatic, doesn't employ a torque converter. I believe, but am not certain, that the 733's 4-speed has a torque converter. The absence of a torque converter has the effect that your transmission acts like an automatic on lockout in each of its four gears. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the more gears that type of transmission has, the less the chance for the engine to lug, unless it downshifts. With the Hydramatic, the downshift only occurred from 4th to 3rd, by flooring the accelerator. Although you could downshift in manually in any gear with the introduction of "dual-range" Hydramatic in 1952 (a big improvement), you couldn't downshift from, say, 3rd to 2nd by flooring the accelerator (well, okay, you could by employing a weird type of maneuver that fewer than 1% of drivers even knew or even cared about, so I won't get into that). Torque converters help smooth the shifts between gears and, more importantly in my estimation, give the gears more flexibility in matching engine revs more closely to the engine's ideal operating comfort level (for want of a better term). Whereas your engine revs in each gear are speed proportional with your transmission, the torque converter allows the engine to increase revs in each gear in greater than a speed proportional manner, thereby reducing the chances of lugging.

The only time I drove a Fintail automatic was many years ago, from Chicago to Madison, WI, for a dealer. I liked the car, but I don't recall whether the transmission lever permits manual downshifts from 3rd to 2nd, and from 2nd to 1st, like the dual-range Hydramatic did. I'm guessing it does, if the MD engineers used Hydramatic as a model. Maybe it even permits downshifts at partial throttle, which would be an improvement over all 1940-1955 Hydramatics. I'm not sure that MB used Hydramatic as a model for its earlier automatics, but I'm just guessing that they did, since GM was a leader in automatics until Chrysler introduced Torqueflyte in the '56 Imperial, and in the rest of the Chrysler brands in '57.

So, BMW's 3 speed wasn't an old design for its day. It's just that the 4-speed was better. In fact,

The Hydramatic also downshifted through the gears as the car slowed down.

As I think about it, BMW was ahead of the D3 with its introduction of a torque converter 4-speed automatic in '74. If memory serves me right Ford introduced its first 4-speed in '78 or '79, but in a very limited number of models, such as the T-Bird. Before fuel economy became a serious concern Detroit's answer for performance was generally to increase engine displacement, while the European brands compensated for their smaller displacement, lower torque engines by adding gear ratios, to enhance performance and fuel economy.

The Japanese led the way with 4-speed automatics in mass market cars (Civic/Accord, Corolla/Camry, etc.) before the D3 and VW.

tjc78

That LeBaron was really nice.  I've always been a fan too.   Those wheels looked good on a number of Chrysler vehicles of the era.  I don't know what they are called but I always think of "Spirograph ". 

fintail

Those angular LeBarons not only remind me of "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles", but the one in that article is very similar to the one seen in the now kind of kitschy "St Elmos Fire"



The Planes, Trains... one is more amusing (as is the movie itself):

fintail

Similar wheels lived well into the mid-late 90s. My dad's T&C was virtually identical to this, with the "gold washed" spirograph wheels:

tjc78 said:

That LeBaron was really nice.  I've always been a fan too.   Those wheels looked good on a number of Chrysler vehicles of the era.  I don't know what they are called but I always think of "Spirograph ". 

fintail

The fintail does that too, some of the automatic downshifts can be kind of harsh. It kind of alarms people, but that seems to be how it was made. I wonder how durable the early torque converter units were - I know the units in 60s era MBs seem to be pretty rugged.

hpmctorque said:

The Hydramatic also downshifted through the gears as the car slowed down.

As I think about it, BMW was ahead of the D3 with its introduction of a torque converter 4-speed automatic in '74. If memory serves me right Ford introduced its first 4-speed in '78 or '79, but in a very limited number of models, such as the T-Bird. Before fuel economy became a serious concern Detroit's answer for performance was generally to increase engine displacement, while the European brands compensated for their smaller displacement, lower torque engines by adding gear ratios, to enhance performance and fuel economy.

