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

texases

@ab348 said:
Maybe it isn’t just Canadian dollars that are worthless!

Real odd bidding history, does BAT show all bids?

explorerx4

That bidding seems pretty strange considering at happened right at the end.
Did anyone click on 69hellcat to see their bidding history?

uplanderguy

Boy, that is suspect bidding.

Explorer, never been to that restaurant but it sounds right up my alley. We took a friend to Joe’s for his 75th birthday and that was his choice. It is good. Killer desserts. I live almost an hour from Rocky River.

stickguy

that seems unlikely to be a deal that closes. weird.

texases

That’s the one and only bid by the winner, just signed up, very suspicious.

fintail

Yeah that bidding is odd, who bids like that?

A few oldies spotted today. Maybe most impressive, a pristine black 56 Dodge 2 door HT on what I think were the wire wheels not uncommon on highline Mopars back in the day, looked brand new and was a sight. Also noticed the 66 Impala convertible that has been languishing behind a house in the area is now parked on the street, so maybe someone will resurrect it. And an oddball, a slightly lowered white with blue top (I think) LTD II sedan that was extremely clean, and even looked a little mean on Cragar or similar type wheels - not something seen every day, and it must be a labor of love for the owner.

stickguy

texases said:

That’s the one and only bid by the winner, just signed up, very suspicious.

no clue what the reasoning would be, but that really smells like some kind of scam or monkey business going on. And would be a shock if they follow-through on the buy.

wonder what the protocol is if a winning bidder flakes? I assume they ask the 2nd place bidder if they will still pay their last bid.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

I've read that in those years, the Falcon and Fairlane wagons were the same wheelbase; only in front of the windshield was different. Makes one wonder why they would've bothered to make both.

The '66-70 Falcon was a bit odd, in that it wasn't its own dedicated compact, like a Chevy II, Corvair, or Dart/Valiant. Instead, it was essentially a shortened Fairlane. They put Falcons on a 110.9" wb, Fairlanes on a 116", but sort of split the middle, with the wagons, at 113." It most likely gave the Falcon an advantage in shoulder room over the Chevy II and the Dart/Valiant, as it should have the same interior width as a Fairlane, or Comet.

For '66-67, the similarity between the Fairlane/Comet and Falcon is pretty noticeable, but for '68-69, the Fairlane/Comet got a pretty substantial restyle. However, the wagons still had a very strong similarity, as it was mostly just a change of the front clip and maybe some different creases here and there in the rest of the sheetmetal.

For '70, the Torino moved to a slightly longer 117" wb, while wagons moved up a bit to 114". However, the Falcon wagon was still 113", so I dunno where the extra inch went. The wagons looked a lot different from the Falcon by this time, although the roof and windows still held a strong similarity, so they might have still been using the same window glass and such.

One thing that's a bit odd, is that the Falcon had to be dropped on 1/1/70, because of new side impact standards that were enacted, that it wouldn't pass. That's why we got the "1970.5 Falcon" which was basically a cheaper Torino. Yet the Torino/Montego, being Falcon-based, did pass those standards. But, I guess the midsized cars were beefed up when they were restyled for '70, whereas they just let the Falcon run its course, to be replaced by the Maverick.

As far as I know, the only real difference with the side impact protection was that they put steel beams inside the doors, to help in a side impact. So, I wonder if Ford was just too lazy to do that with the Falcon, or if the overall design still wouldn't have been strong enough, even with the beams?

As for compact wagons in general, I have a feeling the market was starting to die out. The Valiant/Dart dropped them after '66, and the Chevy II after '67, so I guess that just left Rambler. Maybe Ford sensed that shrinking market, and that's why they combined the Falcon/Fairlane wagons to one platform, to save money?

Oddly, Chrysler DID offer a wagon version of the '67 Dart/Valiant, but only in Australia. Perhaps other overseas markets as well. From the B-pillar forward it looks like a Dart, but everything in back of that is unique. It's also on the shorter 108" Valiant wheelbase, rather than the 111" Dart. Personally, I think it looks a bit odd...


