Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

60s-70s big Chevrolets vs. big Fords

13468913

Comments

  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Could well have been a 390--many of them were. You can tell by the thunderbird insignia on the front fender.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    ...was a '64 Galaxie 2-door hardtop with a 390. Today he'll admit that it was probably the best car he's ever owned, but back then he hated it simply because he was more of a Chevy/Pontiac man. He ended up selling it and getting a '63 Impala SS with a 409, and then a '65 SS with a 409 (I think), and then a succession of beaters and hand-me-downs. The Chevys were much more fun to drive, but were also more ragged-out.

    I have a pic of this car somewhere...I'll scan it in sometime if I can find it.

    Also, when I was a little kid, we had a '64 Ford Galaxie 4-door sedan. By that time, my Mom had a '68 Impala and my Dad had a beat-up '62 Corvette with a stick shift, which my Mom couldn't drive. My Dad would often take the Impala out, and my Mom wouldn't have anything to drive, so my Granddad found us this '64 Galaxie for something like $70.00. It had a 352 in it. I remember as a kid I hated it, probably some of that GM influence rubbing off from my Dad! Looking back though, I kinda miss it now. After Mom & Dad divorced, that Galaxie got given away to a friend of the family, for his mother to drive, and it ultimately got wrecked.

    If you ever get a chance to catch the old black&white episodes of "The Outer Limits", they used '63-64 Ford products throughout that show. In fact, yesterday they had a nice '64 Galaxie 'vert with a floor shifter. Nice!
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    I've got a 64 Galaxie 500XL convertible (converted a Galaxie 500 into a 500XL by stripping all the necessary pieces from a 64 500XL hardtop, and numerous junk yard searches), turquoise with black bucket seats, white top, 352/4V, 250 HP, cruisomatic, 3.50 rear end.

    Body has 205,000 miles; motor has about 115,000 miles.

    Front bucket seats are starting to show wear, but otherwise, it's still a fairly solid car and fun to drive. (I've seen replacement 500XL upholstery, but the buckets tend to lose the "shell" look.)

    Had it repainted in the late 70's for $350, and it still shines. I've had it since 1969. Paid $750 in 1969, including a new valve job. Car had 46,000 when I bought it. It's part of the family, now.

    Special Interest Autos reviewed the 64 Galaxie many years ago, and said the biggest problem for potential buyers is that these cars just do not show their age. Mine could easily pass for 125,000 miles, or less.
  • webjeff2webjeff2 Member Posts: 21
    I have fond memories of these cars. My father was a Chrysler man in the 60's and 70's, his brother was a GM man and his other brother was a ford man. Several of my father's cars come to mind during that era; one of them was a new 1975 Royal Monaco Brougham with a 400 2v and that was a really nice car. At the time my uncle had a 1975 Chevrolet Caprice with a 400 2v and I can remember the two of them having an inprmtu drag race. The Dodge was quickest of the line and held the lead until they both let off around 80 mph. The things that I remember about that Dodge (got my drivers licence with that car) was that it seemed to handle pretty well for such a big car, also had a smooth ride and a decent sounding stereo for it's time. That year, my father suprised my mother with a new car a 1975 Cordoba. This car had been special ordered by the dealer but the person who originally ordered it backed out of the deal. It sat on the lot for over 5 months and my father had his eye on it. He was able to work a good deal on it and bought it. It came with a (pre lean burn) 400 4v with rare factory dual exhausts. This was a very scarce engine combination (most had 360s or 400 2 vs) and was actually rated at 240bhp. That same engine in the 76 Cordoba (400 4v) with single exhaust and lean burn was only rated at 190 bhp. Any way, that car was very quick for it's time and would lay one heck of a strip!!!! One of my friend's parents had a 75 Nova Concours with a 350 4v and that Cordoba would beat it every time. The Cordoba was loaded and had the heavy duty suspension; it handled very well, nearly as well as as that Nova. Anyway, my Mom being of short stature, never felt quite in control of the big Cordoba and that was traded for a 1978 Chrysler LeBaron Medallion sedan with a smog control choked 318 2v lean burn that made somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 bhp, quite a come down from the powerful 1975 Cordoba.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    Although I have never driven an intermediate or full-size domestic car from the '70s, I still have the impression that none of them were paragons of reliability. If you were looking for that in the Disco Era, you were probably better off with Japanese subcompacts.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    ....if you had good Bondo skills!