The Japanese led the way with 4-speed automatics in mass market cars (Civic/Accord, Corolla/Camry, etc.) before the D3 and VW.

uplanderguy

"Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" is one of my favorite movies--probably because for most of the '80's I travelled with work every other week. Walking down the row of rental cars and finding an empty space where your car was supposed to be--that had happened to me. That, and John Candy could be hilarious and also show pathos.

Even though I became an adult in the '70's, I admit to enjoying the John Hughes movies of the '80's, although I haven't seen one in a long time.

uplanderguy

That white T&C above I always thought was the best-looking Mopar minivan of all the iterations over the years.

stickguy

I had a 1st year of that style voyager rallye (a 1996 I think). SWB in dark iris (plum). With the alloys, it really was a sharp looking wagon. Darn right sporty. And IMO much better proportions than the LWB version.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

That white T&C above I always thought was the best-looking Mopar minivan of all the iterations over the years.

Yes, and along with the later-model LeBaron convertible pictured and some of the other Chrysler products of the mid to late 1990s, their design team really was on a roll, even though some of the engineering and quality issues remained. Still, it is interesting to think what they could have done had not Eaton engineered the takeover by Daimler which IMO wrecked the company and led us to their sad state of today.

Mr_Shiftright

My laptop alarm just went off...did somebody combine the terms "minivan" and "sporty"?

stickguy

Sporty looking. Yes, it was.

https://www.google.com/search?q=plymouth+voyager+rallye+1997&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=isvn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=rsV9UA3MvM1jlM%3A%2CKuuS-utVO1xpGM%2C_%3BYPIgXlpEUURKrM%3A%2CgJEsQ4ndXlJ6XM%2C_%3BhAl8wNkJko-yTM%3A%2CSaxVA9xgBN7FEM%2C_%3BDGIJ5zIA-9HNVM%3A%2CLaNYsN1nDpWn4M%2C_%3Bricaa7qclPqbKM%3A%2CezM_ohcoNaFnGM%2C_%3BjxYH-SmnsfMRuM%3A%2CZBAoroiCYV2kYM%2C_%3B0WpajfZ-TEIw2M%3A%2Cmvbh0v6OALiEEM%2C_%3BgcjzMHtDvh-2pM%3A%2CFX6tlkH8vOhE_M%2C_%3BXO3sjSg3t5kuzM%3A%2CuOFFwGmQR8vSeM%2C_%3BfkBU1bskqt06bM%3A%2CgJEsQ4ndXlJ6XM%2C_&usg=__5RZG6Lo-5aJvxiy5li738AJqYlk=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjchdyZ8ejMAhUJox4KHd-MA8UQsAQIMw&biw=1024&bih=729#imgrc=ricaa7qclPqbKM:

Mr_Shiftright

Actually I like it better with the tint and the flashier wheels---it helps.

stever

They get sportier looking when you throw bikes and kayaks on the roof.

tjc78

"That white T&C above I always thought was the best-looking Mopar minivan of all the iterations over the years. "

We had one of those at work in the early 2000s. Plum over grey leather. That van went to you know where and back. It never left any of us stranded, but by the early 100s it was clearly used up. I had it so loaded once I thought it was going to blow up maintaining 75 on the New Jersey TP.

tjc78

What about this guy? Caravan ES...

uplanderguy

I know that style revolutionized the market, but it never did much for me.

I'll admit, in hindsight, that I like the very-last versions of the Chevy Lumina APV. I'm sure, like anything else, driving it for a week would get you used to that large dash-top. Hell, I think the current Escape has a large dash-top.

Unlike a lot of other old stuff around where I live, those old dustbusters still look in good shape--the bad paint era seems to have escaped them.

The dent-resistant panels, first power sliding door, and modular seating were somewhat revolutionary.

