Mystery car pix

kyfdx

Scirocco came out in '77 (US)... .

That's what I should have bought..... instead of the '77 Ford Cobra II :surprise:

I couldn't swing the extra $800...

andre1969

Eight hundred bucks may not sound like a lot of money, but I'm sure back in those days it felt like it. Adjusted for inflation, that'd be like $3K today.

ateixeira

I remember I was a kid during the 2nd OPEC crisis, and ads for smaller Toyotas (Tercel) advertised prices in the $3xxx range.

Today a Yaris runs $11 grand and up, so your numbers sound about right.

kyfdx

Yeah... I paid $4450 for the Cobra II, so $800 was a big jump..

Plus... I was making $2.30/hr at the time.. :surprise:

andre1969

Wanna hear something really disgusting? The 5th Ave package on my '79 New Yorker ran something like $1535, which adjusted for inflation is about $4800.

For that price, you got thicker padding with the landau top, a "special" leather interior that wasn't as pimpy as what was offered on the cheaper models, so a lot of customers complained, driftplood appliques on the inside, instead of burled walnut, cursive writing on the rear quarter windows that read "5th Avenue Edition" and lights built into the lower part of the window that would illuminate it at night (one of mine burnt out, and I'm not about to go tearing into the door to replace it), and wire hubcaps.

It's wild to think that people were willing to spend the equivalent of $4800 for all that fluff, but I guess stranger things have happened. For instance, I think a base 1978 Mark V started around $12K, but a fully-loaded Diamond Jubilee edition was more like $20K.

That would be the equivalent of about $68K today! For all the complaining about high prices and such, I think modern cars are actually a bargain, considering all the standard equipment and safety stuff that's packed into them these days.

**edit: almost forgot...the 5th Ave package also gave you standard two-tone beige/creme paint, which again, a lot of people complained about only being able to get that one color. So for 1981, they let you get other colors, and they made the pimpier leather standard. Oh, you also got the fake vents on the front fender, behind the wheel opening.

guss

A co-workers wife just bought a VW Tiquan , I keep wanting to say Toureg . The name is a combination of tiger and iguana. I wish they had stuck with Fox, Rabbit and Bug.

ateixeira

That's crazy, man.

I'm sure that 20 years from now people will laugh that we were paying $2000 for a basic Navigation package.

Voice from the future:

"Adjusted for inflation, my flying car option costs less today."

andys120

bhill2

I know that you were joking, but being age-enhanced I cannot resist an observation. Flying cars have been 10 to 20 years in the future for at least 50 years now. Probably a good thing. Given how some people drive, having them do it in 3 dimensions could get ugly. :P

andys120

karsick

Alfa SZ. (late 80's :confuse: )

Hard to believe this is from the same company that had produced 2 of the world's best-looking coupe designs in the 60's & 70's.

andys120

Hard to believe this is from the same company that had produced 2 of the world's best-looking coupe designs in the 60's & 70's.

Agreed but OTOH they have done even worse>

andys120

steelydanfan

Cool. The front end looks like a cross between the late , great Studebaker Avanti and a Hyundai Tiburon.... :confuse:

steelydanfan

Ok, this is a Ford Thunderbird Coupe with the optional 2.3 L turbo 4 , intercooled I believe. I'm guessing here, but 1981 sounds in the ballpark. Wikipedians, pleas correct me.

texases

I think you're right except it's an '87-'88, I think. Earlier ones still had the grille.

andre1969

Yeah, it's an '87-88 T-bird with the turbo. The '83-86 models had a small grille and quad headlights. FWIW, the regular V-6 and V-8 models of the '87-88 had a regular grille too, but did have composite headlights.

