Things You'd Like to See Revived In Cars

chris396

If you're thinking of the Orange L89 convertible, it turns out that one was a fake. The two cars that were used in Indianapolis were L89's. Forgot about those. I read an interview with the Chevy executive who put the two cars together. He said they used 427's in place of the 396's but kept the 396 badges and stickers. Chevrolet wanted to make sure the cars could keep the speed up.

ndance

As values go up on the really rare cars (which is really stupid here since the parts content on a ZL1 Camaro is probably 80% the same as base model, we're not talking Ferrari GTO's here) I expect the number and quality of fakes will get better and better. Really, how can you authenticate a COPO for instance? Protecto-plate? Build sheet? VIN on block? Jeez, anybody with any skill could fake all this stuff. On really valuable cars you probably really need a continuous stream of paperwork and testimonials for former owners. It seems to me it'd be too easy to put together a fake history unless it was really extensive. I kind of remember that this Cobra guys have problems with this since the VIN is kind a problematic thing on those cars (printed on things like door hinges). One wreck could produce several 'real' cars.

Who knows? I should probably track down my old car (I still have a title history, VIN, last known license plate number, etc.) and see if it's stuck in a barn where I can purchase it for a $1000 (probably next to an abandoned RSK Spyder). Yeah, right.

ndance

Here's another VIN: 124679N552234
A blue car.

chris396

The only cars that are all known are the ZL1's. All 69 ZL1 VIN #'s are known with something like 6 cars missing.

If the blue car you are refering to is an RS SS than that is supposed to be the only documented car out there. I think it's in Washington State.

I know what you mean about fakes. I have a RS SS L78 convertible with no documentation. But it's a fun car to own which is what's important to me.

andys120

andys120

I recently drove a '76 Caddy Hearse(!) that is leased by the radio station I work for. The floor-mounted switch is incredibly easy to use on a semi-busy road at night, far easier than stalk-mounted.

dweezil

maybe, at least some sort of bright work. These monochromatic vehicles are so bloody boring!!!!Painted bumpers don't hold up as well as chrome or aluminum and can get scabby pretty quickly.Besides it's been DONE TO DEATH!
Some prettier colors and interior cloth designs.
Separate options instead of "packages".
Roll down rear windows in 2 doors-even a pop out style like the V W and the Maverick had would help.
A protected area for the license plate instead of the very edge of the bumper where it is easily torn off.
A vehicle that makes a virtue of being simple and easy for the owner to repair, and engineered to that end.
Whitewalls,two tone paint,some real NAMES for trim lines instead of letters. Give us all a break:DTS? SLT? TRD? Look closely enough and they DO mean something but it's not very flattering.
Monterey, Montclair, Park Lane. Biscayne, Bel-Air...even the inexpensive models at LEAST gave you a sense of adventure, exclusivity or the romance of rich and far off places!!!

carnut4

I think I made some comments earlier in this discussion very similar to yours. I agree! Every time I take a drive in my "new" 41000 original mile 62 Impala SS I notice the plastic, monochrome, boring and ugly new cars on the road, and I notice all the people in them looking at my 62! Yeah, I like 60's cars, and all the other old ones, for all the reasons you just mentioned! And when driving my 62 [or my 55] at night, I really like that floor mounted dimmer switch!

bort1

I would like to see actual body platforms, as in Mopar "A" and "B" bodied cars, where a variety of engine/trans/body combos were availible. The Chevy Nova from the late '60's thru early 70's was a great example - a buyer could get a v6, small block, big block, 2 or four doors, ect. I understand that we can still choose trim options, but the options are not nearly as important or wide-ranging as in years past.

Mr_Shiftright

I was just talking about that very thing in another board....trying to explain to people why Hondas and Toyotas are not going to be collectibles......because not only are there too many of them around, but also they are ALL THE SAME!

andre1969

I can't remember the last time I've had a car with actual rain gutter rails running along the roofline to channel the water away from the windows. Sure, alot of them have those creases built into the roof, but they don't work very well.