In the later years, the snout was softened a bit, and they could be had with the Beretta GTZ aluminum wheels, which looked nice I think.

http://auto.inkiev.net/photos_medium/chevrolet/lumina apv/thumb_1994_chevrolet_lumina_apv_1.jpg

The high-mounted rear lights were unusual for the time. As was so typical of the motoring press at the time, I remember a magazine writer goofing on those lights, who had at another time praised the Volvo wagon's similar set-up.

berri

I've owned minivans, larger SUV's and compact SUV's. I'm now thinking about going back to a minivan next time. They are generally roomier, ride nicer and cost less. Too old to care what the neighbors may think.

texases

When that white T&C came out I thought it was the best lookin minivan. Nothing's changed my mind since. 

hpmctorque

fintail said:

The fintail does that too, some of the automatic downshifts can be kind of harsh. It kind of alarms people, but that seems to be how it was made. I wonder how durable the early torque converter units were - I know the units in 60s era MBs seem to be pretty rugged.

hpmctorque said:

The Hydramatic also downshifted through the gears as the car slowed down.

As I think about it, BMW was ahead of the D3 with its introduction of a torque converter 4-speed automatic in '74. If memory serves me right Ford introduced its first 4-speed in '78 or '79, but in a very limited number of models, such as the T-Bird. Before fuel economy became a serious concern Detroit's answer for performance was generally to increase engine displacement, while the European brands compensated for their smaller displacement, lower torque engines by adding gear ratios, to enhance performance and fuel economy.

The Japanese led the way with 4-speed automatics in mass market cars (Civic/Accord, Corolla/Camry, etc.) before the D3 and VW.

The early Powerglides were very durable, and I'm guessing that the Dynaflows were too, but I don't have first hand evidence to back up the latter. Ford used Borg Warner units for the early Fordomatic and Mercomatic, and were okay on durability, so long as they weren't abused. Chrysler 2-Speed PowerFlytes were durable.

The Hydramatics without torque converters was very rugged and durable. Don't know much about the 4-speed units introduced in '56, with torque converters, but I think they were durable.

Unlike most people I'm okay with feeling the shifts, so I like dual-clutch transmissions for their efficiency, in terms of minimal power loss.

sda

ab348 said:

@sda I like all 3 of those vehicles! The Ciera was a very underrated daily driver sort of car by then. I remember looking for a nice wagon version of one of them. Your dad was an Oldsmobile man I presume?

Dad was pretty much a GM man, and typically there was an Olds and later Cadillac in the drive way. After two bad experiences with Cadillac, he went back to Olds, with their last being a 98 Aurora. I have been having fun digging thru pictures lately. Came across this one dated June 70, I was 11. Here I am helping, or more likely supervising dad waxing their 69 Olds 98 Luxury Sedan. This picture was taken in the
Algiers section of New Orleans where we lived from 1968-74.

berri

I always thought the original Olds Aurora was a neat looking car. Back in the 50's and 60's I think Olds was kind of the GM division for technology and the vehicles were often used to introduce it and also to prove it out before it went into a Cadillac.

fintail

One thing I notice about that 96-98-ish style T&C, along with the early cab forward cars, is how small the headlights are compared to new cars. That van design did age well, hard to believe that's a 20 year old vehicle.

fintail

It's become something of a classic, and is the go-to "Thanksgiving movie" for many people now.

It's also now old enough to feature now-unusual cars. The rental lot scene is quite interesting - I forget where it was filmed, but it appears to have been at an actual rental holding lot, using actual rental cars as would have been in the fleets probably in early 1987. It's cool to see what was around then. Lots of GM and Fords, but there are a few Toyotas in the mix.


"You're going the wrong way!"

uplanderguy said:

"Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" is one of my favorite movies--probably because for most of the '80's I travelled with work every other week. Walking down the row of rental cars and finding an empty space where your car was supposed to be--that had happened to me. That, and John Candy could be hilarious and also show pathos.

Even though I became an adult in the '70's, I admit to enjoying the John Hughes movies of the '80's, although I haven't seen one in a long time.