    I know this is only a random sample, but back in high school/college, I had a 1980 Malibu and a friend of mine had a 1980 Accord. We both got them around the same time. I took the Malibu off the road in 1990, with 100,000 miles on it, partly because it wouldn't pass the emissions test, but also partly because I'd just bought a '69 Dart GT, and couldn't afford the insurance on 2 cars.

    Anyway, that Malibu was still on its original engine and tranny...a 229 V-6 and the infamous Turbo-Hydramatic 200C...basically a Chevette tranny that got put behind a variety of engines that it had no right to be...up to the Cadillac 425! As for mechanical failures...well, I had a water pump go out, the alternator, starter, a/c compressor (twice), both rear axles went bad, and it had exhaust work. The body had just started developing a rust spot in the rear quarter panel, just above the bodyside crease. The light blue paint was hopelessly faded on the hood, trunk, and roof, but still looked pretty good on the sides. And it had the front-end from a 1981 Malibu on it (my fault, not the car's ;-) The headliner was sagging, held up by some thin wood strips wedged in the doorjamb trim, the little needle that told you what gear you were in had broken off, and resided just to the left of "P", and the dashboard was cracking in three spots. The carpet pulled loose from the door sill on the passenger side (did that since new), and there was a small tear in the vinyl on the passenger-side door panel. Throw in a few parking lot dings here and there, and that's it.

    OTOH, my friend's Accord went through one engine and one tranny, and when the second tranny went out that's when his Dad forced him to get rid of it. It never made it to 100,000. I think it made it to around 90K. It had overheating problems, sudden acceleration (if you could call it that in a car this slow) problems, and had a whole slew of other things go wrong with it. The ignition key had broken off in the slot, and you could start it with anything that made contact...screwdriver, house key, pocket knife, etc. The interior looked like it was used to train pit-bulls for dogfighting. The body actually had HOLES in it. Big ones, too. And huge rust spots coming through the otherwise still-shiny burnt-orange paint that would soon develop into craters.

    Now let's talk about acceleration. Okay, my Malibu was a dog, I'll admit it. The closest equivalent I could find a road test to was a 1985 Buick Regal with the 231 and 3-speed automatic...0-60 in 13 seconds. I never actually timed it, but it would walk my friend's Accord like a dog. Fuel mileage? Well, my Malibu would get about 15-16 around town, maybe 22 on the highway. The Accord? Not much better, considering this was supposed to be an economy car. Maybe 20 around town, 25 on the highway. We timed it once from 0-60, with 3 people on board. Took damn near 30 seconds!

    Big '70's cars had their faults, to be sure, but the Japanese were far from perfect.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Japanese cars? From the 70's? Back then, Japanese companies were still churning out second rate subcompact junk that sold because the price was about half that of anything detroit was making. It was until the late 80's that Japanese cars became top dogs in reliability.

    Speaking from personal experience, My '78 Mercury never left me on the side of the road, and other than the A/C, never had any serious issues until the car was 20 years old. I'd hardly call that car unreliable. It may be an oversize ill-handling gas hog, yes, but unreliable it is not. Even when the transmission was losing it after 22 years, it still made it 300 miles to get me home from college. There's not a new car on the market, Foreign or Domestic, that I would expect to do that in. My 78 Mercury is basically 1950's technology, all well proven by 1978. Old and outdated, yes, but she got the job done, and, not counting bad tires blowing out or running out of gas (both my fault), she never once left me on the side of the road.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think Japanese cars were plenty good by the early 70s. I was there, and I'd like to record my experience for history.

    Prices, junkyard practices and survival rates for late 70s domestics suggest that history is not as much impressed with them as you were with your single car, whereas a Datsun 510 or 240Z can bring a very strong price even today.

    Alas, the downside of Japanese cars was body integrity and sheet metal, which was nothing to brag about. At least early 70s American cars hung in there through the ravages of use and weather and age.
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,029
    They were fine mechanically but were unbelievable rust buckets if you lived in the salt belt. I would suggest that a big part of why a 510 brings such a price these days is because most have returned to the earth from which they came. I can't tell you the last time I saw one around here. They have improved that aspect considerably, but I am still surprised to see a lot of 4-6 year-olds Hondas around here that suffer from rustout in the filler panel between the bottom of the taillights and the top of the bumper. Seems to be a chronic design flaw.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    " I can't tell you the last time I saw one around here."