The '80-82 T-bird was a boxy, baroque looking thing that came treacherously close to destroying the equity of the B-bird name.

lemko

Shoot! I should know. My Dad bought a new 1981 Thunderbird Town Landau. It had an anemic 252 cid V-8 you had to floor to get it up a hill. Another stupid feature was the horn button mounted on the turn signal stalk. I remember the ads "You picked the best year to spread your wings!" Shoot, it was probably the best year to get your wings clipped!

hudsonthedog

Ok, this is a Ford Thunderbird Coupe with the optional 2.3 L turbo 4...
Actually, because it's a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe (1987-88), it came STANDARD with the 2.3L.

steelydanfan

You are right, what I meant was the Thunderbird Coupe with the optional 2.3L turbo, but there were a host of goodies that came with the motor , so it was a separate vehicle entirely.

I always cringed when I saw that Ford "bordello red " interior that was dangerously close to hot pink once the interior faded over the years.

ateixeira

Shoot, I knew that one, where was I?

Dad had an 86 Mercury Cougar, basically the less sporty, upright rear-window sister car to the T-bird.

That was one of those cars that talked.

"The Door is Ajar"

stevedebi

"My Dad bought a new 1981 Thunderbird Town Landau. It had an anemic 252 cid V-8 you had to floor to get it up a hill."

I'm not familiar with that engine size on a Ford V-8. Did you mean 302 cid?

stevedebi

"That was one of those cars that talked.

"The Door is Ajar""

Strange, when everyone knows the door is a ... door. :P

andys120

imidazol97

I had one of the late 80s, early 90s Chryslers that had lots of talking messages as a loaner in the 90s. My Buick didn't have verbal messges and this upscale Chrysler vocalized everything. "Your washer fluid is low, and lots of others on the way home from the dealer and while doing a few errands, etc.

When I started it the next morning to drive it to work inside the garage, it said the weather forcast was overcast with showers. I wondered how the _heck_ the car had figured out the weather when it was inside the garage. But then I realized the radio had come on just at that point in the weather forcast when I started the car. I was giving the car too much credit.

ateixeira

Reminds me of the newer Consuliers, but that looks too handsome.

andre1969

I'm not familiar with that engine size on a Ford V-8. Did you mean 302 cid?

Upon looking it up, I'm now seeing that it was a 255 cid. There was a big Buick 252 CID V-6 offered from 1980-84, so that might be why Lemko had 252 on the brain. Anyway, I think the 255 was only offered in 1980-82. It was a reduced displacement version of the 302, and put out 112 hp, IIRC. In a car like the 1981 T-bird, the city rating was 18, mated to either a 3- or 4-speed automatic. In contrast, the 302, which only came with a 4-speed, had an EPA city rating of 16.

I think it was the standard engine in the T-bird/Cougar XR7, with a 200 straight six being a credit option. It was the only V-8 offered in the Fairmont/Zephyr and Granada/Cougar. It was also standard in the full-sized LTD/Marquis, with the 302 being optional, and even a 351 still being offered, but I think that was police-only.

Ford probably came out with the 255 in response to GM's various tiny-displacement V-8's. Oldsmobile had been offering a 260 CID V-8 since 1975 or 1976. Chevy came out with a 267 CID V-8 in 1978 or 1979 that they started using in Malibus and Monte Carlos, but in 1980 found its way into the Caprice and Impala. And Pontiac started using a 265 CID V-8 around 1980, as well.

Oddly though, in GM's case, the smaller V-8's really didn't post better EPA numbers, at least not on the city cycle numbers I found published. For example, an Olds 260 and 307 both scored 17 in a Delta 88. A Chevy 267 and 305 both scored 17 in a Caprice. And a Pontiac 265 and 301 both got 16 in a Catalina. Maybe one difference could be that the smaller engines all had 2-bbls, while the bigger engines were 4-bbl? Often a 4-bbl carb will return better fuel economy than a 2-bbl if you keep your foot out of it, so that could have offset the increased displacement. With Ford, the 255 and 302 were both 2-bbls. At least, this is how it was in 1981, which is the year I pulled those numbers from.

fintail

A weird acquaintance of my father had a ca. 1981 Cougar, and I swear it was that credit option 6. This was back around 1989 or so. Even then, it was a complete piece of crap....8 year old car ready for the junkyard. It hadn't really been abused, it simply fell apart. Cars do hold up better these days, if anything.

lemko

I meant 255, I must've been thinking of that other engine. Dad previously had a 1978 Ford Granada with an inline 250 cid 6-cylinder. That car seemed to have more power.

imidazol97

I second the observation that mileage wasn't dramatically greater with the smaller V8s. I had a 1977 Olds 350 QuadraJet and a 260 with the DuoJet (the front half of a quad). The 1980 Cutlass was relatively heavy because it was body on frame in an era where Chrysler had unibody. The 3-speed auto seemed to be mated with a rear end that was a little high for good mileage at interstate speeds on trips.