They were nice, because you could crack your window a bit while it was raining and not have to worry about the water pouring in. Evidently, they've been phasing them out for awhile...neither my '79 Newport nor my '89 Gran Fury had them.

I'm sure that's just something else that got jettisoned in the name of aerodynamics.
-Andre

andre1969

That was one platform that they got a heckuva a lot of use out of, from 1967 to 1976. The same platform was available with two wheelbases, either 108" or 111", and offered a variety of 2-door hardtops, 2- and 4-door sedans, convertibles, and fastbacks. It passed off as an economy car, a mid-level compact, a sporty car, a muscle car, a pony car, and even as a luxury car. And for engines, you could get anything from a 170 Slant Six on up to a 426 Hemi (not street legal, though ;-)

It seemed like the A-body alone covered more fields than all the Chrysler cars put together today!

-Andre

bhill2

One thing I'd like to see return is overdrive. I owned a couple of cars with that feature, and it was the greatest combination of a manual and automatic transmission imaginable. One of those jobs, if it worked on, say, the top two gears, could reduce shifting and clutching in traffic by about 90%, while giving you the control of a manual tranny anytime you wanted it. The fact is that they had the modern 5 speed beaten all hollow.

Hammertime

and also comes in 2 or 4-door models.

Get one while you can :-)

dranoel

Starter pedals, Thermostatically operated grill louvers, front vent windows, defrosting fans, 5.50 X 17 bias tires/w tubes. No availability of automatic transmissions, no power anything, no turn signals, etc. I've been there and I like today with all the goodies------

veritas

I would like to see the return of the Corvair Greenbrier van. I had a 1964 that I drove for 3 years and was very satisfied. To me, it was everything the VW Microbus should have been, but wasn't.

In 64 the engine was enlarged and the easily warped oil pan reinforced. I spent weeks learning about the car - I even wrote to Chevy and got an SAE booklet with all the specs. The dealers around me were hotbeds of apathy about the vehicle.

I put together a very nice van - the top series in turquoise (or was it called aquamarine?) with the white band around it. I went for the 110 HP engine and a 4-speed tranny. The wheel covers were the same ones used on the Impala that year. It was really a cute little beggar. I even had to fill out the order forms for the dealer and pay the SOB a commission when I did all the work!

When I ordered it, my then wife told me that I could buy it, but she would never set foot in it. After two days of her driving it I couldn't blast her out of it with dynamite!

It would seat 9 comfortably and the rear two seats were easily removable. My record was five adults and 9 kids for a short haul.

Even with bias ply tires and those swing axles, I never got stuck in an Indiana winter. But I did find that if I drove at a sustained 85 MPH on an 85 degree day the engine hot light would come on.

The only real problems I ever had with it were a couple of blown head gaskets on the individual cylinder heads (easily replaced) and a repack of the front u-joints. And the fan/accessory drive belt finally let go while I was stuck in traffic about a mile from the nearest service station. But by shutting off the engine as I inched ahead I made it - and the place even had a belt on site!

It was worth every penny and really fun to drive. If only it had had a full independent rear suspension . . .

veritas

My previous post has just reminded me of something else I wish they would bring back - option lists that give the buyer more control over just what options are on the car they buy. Today so many options are either not available on lower lines or are part of packages that force one to take a lot of expensive rubbish to get the useful bits.

Daimler-Chrysler has just lost a sale to me this year because I can't get just the things I want on one of their new minivans. I was all set to leap into one of their new, more reasonably-priced EX series (even though they still would make me take things I don't want like a roof rack and power liftgate) until I discovered that I couldn't get one with a trailer towing package.

Talk about bloody-minded thinking! Why does DC think that just because someone can't afford one of their top line vans they will never have a need for the bigger engine to tow a heavier load or that EX buyers will never want to tow anything large?

Even back in the 60s when computers were a lot more primtiive than today, I could order just about any make of car by choosing from a rather goodly list of individual options and still get the car delivered in about the same time as today.