    I see big domestic cars from the '70's, Cadillacs, Mercurys, Chevys, Chryslers, all of 'em, puttering around town all the time. Saw an early '70's Ford Galaxie just today. It, like most of the ones I see, are not in the greatest shape, but they are still on the road. I rarely see any Japanese car from that era. To me, that is the test of which car is the most dependable. Which ones will still be around in 30 years, and which ones will have self destructed. Unfortunately, the reliability of 30 years ago doesn't tell us much about the reliability of cars today. However, just like my '78 Grand Marquis, the '03 Grand Marquis is built using decades old technology, (well, if you overlook the fuel injected OHC distributorless V-8 tucked under the hood). It breaks new ground like a Dixie cup, and it's not very glamorous or exotic, but it gets the job done. And I predict a higher percentage of '03 Grand Marquis will be in drivable shape in 2033 than '03 Camrys or Accords. If history gives us any indication, the old fashioned American car will just keep plugging along. I occasionally see American cars from the '60's around, and even knew a girl in High School (not that long ago, I graduated in '98) who had an unrestored 55 Chevy sedan as a daily driver. Her Chevy was in better shape than my Mercury. (Part of that was my own fault, screwing with the carb before I really knew how to adjust it, and getting in fights with trees...) American cars have traditionally been over-engineered. Even today, I hear people complaining about how thin sheetmetal on a Toyota is versus Ford or Chevy. Lots of little things like that add up when talking long term reliability.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    You think GM would have been better off if they had continued building the RWD B-bodies past 1996?
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    rea98d: It may be better to compare 1970s Japanese cars with their true domestic competitors - the AMC Gremlin, Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega. People at that time did not cross shop a Chevy Impala or Ford LTD with a Toyota Corona or Honda Civic.

    In 1980 I had a 1977 Honda Civic hatchback (complete with the goofy Hondamatic transmission) as a daily driver. My parents owned a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale and 1973 AMC Gremlin. The Oldsmobile was easily the most reliable (and rust resistant) of the three, but it competed in an entirely different market from the Datsuns, Toyotas and Hondas of the day. They weren't a direct threat to the Oldsmobile 88s of the time. If you had suggested to my parents that they trade in their Oldsmobile on a Japanese car they would have looked at you as though you were crazy. Yes, the Japanese imports offered better handling, steering and fuel economy. But for my parents, and many buyers like them, better "handling and steering" meant a pillow soft ride as the car tracked down the interstate and effortless power steering for easy parallel parking. And effective air conditioning and a good stereo were far more important than fuel economy.

    The Honda WAS a direct threat to the Gremlin (and Vega and Pinto). And here it was no contest. The Gremlin rusted just as badly as the Honda and was much less reliable. Handling and braking were terrible, gas mileage was inferior and the workmanship of the interior would have embarrassed any self-respecting high-school shop class. The Honda, at least, made it to 100,000 miles (after which it needed an engine rebuild) while the Gremlin conked out at 93,000. After the Japanese conquered the American subcompact market (which also meant driving the Italians, French and British back to their homelands), they went on to attack other market segments.

    Count just how many Gremlins, Pintos and Vegas you see on the road today...
  • mminerbimminerbi Member Posts: 88
    I bought a new ''70 510 sedan while living in the Chicago metro area, and ab348's message speaks for my experience also. The 510's technology - OHC and IRS - was admittedly appealing, particularly when considering the price of the car. The combination of technology, price, and fuel economy was what motivated me to buy this car, but it was, quite simply, a rust bucket. Also, it's pollution control system had not been perfected, which caused serious driveability problems in below freezing temperatures, until the engine warmed up. While the engine always started, even in sub zero weather, it had absolutely no power, literally, for the first several minutes in cold weather. Most owners outside the rust belt might never have experienced this particular problem. Datsun corrected this problem in '71 or '72, but the company did nothing for owners of cars with the problem. I was unaware of this deficiency before I purchased the car, in January, because the salesman cleverly warmed the engine up before my test drive. I tried to return the car to the dealer after a couple of days, but was essentially told "sorry, you bought it, you own it."