In '63-66, the Valiant was on a 106" wb, vs 111" for the Dart. But all the wagons were on the Valiant wheelbase. I wonder if they had them on the shorter wheelbase for fear they'd otherwise be too close in size to the midsized cars? Or, in the case of '63-64, the midsized-trying-to-pass-for-a-fullsize.

uplanderguy

Thanks andre, informative as usual about Mopars of which I'm not all that up on.

I remember seeing the new Maverick on introduction day at our local Ford dealer. I was never impressed. I like those last Falcons (pre-Fairlane/Torino-based) much better. Though, not passing a safety test, not a good thing obviously.

andre1969

One thing I didn't like about the Maverick is that they just seemed too small for my tastes. Although, they're really not THAT small. The 2-door was about 180" originally, although the 5 mph bumpers swelled it up. The 4-door was around 194". In contrast, the '66-70 Falcons were only around 184-185". Still, the Falcon just looked more substantial to me, even if it really wasn't.

When the Maverick first came out, wasn't it so cheap that it didn't even have a glovebox with a door? I seem to recall it just had a "package shelf?" Or is that some other car I'm thinking of? I'm thinking there was an AMC that did that, too? Gremlin, maybe?

As for those steel beams inside the doors, I think GM, was actually ahead of the game, and put them in the cars starting in 1969, in anticipation of the new standard. I wonder if they didn't with the Corvair though, as that car didn't make it to '70.

stickguy

cheap AMCs did have a package shelf under the dash. I had a gremlin and a Hornet, and can't actually remember if either or both had the shelf, or had a glove box!

and showing our different perspectives, I consider 194" for a sedan to be pretty much a full sized car.

fintail

I believe Maverick had the shelf too - I remember a relative who's mom had a new one remarking about how cheap it seemed.

andre1969

stickguy said:

cheap AMCs did have a package shelf under the dash. I had a gremlin and a Hornet, and can't actually remember if either or both had the shelf, or had a glove box!

and showing our different perspectives, I consider 194" for a sedan to be pretty much a full sized car.

Even back in 1971, 194" would have been a bit on the large side for a domestic compact. And, I have to make a correction. I forget where I found that 194" figure, but it was actually 186.3. Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth...

They did pork up to 193.9" by '75 though, with the big bumpers. 2-doors were up to 187".

Traditionally, the Dart had always been a bit on the big size for a compact. I think the '63-66 models were around 195" long, and I remember the '68 and '69 I had were around 196". For comparison, I think the Chevelle was only 195-196" long when it first came out. The '62 Fairlane was only 197"

Once they started putting those big bumpers on though, the Dart swelled up to 203.8" by 1975. But personally, I think it looks a bit smaller than my '68 and '69 did. The later Darts had little beaks added a few inches up front. Meanwhile in back, the rear sloped off on the newer ones, making the car look smaller. But since the bumpers stuck out further, the car was longer.

stickguy

My duster I had in high school really did not seem big at the time. Just what you are used to!

But seems strange that a dart was 4” longer than my truck!

uplanderguy

I thought the Maverick seemed small in that category of cars, too. And yes, it just had a package shelf when introduced. It only came in a two-door when introduced.

To me, the big values in the compact class then were Nova and Valiant/Dart....they just seemed bigger than the others, including Hornet. Despite seeming smallish, just lately I think those first Hornets aren't bad looking at all though. Hate AMC interiors though.

andre1969

Yeah, I hate the AMC interiors from back then, too! Style-wise, the exterior of the car doesn't do much for me, but I think it's aged rather well. At the time, it was kind of plain and boring, but sometimes that wears better over the years than "high fashion." I thought that Hornet hatchback/fastback coupe they had was pretty sexy, though.

As for the Maverick being a bit on the small side of compacts, I guess that's not a bad thing overall, as it did give a bit more variety to the small car market. The 2-door, especially, filled a niche for people who wanted something bigger than a subcompact, yet still not as big as a Duster/Demon, or Nova coupe.