In 1969 I ordered a Plymouth Valiant Signet sedan. It would be a car only I would drive, so I did it my way. I chose the slant 6 because I didn't need the extra power and didn't want the extra weight on the front. I chose fast ratio manual steering and non-power disk brakes for better steering response and braking control. The wheels and wheel covers were the same as on the top Plymouth intermediate for that year and the tires were Goodyear bias belted wide ovals (good on the dry but real pigs on the slightest amount of snow - I once couldn't even back out of a level parking spot with about a half-inch of snow on the ground).

The color was an emerald green metallic for the body with a gold metallic roof (no vinyl for me!). The interior was a luxury gold vinyl with a pull-down armrest in front and even the steering wheel was gold - which cracked and chunked after one summer of expanding and contracting in the sun.

And of course it had air - the kind that hung under the dash and didn't look real nice, but did allow me to still use the under dash air vents on each side.

When it arrived at the dealer, I found out later that he cleaned it up and set it out on the front of the lot for a week to draw traffic without telling me it was in. One of the salesmen told me later that the dealer sold 6 cars to people who had stopped to look at my car - but no commission for me, alas.

That car was a beauty and was everything I had hoped for (except for the tires - but a set of Michelin radials corrected that in a hurry - and that stupid steering wheel) because I was able to order exactly what I wanted and no more. I wish now that I had it back, but I traded it in on a 1970 Datsun 2000 roadster that I mention in another forum. I guess my mid-life crisis set in early (grin).

udasai

A full-size convertible! I used to have a '66 Bonneville convertible, 19+ft of land yacht with a 421 under the hood. With the top dropped, you could stand at one end and see the other on a clear day... It was great for moving stuff around, too, just drop the top and start piling on the boxes.

Unit body construction undoubtedly killed these; you need a frame to keep the car from bending in half, since with the doors open, you have nothing but frame and floorboard connecting the front and back halves. Of course, true full-size cars are a rarity in themselves.

And please...make the back window GLASS.

speedshift

Veritas, I think we're both minimalists.

I wasn't ordering new cars in '69 but I've owned a few GTOs from that era and I have this harmless fantasy that I order a late-'60s Tempest (not the heavier, more expensive LeMans) coupe (not the heavier, more expensive, less rigid hardtop) with the hi-perf OHC six (not the heavier, less efficient but cheaper 326/350 V8).

Transmission would be four speed, or maybe even 3 speed with floor shift if I'm feeling especially frugal. Quick-ratio manual steering (20:1 instead of 24:1), buckets (or maybe just the cheaper, lighter bench), definitely full gauges, HD suspension and cooling. AM/FM with reverb for crusing. For brakes, I'd keep the standard manual drums but replace the fronts with junkyard Buick finned aluminum drums. Maybe a 3.90 posi but then I couldn't have AC, so probably a 3.55 and air. Maybe the stock soupbowl hubcaps but Rally I styled steel wheels would be great. A dyno kit from Royal Pontiac with a curve kit and different jets for the Q-Jet.

End result would be a very fun, well balanced car, very sharp, reasonably priced and decently quick. Might even make a good driver now. Of course, back then that kind of car was the answer to a question very few people were asking, and it would be now too.

thedarkwolf

You don't need a/c if you have a good pair of floor vents well aslong as your moving. I love the ones in my 67 galaxie they are REALY nice if your wearing shorts .

andre1969

...are possible. After all, every Chrysler car since 1960, with the exception of the 1960-66 Imperial, has been untized, and convertibles have been offered in their compact, mid-size, and full size lineups.

I think, more than anything, downsizing and air conditioning killed convertibles more than anything. My mother had a '66 Catalina convertible when she was a teenager. She got rid of it when I was 2, I'm guessing partly because she thought it was unsafe to have a child and a convertible, but my father might have helped rag it out, too ;-) Anyway, I remember asking her if it had air conditioning, and she replied "Of course not...it was a convertible!" I guess that was the attitude back then.