    In addition, the engine was excessively noisy above ~50 mph. This made driving on the highway unpleasant, particularly on trips, because the engine didn't emit a pleasant sound, as an old Alfa does, but, rather, an annoying drone.

    By comparison, the '60 Valiant my parents owned several years earlier was far superior to the Datsun in every respect except fit and finish. While these two cars are in different size classifications, my conclusion was that the Valiant was a significantly better value, despite its older technology. That said, the Datsun 510 was clearly far superior to the Vega and Pinto in terms of mechanical durability, but if you lived in the Rust Belt, the life expectancy was similar for these three cars, due to corrosion. The bodies typically began to show outer signs of rust after, say, 18 - 24 months, and had gaping holes in the fenders and lower panels by the fourth or fifth year.

    The compact, mid size, and full size domestic cars had considerably better rust protection than most sub compacts (other than the VW Beetle, which was comparable to the larger domestics in terms of corrosion resistance). This translated into a longer useful life. You could say that the domestics' better corrosion resistance compensated for the higher fuel consumption, to a significant extent, or maybe completely, since depreciation is such a large factor in the cost of ownership. Therefore, it was probably less expensive to drive a Valiant/Dart, Maverick/Comet, or Nova/BOP derivative than a 510.

    Yes, but what about that subjective quality that can compensate for so many owner frustrations, character? Didn't the 510 have a lot of character? No, not really. Beetles had character. Fiat 1100s had character. Even Renaults had character. But 510s were virtually devoid of character, in my opinion. They were maybe half a notch above the domestic compacts, which were arguably at the low end of the character spectrum, but, then, for all their faults, the Vega, Pinto, and Gremlin also had a little more character than the larger domestics. The lesson in this, in the case of the 510, is that (relatively) advanced technology doesn't necessary equate with character. After all, the British sports cars had character, but weren't really high tech. Would you agree with this assessment, Shifty?
  • sebringjxisebringjxi Member Posts: 140
    the other night and they had 3 old (and I mean 60's old) stunt men on the show talking about jumps, cars, stunts, etc. They showed several clips from Burt Reynold's movie "White Lightning" where he jumps a '72 Ford SeeDan (as we say in the South) off a dock onto a moving barge. What a shot! What a movie! Running 'shine in full size Fords and Mercurys, cop chases, great jumps....and that brown SeeDan....was a 429 w/2-4V and a great big ol' Hurst shifter sticking up out of the floor! Hoo Wee!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    British cars were very LOW tech that is true.

    Japanese cars are still struggling to develop personality. This is what happens when you try to be good at everything but excel at no one thing to make you stand out.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    In a topic that is no longer active on this board, I read your analysis/comments about the Chevy 350 V-8 engine. You called it an "unattractive and pedestrian lump of cast-iron as well as a piece of work." I can attest to that, as I've heard plenty of 350s in my lifetime. Yes, they are sturdy, but they sure can be noisy.

    Do you suppose the same could be said of the Jeep 4.0-liter (242-cid) inline-six that the brand has been using for many years now? Chrysler has refined it in many ways, that's for sure, but it must be the company's equivalent of the 350. Very sturdy, but very noisy, gas-hungry, and way outdated as of this moment. All the car magazines these days say that this 4.0-liter six needs replacing soon, as it can't compete anymore. Comments?
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    IIRC this engine is based on the AMC six that came out in the late '60s. One of the better sixes of its day, based on my experience with the 199 version, but not exactly leading edge design even then. I've read the current version is rough but torquey.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I was talking strictly about aesthetics and not about the 350 engine's functionality itself, which hardly needs to prove anything to anyone in terms of basic longevity.

    I just like all the parts of a car to look nice. At least lately they are covering American V8s with nice ABS plastics and trim, and hiding the plumbing, so that's good. Also, some of the newer high tech V8s from Ford look very very nice from 5 feet away.

    An AMC 6 is also not high on my list of works of art, no.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    How about a slant six with that nice long intake manifold (ram tuned!) and a rather nicely done exhaust manifold?