I wonder though, if the small size might have hurt it a few years later. IIRC, once the 4-door came out, it was the more popular Maverick model. And being smaller, the Maverick coupe might have gotten more competition from cars like the Pinto and Vega. In contrast, something like a Duster/Demon, or Nova coupe, was probably big enough that not too many people cross-shopped them with a subcompact.

ab348

Back in the early '70s we owned both a Maverick and a Hornet. The first 2-3 years of Maverick production, it only had a shelf under the dash, no glovebox. Our '74 did away with that and they had redesigned the dash slightly to give a proper glovebox. That may have happened for '73 or earlier, I dunno. Our '75 Hornet had both a glovebox and a shelf. Oddly enough, the glovebox door it had seemed to be a diecast metal piece, pretty substantial, while the shelf was the cheapest hard plastic or fiberglass thing you could imagine. The Hornet dash assembly was an odd mix of diecast pieces and plastic bits that didn't seem to fit together very well. As Stick said, the Hornet interior wasn't great. Lots of exposed screw heads, cheap-feeling woven vinyl upholstery, and generally not up to the standard of what the Big Three would have given you, although the early Mavericks would have given it a run for its money, since it was also really cheap in the base version.

I liked the late-60s Falcon, especially the 2-door Sports Coupe, but Ford was too busy selling Mustangs to that segment so they didn't try very hard with it. The Maverick was a much more cheaply-built replacement.

andre1969

It's been ages since I've been in one, so I'm trying to remember how the Hornet felt, with regards to interior room/comfort. One of my friends in college had a '76 Hornet wagon. I've ridden in it a few times, and even drove it on occasion, but I've honestly drawn a blank. But I guess if it was really bad, or really good, I would have left more of an impression on me!

I do remember sitting in a Hornet that was for sale at one of the Carlisle swap meets years ago. I just remember the front seat being really low and not comfortable, and the steering wheel seemed too big and too close. But I don't remember feeling cramped for legroom.

texases

Friend in Anchorage had an AMC Eagle, basically an AWD Hornet wagon. I found it very cramped in the front passenger seat as far as headroom went. Much tighter than our Jeep XJ Cherokee, which had amazing room for being only 165" long.

ab348

andre1969 said:

It's been ages since I've been in one, so I'm trying to remember how the Hornet felt, with regards to interior room/comfort. One of my friends in college had a '76 Hornet wagon. I've ridden in it a few times, and even drove it on occasion, but I've honestly drawn a blank. But I guess if it was really bad, or really good, I would have left more of an impression on me!

I do remember sitting in a Hornet that was for sale at one of the Carlisle swap meets years ago. I just remember the front seat being really low and not comfortable, and the steering wheel seemed too big and too close. But I don't remember feeling cramped for legroom.

AMCs of that era mostly all used a large steering wheel. I think it was because a lot of them still came with manual steering so it gave more leverage.

fintail

Saw an immaculate OG Audi Allroad today - as I suspect most of these were off the road 10 or more years ago, seeing one so nice caught my attention.

Also, the house I pass by now and then that acquired a 53 or so Ford lowline sedan parked in front has now sprouted a 52-53 Ranch wagon as well.

uplanderguy

RE.: The first AMC Hornets....it occurred to me that they were styled by Brooks Stevens I'm pretty sure--will have to check--who did the '62-64 Larks and Hawks, which are my favorite Studes. Maybe it's subliminal to me. But I always felt he kept the looks pretty simple overall. In my mind, maybe it's because he was 'an industrial designer' instead of "STYLIST!!!!!".

Well, I looked, and apparently completely fabricated the Brooks Stevens part of the Hornet. Not involved at all. The problem of memory.

I do think the styling has aged pretty well, although again, I wouldn't have bought one as think they're small in that category of cars.

uplanderguy

Back to the LeSabre for a minute....there are a couple things that bother me about that car.

DId Buick really put the chrome trim on the gas pedal, but not the clutch and brake pedals?

And built the third week of May--that sounds really late to me for a 3-speed.

Not that anyone would have converted a Turbo-Hydramatic car to a 3-speed...new column, no "PRND21" in the instrument area--but those couple things still strike me as weird.