I currently have a '67 Catalina convertible, and even though the convertible cuts down on space a bit, this thing is still a true 6 passenger car with a full-size trunk. Unfortunately, while cars have gotten smaller, it seems that the space the convertible top takes up has not. My '67 could afford to lose 3-4 cubic feet of trunk space, or whatever it takes, and the 5 or 6 inches of shoulder room, and still be a roomy car. Today, if you take 6" of shoulder room away, you reduce a car from a full-size to a subcompact!

I've seen a few relatively modern chop-job convertibles, such as Cutlass Cieras, FWD Coupe DeVilles, and RWD 80's Monte Carlos. One of the most beautiful ones was a 1982 Dodge Mirada. Big as these cars are, though, none of them had a usable back seat. Might as well have been a K-car! Another problem with them is that all of these aftermarket convertibles look horrible with the top up!

-Andre

bhill2

I would like, if it is appropriate, to follow up on a post by veritas (#118) regarding options. As I see it, most major options offered in the past fell into two categories:

1. Body and powertrain options (2-door sedan vs 4-door sedan vs 2-door hardtop etc., six vs V8, 3-speed manual with or without overdrive vs 4-speed manual vs automatic, and final drive ratios).

2. Convenience options (power steering, brakes and windows, air conditioning, sound systems such as AM radio or AM-FM radio).

I think that the first category has been more or less killed by the requirements for emission certification, and possibly safety. Most of the former options in the second category are now standard. I would like to see other peoples' responses to the above statements. I would also like to know whether people, if given the option, would be willing to live without the items in the second category (I have to admit that I would not drive a car without air conditioning anymore, and I am even getting used to the power windows). Finally, what else would people like to have as options. Thanks.

ezrapon

I had that car (almost). It was a black over red Lemans ragtop with black interior. It had the OHC Sprint package that gave you all the performance goodies and a cool stripe and badging. I had a 3 speed no air, and full console. I had the deluxe full wheel covers. I wish it had air, ralley wheels, posi, 4-speed, and power steering. I remeber the ad in hot rod that made me buy it... it showed a decked out sprint face to face with a twin (67) GTO. It gave the specs and called it "The Great Imposter." I probably still have that add in the basement, I should probably put it on e-bay. I wish I still had the car in the basement... I would not put it on e-bay!!!

speedshift

That sounds like a nice car. I had a '67 Le Mans convert that was pleasant even with 326 2v and 2-speed AT. How did yours perform?

ezrapon

My 67 lemans sprint was real peppy compared to the 326 2 speed. I had a 66 tempest ragtop with the 326 2v 2 speed as well, I believe I could outrun it on foot up to 10 MPH. I used to knock off a lot of 289 mustangs, 327 Impalas (not all of them, usually the under 300HP 2 speeds) with the 67' sprint. I never had a 1/4 mile time, but would guess it was around the low 16's. I never really loved the car because it wasn't a GTO, little did I know how rare it would become. It burned a hole in a piston and flew apart in the mid 70's. I sold it for parts; around 100 bucks.

speedshift

Ouch. Well, I did a few things like that too. Sprints weren't worth much then, and in fact they're not worth that much now, but I think a Sprint is one of the few '60s performance cars that might make a fun liveable driver today. One of the most well-balanced cars I've ever owned was a '64 LeMans with the 215 six and AT. Decently quick, and very neutral in the hills. Lots of fun.

Funny that I've owned four GTOs and fantasize about a Sprint while you had a Sprint and really wanted a goat. The grass is always greener...

Yeah, the 326 2v with AT was slow off the line but that's mostly because of the standard 2.56 axle ratio, and the convertible's extra weight didn't help. I had a '65 LeMans pillared coupe with the same set-up and it was fairly quick. Sticks came with 3.23s and that must have helped a lot.