    All the American inline sixes look like stationary powerplants. My favorite six is the Jag.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    GM announced they are going to stuff the 3.8 liter supercharged V-6 in the Impala for 2003 or 2004 and call it the Impala SS. It will be good for 240 horsepower, possibly 280 if it uses the engine from the new Pontiac coming out. Many people seem to think this is sacreligous.

    My question, was not the run of the mill Impala and Impala SS from the 60 & 70's kind of slugs? Didn't most have the 327 or, later on, the 305 or 350?

    I realize there was some firebreathing SS's in the 60's, but is a FWD Impala really that an affront?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Probably people are comparing it to the 95-96 Impala SS which is sort of a cult car right now.

    Old Impalas were big heavy cars but you could get them with the 409 and 4-speed. Not superfast by today's standards but for a locomotive sized car it was pretty quick in its day. Otherwise they had the standard V8s engines of the time and more than adequate power at freeway speeds. They' d run out of breath and into aerodynamics issues if they tried to go too fast however, as you might expect from most 60s cars.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Your standard issue Impala small block wasn't that quick, especially as they got heavier in the late '60s, but they were smooth and quiet. Especially compared to smaller cars of that era, which were usually penalty boxes.

    I learned to drive on a '66 283 with Powerglide and while it wasn't quick it had good throttle response and did well on the freeway. And if you floored it it make great noises--I distinctly remember the first time I did that.

    Later I had a '67 Impala with 327/275 PG and even that wasn't that quick although it had better passing power and again, it was smooth and quiet.

    On the other hand I had a '61 Bel Air 283 wagon with stick and even with lots of miles it got up and went pretty well, so the few extra hundred pounds that big Chevies put on later (and a two-speed automatic) took their toll.

    That '61 283 helped me see how the lighter '57 Power Pack could be a seriously quick car.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...GM's decision to once again sell an Impala SS just might be due to the introduction of the Marauder? It's so like GM to create a market, finely hone their well-liked product, then dump it. Oh yeah, then stick the name on a dissimilar product some years later, only to sully the name of the original product forever.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    "It may be better to compare 1970s Japanese cars with their true domestic competitors - the AMC Gremlin, Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega. "

    Point taken, but did the Japanese make anything during that era to compare with a Caprice or LTD? In fact, have the ever? I'm not sure the Avalon even counts as a full size car. I'd consider it more on the upper end of the midsize category.

    As far as all the ABS plastic covering engines Shifty mentioned, I hate all that junk. What's the purpose of the hood? Cover the engine. So why put a hood underneath the hood? That's the most pointless piece of plastic ever stuck under the engine. Just something else to rip off before you can get to the spark plugs. Think of how much money the automakers could save over the entire production run by not having that. You actually think anyone will say: "Well, Brand X has more features, but it doesn't have an engine cover. Brand Y has an engine cover, so I'm going to buy brand Y even though it costs $3000 more and doesn't have as many options." And to think, in 30 years some sucker is going to be paying $500 for one of those things so his '98 Corvette will be "concourse correct." The first car I buy with one of those plastic engine covers, the cover won;t be leaving the dealership with the rest of the car. End of rant.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I like the plastic. If I take it off I get frightened by what I see in there.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    They still have engines under the hood?
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    re98ad: "Point taken, but did the Japanese make anything during that era to compare with a Caprice or LTD? In fact, have the ever?"