I typically distrust stuff I see written online, usually years after-the-fact, so far as proving a point or not, but I want to see if I can see a magazine ad in '71 that mentions Turbo-Hydramatic becoming standard, and the date of the ad.

stickguy

I thought back in the copo days if a dealer really wanted an oddball and had the right connections they could get a lot of weird stuff. So maybe it was technically after the cutoff, but the factory still had some leftover parts so they went ahead and special built it.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

RE.: The first AMC Hornets....it occurred to me that they were styled by Brooks Stevens I'm pretty sure--will have to check--who did the '62-64 Larks and Hawks, which are my favorite Studes. Maybe it's subliminal to me. But I always felt he kept the looks pretty simple overall. In my mind, maybe it's because he was 'an industrial designer' instead of "STYLIST!!!!!".

Well, I looked, and apparently completely fabricated the Brooks Stevens part of the Hornet. Not involved at all. The problem of memory.

I guess indeed your mind was playing tricks on you. I associate Brooks Stevens with Studebaker of course but I don't think he ever did much with AMC, who had their own relatively small styling group first under Ed Anderson and then Dick Teague. Teague always got lots of good press and while he had some nice designs they were always crippled by lack of money to develop them properly. He had his share of bad ideas too.

https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/rambler-be-gone-the-1970-american-motors-hornet/

andre1969

One AMC product I always thought was cool was the '67 Rebel. Whenever I see one, which admittedly isn't very often, my first thought is that it's a '68-69 Satellite or Coronet!

It almost looks as if Rambler had tried to copy Mopar...except for the fact that the Rebel came out a year before.

uplanderguy

I like the Rebel, but I can't stand the ones that have that scooped-out 'bullet' area low on the rear quarter, in front of the rear wheel openings. What's up with that?! LOL. IMHO, right up there with the '67 Mercury 'ice-cube tray' for unnecessary 'flourishes'.

uplanderguy

I personally can't see gargantuan GM doing a one-off 'special', but of course could be wrong. Among other things, they'd have to somehow re-do the automatically-generated (I'm sure) window sticker to revise the base price downwards, and show the 3-speed trans where the Turbo-Hydramatic would be shown as standard equipment.

It could well be that the Turbo-Hydramatic didn't become standard until after the third week of May. It seemed earlier to me, but hell, I was 13 then.

gsemike

Spotted a rare Caddy ATS V

Not sure I've ever seen one on the wild

imidazol97

Is that the high performance version with round exhaust tips. Coffee shop acquaintance has one. V8 hp with chip. He told me there's a difference in exhaust pipe shape. Another customer at the coffee stop had the regular version.

stickguy

spent a few miles on local streets following a 68 or 69 El Camino today. I always loved those. Looked to be in nice shape. And of course stank like partially burned fuel!

stickguy

also, not a classic but something I have not seen in years. Our on the highway, an Acura RSX> Silver of course, I think most of them were. Looked decent. some rust where the rear quarter met the bumper cover.

fintail

On the road today - white 88-90 Sunbird convertible (top down), mid 60s 2 door Dart, and a "tenement on wheels" style early 70s big motorhome in remarkable looking condition towing a period looking boat - someone's vintage camping toy.

gsemike

@imidazol97 said:
Is that the high performance version with round exhaust tips. Coffee shop acquaintance has one. V8 hp with chip. He told me there's a difference in exhaust pipe shape. Another customer at the coffee stop had the regular version.

Yes it was. The ATS was mostly a flop I think due to being too cramped and reliability issues but I think the coupe had a nicer shape than the CTS

texases

Cadillac sales these days must be a fraction of what they used to be. Aside from the Escalade, they don't seem to have much success competing with BMW/MB/Audi.
Edit: turns out they've been relatively stable, and about the same as 1960 (155,557 sales). They are down from 1970 (238,745):

explorerx4

Lincoln would love to have numbers like that.

tjc78

explorerx4 said:

Lincoln would love to have numbers like that.