Back then Popular Mechanics tested a '66 Tempest Sprint coupe with 4 speed and 3.90s (and probably a massage by Royal Pontiac) and it got to 60 in about 10 seconds, quick for those days. They also tested a LeMans with the base 165-hp OHC six and AT and I think they're still trying to get it up to 60.

ezrapon

I did realize my dreams eventually. I had a 70, 69, and a 67 GTO convertible... I liked the 67 models. All were the garden variety YS engines with autos and the 3:23 rear end. The only rare one was the 70, it had buckets, no console with the auto on the colum. I never quite got over the GTO bug. I now drive a modified 2000 SSEi which is as close to the old goats as I can find. I also have a 79 10th anniversary T/A with the 400 4-speed. I believe both of these would smoke all my GTOs... but they are not the same and I'm always looking for another 67 rag top.

speedshift

Yeah, I had a '69 Firebird 400 and it just wasn't as nice as the goats. Not everyone will agree with me but they just had something--they were more than the sum of their sometimes ordinary parts, especially the ones with hi-perf options.

ezrapon

yeah the goats definitely had a mystical spell. Same car as the chevelle, and the chevelle was probably a better car because of the chevy engine selections... small block, big block... well you know the story. But, the goats despite their power short comings were just a legend on wheels.
I always wanted a 400 firebird (67-69) a ragtop for sure... again the camaro with the chevy engines were more desireable, but I guess I'm a Pontiac man.

speedshift

We're getting a little off track but no one seems to mind yet.

Don't assume the Chevy big block is better. The big valve Pontiac 400/350 used in the GTO and Firebird is stronger than the 396/325 chuffer and easily a match for anything up to but not including the 396/375. The optional 400 HO put out a real 360 hp, and the various Ram Airs were even stronger.

Although 1/4-mile times and speeds from the old tests are sometimes suspect, a '68 396/375 Chevelle had a trap speed of 98.8 mph while a Ram Air II did 99.7--same magazine did both tests. And back in the '80s my RA III Judge beat a 440-6 pack Challenger at the strip, so they can motorvate. It ain't all hype.

ezrapon

No one can take away the ram air III and IV engine legends. Tri power 389, functional ram air. All very nice, but very rare. Probably 5000 350 HP autos with 3:23 (cruisers) for every nasty ram air 4-speed posi car. Chevy just had so much more. 1969 Camaro SS engines from 350 (various HP) Aluminum 427. Looking at the valve cover of a big block chevy still brings a tear to my eye... they look like a detroit diesel... the cowl induction big blocks... and lets not forget the 302 Z/28... so much, factory dual quads, small block fuel injection (old vette). I am a Pontiac man, I bleed metalic blue, but Chevy just overwhelmed motoerheads... I won't even get into the 440, 426 hemi, 340... six packs, air grabbers.
Pontiac just fell a little behind after the 421 days... until the 455 SD.

speedshift

Yeah, there's no question you can pull more ultimate power out of a Chevy, whether it's a mouse or rat.

But I think the Pontiac 400 can hold its own with most of the stock streetable wedge engines. Those big port solid lifter rats, fuelies and hemis were rare. They're in a class by themselves but the road tests indicate they were happier on the strip than on the street. Part of Pontiac's success was due to designing engines that weren't overkill, engines anyone could live with.

But the overkill engines were great marketing as well as engineering--they gave even some fairly ordinary Chevy and Mopar engines a halo effect. I went down the strip even with a '70 440 Magnum Road Runner--we were even shifting at the same time--until he missed the 3-4 shift, and that tells me his 440 was making the same 360 net hp +/- as my '67 400 HO.

But your're right, Pontiac did eventually lose it and by '70 didn't really have an answer to even the hotter wedges like the 455 W-30s and Stage Is. Actually the '68 Road Runner 383 was the first nail in the coffin--cheap and fast, just like the original goat. But it was a good run while it lasted.

speedshift

I'd like someone to revive the early GTO and Road Runner concept, the affordable sedan with torque for the masses. Now that retro is in, it's a natural.