    You're correct - the Japanese didn't make anything that could really compete with the American full-sizers of the 1960s and 1970s. But most of those cars died off, and the only ones left - the Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis/Marauder and Town Car - are a sideshow. In the 1960s and 1970s, they were the main event. The Japanese don't compete in this segment because they realize it's pointless to spend a lot of money to compete for a share of a small - and largely static - market. Even GM and Chrysler have abandoned this market to Ford.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Well, now, I wouldn't exactly call them a sideshow. A Crown Victoria is a lot of car for the money, and very practical. If it weren't for the "old man" image associated with the car, I think more people would buy them. Anyway, full-sized V-8 family sedans were the rule and not the exception in the 60's and 70's like you said, but isn't that the time period this topic is covering? You compare full size cars from that era to anything Japanese, and you see the Japanses never even tried the big, RWD V-8 sedan, so if the question comes up "LTD or Import?" you have to make an apples-to-oranges comparison. The Japanese never made a competitor for the LTD. Also, there are rumors out of Detroit that GM and Chrysler are going to be getting back in the RWD game in the next few years, and police and taxi companies have never liked anything but full sized RWD cars, and that segment, while sparsely populated at the moment, is far from dead.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    from the 50s and 60s with V8s and rear wheel drive. Check the market over there for American cars from the 50s and 60s-it's surprising. Wonder why? Well, for one thing there aren't ANY japanese cars that old that haven't completely rusted out by now. When was the last time you saw an interesting or restored 25 year old Japanese car on the road? The Japanese cars began to copy the "longer lower wider" and "planned obsolescensce" styling gimmicks from the American cars beginning with the Toyota Coronas in the mid sixties. So, there WAS a certain aspiration to copy big American cars, at least in styling, all the way. [Until they got weird with the "atomic cockroach" look of the Datsun F10 and B210-when was the last time you saw one of THOSE?]And they DID get bigger-just look at the difference between an early Civic or Accord and one now. Trouble was, with the quality of materials they used in the 60s and 70s [which this topic covers] bigger only meant more to rust, and...to crush.
    Funny they never came out with a "Rodan SS" or "Godzilla XE"-might have been a hoot.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    re98ad: By "sideshow" I meant how many sales the Crown Victoria garners. Full-size, body-on-frame rear-wheel-drive cars are a niche market. The heart of the passenger car market is the Accord/Camry/Taurus/Impala/Passat segment, followed by the subcompacts - Civic/Corolla/Focus/Cavalier.

    As for comparing Japanese cars to American cars in the 1960s and 1970s, I think we agree - the Japanese never competed with full-size American cars. The problem is that the old full-size market gradually dwindled to the point where the only entries are the Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis/Marauder and Town Car. The Japanese, meanwhile, steadily upgraded their cars to the point that offerings from Toyota and Honda set the standard in the biggest segments of today's passenger car market.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think the scarcity of old cars in Japan is because they don't allow junk on the roads like we do.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    I don't think sales have shifted from full sized cars to midsize cars as much as they have from full size cars to minivans and SUV's. People still want size, and as full size cars got "downsized" in the late '70's, it wasn't too many years until the Caravan hit the scene, and after that, it was all downhill for the family car. True, a lot of buyers have shifted from Crown Vics to Camrys, but I'd say a good many more have opted for a Caravan or Explorer instead. Todays Lincoln Navigator, for example, is a huge, chrome laden behemoth made for the purpose of transporting passengers in comfort, the heck with fuel economy and common sense. Sorta like '59 Caddilac Sedan Deville in its time. Automotive tastes haven't changed as much in the last 50 years as we sometimes think.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Amen brother.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The pendulum swings this way and that doesn't it?
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    What really gets me is that the people who drive Suburbans and Expeditions, at least in my area, think of themselves as real sophisticates. They wouldn't be caught dead driving a '60s land yacht. But they're driving the modern equivilent.

    And don't give me that "active lifestyle" self-glorifying nonsense. A FWD mini-van would work just as well for carrying the kids and stuff.

    Okay I feel better now.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    I often wonder what would happen to large SUV sales if they would bring back a full size station wagon like the Ford LTDs and Chevy Caprices. I think the automakers just found a way to switch all the big car buyers [and they are out there] to SUVS-a cheaper to build, higher profit, lower tech version of the land yachts they used to drive. Heck-buying a truck is the only way to get a real, chrome bumper anymore. Not that I would ever buy an Expedition or anything like that. I just think people have switched away from large, rearwheel drive cars to large, rearwheel drive SUVS, because the big three and their ad men have sold the new "image"-you know, the Eddie Bauer thing-to all those yuppie types to drive while they talk on their cellphones on the way to the club. Anyway, my two bits.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...the little ones are hot, the crossovers are hot. I can't see an American, RWD, V8 wagon selling much at this point. I'm betting lots of people end up back with a 'regular' car after their first SUV experience. It's amazing how much fun almost any car can seem after you've driven a slow-steering, slow-braking, bad handling, gas guzzling SUV for a while.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I could see big sport wagons, say like a Ford or Chevy version of the Audi 5000 quattro turbo wagon (still a much sought after car).
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Right now we seem to need the rugged look. It makes people feel safe. I'm amazed when surveys say Americans think life is getting scarier when the FBI's statistics say that crime is down. These people should try a month in Kossovo. It's not like your Expedition is going to protect you from a terrorist attack. Maybe we're just getting more insecure.
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,029
    The funny thing is you could take the chassis from, say, a GMC Envoy, put a dropped floorpan and traditional station wagon body on it, and hey presto, you have a carlike station wagon instead of a SUV. Wonder if it would sell...