I don't know where Lincoln has gone wrong. All of their SUVs are stunning, loaded with tech and from what I know not necessarily unreliable. At one point in the late 90s they actually outsold Cadillac. I would think not having a sedan in the lineup nor a full electric is part of the reason.

Their SUVs are re-badge jobs, so is Caddy, Lexus and most other brands too so that can't be the reason.

andre1969

I'm surprised Cadillac still does that well, actually. Cadillac's heyday, with regards to sales at least, was mostly in the 1970's and 1980's. I think '78 was the best year ever, with around 348,000 units sold.

fintail

Escalade must be doing well.

ab348

Soccer moms everywhere love the XT5 and XT6. GM wanted to cancel the XT5 but had to hold off because it sold so well.

To correct one point: the only unreliability (aside from warranty replacement CUE screens which were not good because of the haptic feedback function apparently) were those experienced by young guns who bought aftermarket tunes for their turbo 4 engines and blew them up, quell surprise.

tjc78

Escalade... Top Line, Bottom Line (assumed), Units... all of it!

texases

So about 1/3 of the units are Escalades this year, and I bet 50% or more of the profits come from them.

tjc78

No Escalade - No Cadillac

Lincoln's sales are much more balanced.

gsemike

https://www.facebook.com/share/1AwFxqEFbp/ find a cleaner one of these

uplanderguy

My wife is car-averse but whenever she says, "Oh, look at that, it's pretty", it's a Cadillac SUV of some sort (Escalade excluded).

I do think the sedans (I don't even know the models anymore) are handsome and out-of-the-ordinary.

fintail

gsemike said:

https://www.facebook.com/share/1AwFxqEFbp/ find a cleaner one of these

Maybe sold already

roadburner

uplanderguy said:

My wife is car-averse but whenever she says, "Oh, look at that, it's pretty", it's a Cadillac SUV of some sort (Escalade excluded).

I do think the sedans (I don't even know the models anymore) are handsome and out-of-the-ordinary.

My wife isn't as much of an enthusiast as me. but the last 3 cars she pointed out that she liked were an R171 SLK, a G63 and a new BRZ.

uplanderguy

Wife is cleaning the basement and came across this, from my parents' '84 Monte Carlo. I haven't seen this in years, although did find the window sticker from their '80 Monte Carlo which I'd posted here a few months ago.

I liked the '84 much better than the '80, due to the styling and the 305 4-barrel vs. the V6 in the '80.

The era of decontenting--the '80 had 205-70 tires and sport suspension standard, as well as an electric clock standard--the '84 had neither standard. Full wheelcovers and wide rocker and sill trim were standard though. Their '84 had no clock so the huge round dial, as big as the speedometer, was blank. That looked stupid. The rest of the dash looked better than the '80 IMHO because the woodgrain (and there was a lot of it) was dark and not shiny, and surrounded by gold pinstripe. The '80 woodgrain was horrible--shiny, light-colored, and looked like brown paint that needed stirring.

texases

That'd be about $35k today.

fintail

I greatly prefer the 81+ styling to the 78-80 as well, which to me has a slight awkwardness to it - trying to be swoopy like the prior gen but it isn't long enough to pull it off.

I know I have mentioned it, a college roommate nearly 30 years ago had an 83 Monte CL, that style had long been his dream car and he bought it from the original owner in maybe 1994. It was a 305 car, and had all power options, a fairly smooth and plush car. It was grey with matching interior and vinyl top. In winter he'd run the stock wheels and wire caps, and in summer had low profile small chrome lowrider type chrome wheels, I forget the brand - it was a style of the time. It also had a fancy aftermarket stereo setup. Later he ran wheels from a maybe 80 Z28 on it, which required spacers. The car was pretty reliable, I remember just a couple quirks - it would run on if turned off with the AC on, and in around maybe 2000 the TH200 (or 250?) failed, and I think he replaced it with a TH350. Around that year he bought an 85 SS that he still has He had a strong sentimental attachment to the 83, and when storing 2 old cars was a problem, he parked the 83 at his dad's farm - he finally sold it several years ago to someone who was going to make a lowrider out of it, and I think they did so.