There's only one engine these days that I know of that would have the necessary right-now torque, and that's the 3800. The new Chevy truck V8 probably has it too. That might be it. With everything else you've got to wait to get on cam.

Combine that with an inexpensive rear-drive chassis. A body-on-frame truck chassis would be perfect. That way you'd get numb steering and brakes and chassis flex just like in the old days, and you could drill the frame with holes to lighten it just like the swiss cheese Catalinas ;-).

Offer it with manual steering, roll-up windows and 12" drum brakes--just kidding about the drums--and meaningful performance options like limited slip and full gauges (no spoilers).

If they can bring back the 427 Cobra in the Viper why not the Road Runner? Of course, Viper is probably a loss leader and the original musclecars were based on high-volume sedans to keep the costs down, but these are just details.

ezrapon

I'm glad they've let the goat RIP. Look at the Korean built Lemans, the Volare Roadrunner, The Mitsu Charger, the 6 banger 442; shame shame shame. Now, as to retro cheapo, the roadrunner did indeed kill the GTO. Bang for the buck with rubber floor coverings. This at a time when the hapless goat was moving upscale. 20/20 hindsight illustrates the folly there. Should have developed a bare bones tempest with a Ram air III.
Pontiac did try this formula again in the 350 formula, but it was too little too late. We want leather, windows, etc. The last real offering was the 350 Impala, but it was fat, slow, and never crossed the line into a real muscle car. A rear wheel drive intrepid with the jeep v-8. Rear wheel drive bonneville with the ls1... this could carry on the GTO name... my SSEi is close, but is not a muscle car. Maybe a lemans or Monte with the
S/C engine would be fun.

andre1969

I don't think the Roadrunner is what killed the GTO, I think it was the 70's that killed the GTO! Starting around 1970, Pontiac really shifted from sporty cars to trying to make everything look like a personal luxury coupe. They had a good thing going with the '69 Grand Prix, but, unfortunately, they tried to apply that type of styling to EVERYTHING!

I have a '67 Catalina 'vert and used to own a '69 Bonneville 4-door ht. Even with a vinyl roof and fender skirts, that '69 still looked like a sporty car, where the '70 full-size lineup had a neo-classic personal luxury look to it. Same thing with the intermediates. The Lemans took on a more upscale, ritzy look for '70, as well, and became more of a budget Grand Prix than a sporty intermediate.

Also seems that the GTO was overshadowed for 1973 by the Grand Am, which showed where Pontiac was headed. "Grand Prix luxury, Trans Am performance", I think was the slogan. Of course, the X-body (Ventura) GTO for 1974 was a true slap in the face, although, with emissions controls, I wonder if a compact with a 350 was really any worse than an intermediate with a 400.

As for a "bargain basement" performance car, I have a friend who used to own a 1971 Tempest T-37. Is that anything special? He owned it before I knew him, so I never got to see it. He said it was basically a "poor man's" GTO, but I've always wondered if he was just kidding himself. I've heard of the T-37, and seen a few T-37 badges, but never knew much about it? Anybody care to educate me?

-Andre

speedshift

Ezrapon and Andre, meet me over in Classic Musclecars.

scissors

"Things You'd Like to See Revived In Cars?"

Bad handling and substandard brakes. I really miss those.

--Scissors
"Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!"

amorales

engines circa '50's, 60's (GM/FORD/CHRYSLER V8's), with good engine management, pinging should be no problemo, also burn 87 octane fuel. 11:1 pistons should about do it. Oh, also auto tranny's able to take the
high torque like the 2 speed POWERGLIDE in the '63 CHEVY 409 with single Carter AFB. Not the SS, but the
slower street friendly 409 with single 4bbl...

Mr_Shiftright

There was something to be said for bad brakes...it weeded out the dumb drivers.

rea98d

"BAD BRAKES" Written backwards across the top of your windshield.

andre1969

In addition to weeding out the dumb drivers, I think it also made better drivers out of the rest. Because the car didn't handle or brake as well as a modern car, and there was an all-steel dashboard and non-collapsible steering column just waiting to impale you if you messed up, there was some incentive to learn how to drive safely.