I believe some cars of that era had 4-speed auto transmissions? I can't recall if that was an option or not.

andre1969

Do you remember if it was the Cougar XR-7, which was a T-bird clone, or if it was just a regular Cougar, which was a Granada clone? I think the Granada/Cougar actually offered a 2.3 4-cyl! At least, the Fairmont/Zephyr did, and so did the later '83-86 small LTD/Marquis, so I'm guessing the '81-82 Cougar/Granada did as well.

I never cared for the '80-82 T-bird, but for some reason I like the XR-7. And I kinda like the '81-82 Granada/Cougar, in their own formal, baroque sort of way.

andre1969

The 1980 Cutlass was relatively heavy because it was body on frame in an era where Chrysler had unibody. The 3-speed auto seemed to be mated with a rear end that was a little high for good mileage at interstate speeds on trips.

Chryslers were unit-bodied, but they were still heavy, bulky cars compared to their direct GM rivals. For instance, the most direct comparison to a Cutlass Supreme coupe would have been a Dodge Mirada or Chrysler Cordoba...a car that was about 210" long on a 112.7" wheelbase, compared to around 200" and 108.1" for the Cutlass. They were also a couple hundred pounds heavier, but not really any roomier inside. The trunks were especially shallow and oddly shaped, and the back seats were tight for legroom, but better than the older Cordoba/Magnum XE. I thought they had a pretty good seating position up front, though.

I believe some cars of that era had 4-speed auto transmissions? I can't recall if that was an option or not.

Ford started using 4-speed overdrive transmissions on its big cars in 1980, and for 1981, the T-bird/Cougar XR-7 were using them as well. I think the 4-speed was standard with the 302 starting in 1981, and optional on the 255. However, I don't think the straight six ever got it, although the 232 V-6 would get it eventually. I had a friend with an '86 T-bird V-6, and it had a 4-speed auto.

GM came out with their 4-speed overdrive in 1981, initially only on the full-sized V-8 cars. It eventually expanded to V-6 and Diesel car though, and in also to the RWD intermediates.

Chrysler never did come out with a 4-speed overdrive for their RWD cars, although eventually they did for trucks. And their first 4-speed overdrive for FWD, which came out around 1989, was horrible. Although to be fair, I think everyone had trouble with 4-speed overdrives initially. It's just that everyone else worked the kinks out quicker than Chrysler. :sick:

texases

I had forgotten all the variations Ford did with the Cougar. Talk about diluting the name!

andre1969

I meant 255, I must've been thinking of that other engine. Dad previously had a 1978 Ford Granada with an inline 250 cid 6-cylinder. That car seemed to have more power.

I think the Granada actually had less hp, something like 95-98, compared to 112 for the 255 V-8. But it might have had more torque, or at least more torque at lower rpms, so that might have made it move off the line more quickly. The Granada might have been lighter, too. They were heavy, bulky, ill-handling cars, but weren't terribly heavy for their size...about 3000-3200 pounds. The Fairmont/Zephyr were lighter cars, starting in as low as 2500 pounds, but by the time they pumped that platform up to make the T-bird/Cougar XR-7, I'm sure it was over 3200 lb, especially with the V-8. The rudimentary computer controls of 1981 probably put a damper on performance, as well...where even if the thing was advertised as 112 hp, Ford (and everyone else) was having trouble getting use out of that hp!

bumpy

Oversized chrome rims in 1980? Who knew?

andre1969

I think that's just the way the resolution of that picture sort of blurs the whitewall together with the hubcap. That car was probably riding on 185/75/R14 rubber, at best.

fintail

It was an XR-7, the kind of angular coupe. I remember seeing it and thinking by the badging it must have been some kind of sport model...it was anything but. IIRC the guy bought it new, drove it about 10 years until it had some kind of mechanical catastrophe, then parked it beside his house for a rainy day...until the city made him haul it off sometime in the late 90s.