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I think the problem with that is that the SUV chassis and running gear are far more rugged than the average consumer needs. Even the small SUVs weigh close to 4000 lbs. and up. It's the "active lifestyle" look and I guess the perceived security that sell them and wagons just don't have those things going for them.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    ...considering the typical downsized full-size Ford or GM wagon, such as an Impala, LTD, Custom Cruiser, etc, only weighed around 4,000 lb, yet came standard with a V-8 and usually air conditioning. Nowadays that 4,000 lb SUV is going to be some tiny little thing. To get the hauling/towing capacity of one of those old late '70's wagons, you'd probably have to move up to something into the 5,000 lb range!
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,029
    I never liked the GM "Orca" fullsizers from '91 to '96, but with the passage of time the wagon versions are starting to look better to me. There are a couple of last-gen Roadmaster wagons here that don't have woodgrain that I wouldn't mind getting. I see them running around the neighborhood and think they'd be a good choice for me. Too bad they are no more, even though they are a bit porky. I still think the best example of wagon design was the '68-'72 Olds Vista Cruiser, which is a car I would really like to have if a good one could be found.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • tomcat630tomcat630 Member Posts: 854
    My favorite cars were full size Chevies all through the 60's. I was 3 (1964) when I could pick them out, my dad says.

    The 70's Chevys had nicer interiors to me compared to the Boroque Ford LTD's. I liked the vinyl grippy steering wheels vs the skinny plastic Ford's.

    The 77+ Caprices were the best design of all, engineering wise. They had more road worthy handling and with a 350-4, Car and Driver pulled a 9.5s 0-60. Back in 77, anything under 10 sec was a rocket!

    The Fords that I liked though, were the 65-66 and the 71-72. The early 70's Fords look so good compared to the 73-78 tuna boats. Also, in 'White Lightning', Burt Reynolds drove a 71 Ford Custom 500. I think that is one other reason I like them, they had a bit of a sport sedan look.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    The '91-'96 GM B-bodies, especially the wagon versions, will become timeless classic designs in 25 years, in my opinion. The styling really isn't all that bad. Heck, nobody ever steals these cars because of that!
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    Somehow I have trouble thinking of the word "classic" in conjunction with a 1990s Buick Roadmaster or Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. They were hardly a high point for their respective divisions. As for the Caprice, it proves that the "bathtub" school of design doesn't work any better on a modern car than it did on a late 1940s Packard.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    ...20 years from now, on the show field at Carlisle, a lone Caprice or Roadmaster wagon, sitting away from all the other cars, still running because its owner liked it enough to hang onto it for that long. Kinda like that '75 Custom Cruiser we saw there, Grbeck!

    Prized collectible, no. But something that a few people may want to hold onto because it brings back fond memories, or it's represents the end of a bygone era. I'm sure that in the late '70's, when big cars started to get downsized, those final, huge wagons were looked on by some as the end of an era, just as the final Caprice/Roadmaster wagons tend to be, today.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    Andre, no doubt there will be a few of the final GM full-size wagons at car shows 20 years from now. On the other hand, the old Custom Cruisers of the 1970s (and their major competitors) were considerably more popular than the 1990s full-size wagons.

    The Custom Cruiser, along with the Chrysler Town & Country, Buick Estate Wagon and Mercury Colony Park, were considered upmarket vehicles for suburbanites in the 1970s...almost like the Jeep Grand Cherokee, Acura MDX and Lexus RX 300 are now.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    Anybody remember the late 50's when the station wagons were very stylish cars?

    Chevie Nomads (plus a Pontiac knockoff), Olds Fiesta and Buick (four door wagons, no center post); Mercury (two door and foor door wagons without center posts)
This discussion has been closed.