We tend to joke about senior citizens nowadays and how they can't drive. Well, I bought my '57 DeSoto from an older couple, and the reason they held onto the car for so long is because the wife liked the way it handled! Now this thing has a 126" wb, and is about as long as a Suburban. It's RWD, no suregrip, tons of low-end torque just waiting to lose control in bad weather, and this sweet little old lady who can barely see over the steering wheel liked it because of the way it handled in bad weather!

Now for their time, Chrysler vehicles were supposed to be some of the best handling big cars, but there's no way it could compare to its modern day equivalent, except maybe in acceleration and top speed. But today, we have a whole generation of drivers who have probably never owned a car without FWD, ABS, air bags, fuel injection, crumple zones, etc etc etc. The cars may be safer, but I think they're making a lot of the drivers dumber!

-Andre

scissors

These days, with all of the government mandated safety the dumb are encouraged to breed.

Example:
Jimbo (IQ approx. 59) is headed over to the park in his car to ensure that he will be forever listed in the FBI's annals as a "Most Wanted Sex Offender." Thanks to laws that require him to wear a seatbelt, he makes it there alive after being in an accident.

Ban Seatbelts!
Ban good brakes too!

--Scissors
"Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!"

rea98d

You'll pry my dihydrogen monoxide out of my cold, dead fingers!!!!

dpwestlake

vent windows.

andre1969

...I'd like a rear window that rolls down all the way in a 4-door, and at least 1/2 way in a 2-door.

Seems like 2-doors with roll-down rear windows are almost non-existent nowadays. Except for convertibles, the last I remember seeing was the Acura Legend.

And does anybody even make a hardtop anymore? I know Mercedes used to make a couple hardtop coupes, and I think the BMW 850 lacked a B-pillar.

-Andre

scissors

...well, if you insist. .)

The Man Of The One Eyed Smiley,
Runs With Scissors

andre1969

Hey gang,

here's a pic of a '56 Plymouth 4-door hardtop...
http://www.cherrysoda.com/plymouth/56hardtop.jpg

I think it's kinda cool, because of the way the back window rolls down. In the pic, it looks like it has a piece that rolls down, and then a vent window, but in reality, the little spacer window is attached to the big window, so that they both roll down all the way.

I'm sure the thing must've leaked like crazy after a couple years, but I think it's a pretty neat design. Think of it...45 years ago, they knew how to make a rear window roll down all the way, and now today, in some cars, you're lucky if it even rolls down half-way!

-Andre

crossedreality

the rear windows in my Grand Am roll all the way down. Yet, the one's in my girlfriend's taurus, or either of my parents SUV's, don't. I never realized just how rare it is until reading this topic.

dgraves1

My parents had 1970 LTD four door hardtop. It drove my father crazy because the windows were constantly needing to be adjusted and reattached. He swore he would never buy a hardtop again. Of course, they kind of disappeared not too long after that.

friendinthebiz

My father ordered a '68 Tempest as his mom's last car. It had the OHC 6 (not a Sprint)Powerglide, Positraction axle, HD suspension (w/rear anti-sway bar) front disc brakes (huge 4 piston units), the coupe body with full framed door glass. When it was 7 miles old Dad had Michelin X tires fitted. All this in 1967 Detroit. Near constant horns and waves regarding the "flat tire, Mister" but exceptional driving and control.
When I took over the driving my early thoughts were that it was Not a GTO and pity me. Greater experience with that car (60+ mph...in first!) and many poorer handling cars since have reminded me what a great chassis that was when not overloaded and unbalanced by a anvil engine up front. Great brakes and solid build likely saved my life and the lack of a GTO motor not doubt saved my driving priviliges.
I saw it on the hook being towed while at work six years after I sold it and was daydreaming about it (more than usual) for the rest of the day.