I bet those people who bought T-Birds/Cougars in 1982 were pretty upset when they saw the much improved 1983 models.

lemko

Good God! I had forgotten about many of those FoMoCo monstrosities until you guys brought them up! These are the kinds of cars I fear returning with the psychopathic run-up in fuel prices! Cougar sedans with 2.3 fours! YUCK! I had to suffer through my early driving experiences with these kinds of cars until I finally got my 1968 Buick Special Deluxe which at least put out a respectable 230 hp and could move the car with some authority.

As for the 1980-82 Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar XR7, that baroque '70s styling just doesn't work on such a small platform.

lemko

I know my Dad was! He tried not to show it, but I could tell he was disappointed with his choice.

hudsonthedog

That's a deTomaso Guara.

andre1969

the old tv commercials for the 1980 Thunderbird, showing an optional digital dash. At the time I thought that was just the coolest thing. In retrospect though, I'm glad my Mom didn't spring for one of those. At the time, she really wanted another LeMans to replace her '75 LeMans coupe. She was also interested in the Volare, and even the Monza was on her list!

Even though I prefer bigger cars, at the time I was kinda hoping she'd go for the Monza. I had an electric racecar set, and one of the cars was a blue Monza. Nevermind the fact that a Monza off the showroom floor would be nothing like the racecar...I was 9 and I didn't care!

She ended up getting a 1980 Malibu coupe. I think it was about $100-150 less than the LeMans, which back then was enough to make a difference!

andys120

That's a deTomaso Guara.

Yep.

andys120

imidazol97

Back in that era the price difference between various GM models on the same platform calculated down to the content. I had gone through and compared various cars of the Cutlass size group in Chev and Pontiac and Buick. There was almost always a $150 difference in options that we included or not included.

ateixeira

I know it's an Alfa Romeo, but don't ask me which model.

I'll guess early 70s.

andys120

I know it's an Alfa Romeo, but don't ask me which model.

Ya think? :shades:

...early 70's

You missed by only a decade. :lemon:

Anyone else?

stevedebi

"It was the only V-8 offered in the Fairmont/Zephyr and Granada/Cougar. "

Ironically enough, I owned a 1978 Ford Fairmont for 13 years ... with the 302 (5 liter) engine. So there was at least one Fairmont with the larger engine! It was mated to a 3 speed AT.

As I recall, that car got about 23 MPG highway. Back in those days I never bothered to check the city MPG. Gas was pretty cheap.

andre1969

Sorry, I should have clarified that earlier post. I should have said, by that time (1981-ish). The 302 was an option in the Fairmont/Zephyr in 1978-79, but in 1980 you could only get the 255. I always thought it was a shame they didn't keep the 302 around longer in those cars. It must've been pretty quick in a car that light. The EPA rated it at 16/23, which doesn't sound THAT impressive, as they have the Nova with a 305 rated at 16/22 and an Aspen with a 318 rated at 15/22, and the newly downsized Malibu, with a 305, at an optimistic 17/25. But I think Ford might have geared the Fairmont quicker. FWIW, they have a 302 Granada listed at the same 16/23, so it's possible that they just tested one of those cars, and then applied its rating to the other. I think they'd do that sometimes if the weight of the cars was within 500 pounds of each other. These were also raw, unadjusted laboratory numbers, which were often considered unattainable in the "real world" back then.

Oh, and anyone's curious where I've been pulling these EPA numbers from (it's not from my rear end :shades: ), they have a bunch of files online here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/download.shtml

andys120

Last call for the POLIZIA Alfa sedans in #16821. C'mon guys these were not that rare, they could be seen in many movies of thAT ERA.

andre1969

About the closest I could narrow it down is UGI. (Universal Generic Import) :shades: