Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I had a 1965 Corvair Corsa 140 HP with 4 speed, radials, konis, IECO "trombone" exhaust and I could toss that car around like you could not believe. 4 wheel drifts, etc. The Fitch was a very ltd car that had a lot of flash. The Stinger basically designed to race with its fender mounted oil cooler. I had more fun with that Corvair - sloppy shifter and all. Was the engine cammy? No, but I would take on an MGB, TR4 any time - and the Stinger took on the TR4 in SCCA Class D and did very well. Don't knock the Corvair's handling unless you drove a '65 Corsa - a '36 Buick? :confuse: Not even in the same zip code!
Neighbor worked for Chevy and brought home a 1965 Corvette 396/425 Nassau Blue/white Convert when I was 17. One summer day he let me have it for the day - gave me $20 for gas(.25/gallon premium) and the keys. WOW - a dream come true. Problem with the car? The clutch was a bear - wore out my leg!! I ended up having to pack it in - I could not "release"it - all I could do was "dump" it at a point, so drove it home and parked it.. Awesome power - beast to drive.
Most incredible? 427 Cobra - pulled up next to one one night - blue/black interior and a gorgesous blond driving it! I was about 20 and drivingthe Corvair. The light turned green and she was gone - not tire smoke or anything, just a roar from the sidepipes and GONE..
427 Cobra---I find this a classic example of an "over-engined" car. They are too much of a bear of a car to drive with any ease. I'd take a breathed-on 289 anytime. the 427 is "too much of a good thing".
Yep, those Corvette clutches were brutal, and without power steering, driving one got old real fast unless you were cruising at higher speeds---then quite fun!
As for the Corvair, it certainly wasn't a Sports Car but a college buddy had a '63 Monza
(turbo) Spyder hich could blow -off MG's and even big-Healeys. Of course post ''65s were even better.
"Breathed on" race-prepped 289 nestled in Cobra Daytona Coupe factory racer>
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Great article too in Playboy years ago by Mort Sahl the comedian and his experiences owning and driving a 427 Cobra. They had no choke on the carb so it was often wise to open the car's front end when starting it - they didn't equip them with fire extinguishers for no reason!!!! Flames would shoot up out of the carb if they had too much gas, if I recall correctly.
As for the 'Vette clutch - the only other 4 speed I had ever driven at that point was a VW!!!! When I put my foot on the clutch I thought I had put it on the brake pedal by mistake!!! Every teen age boys' dream - a 'Vette for the day in the Summer with the top down, and a 396/425 to boot, and my poor skinny 17 year old legs couldn't handle it!! When I dumped the clutch on a downshift into 1st in slow traffic trying to accelerate into the passing lane and burned rubber right in front of a cop who had someone else pulled over I figured that was time to call it a day before I hurt myself, someone else, or the car - one of the first production '65 396/425 Vettes made. I still remember C & D's description of the '66 427/425 asking how you enlarge the engine from 396 to 425 with all other specs identical and not increase HP - 425 HP with "horses with hooves as big as bushel baskets". I never got to drive the '66 427 - but that 396/425 with a 6500 RPM redline was all the power anyone could ever want with 7.75x15 tires!!!!
The uprated 289s under the hood were fantastic.
From The Cobra-Ferrari Wars by Michael Schoen:
A stroked 289 with aluminum heads and Webers puts out as much horsepower as the original 427s with a lot less weight. We used a T-10 transmission and multi-plate small diameter clutch rated to 17,000 rpm which did not require a scattershield. Combined with an aluminum water radiator and Kirkham's aluminum uprights, this car weighs 1,999 lbs with one gallon of gas.
I think a stroked 289 is basically the now familiar 302/5-liter.
FIA Roadsters are now popular as replica kit cars>
This replica wears the livery of the Shelby team car raced by Dan Gurney and Phil Hill in the 1965 Targa Florio. I have a 1/24 scale model of the same car built by converting a standard 289 to FIA configuration.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Production totaled 4,643 cars, not counting prototypes or the Avanti II, which wasn't really a Studebaker.
No, it's not a "sports car" since it handled like a pig, but with the supercharged version, it could definitely go fast in a straight line.
The looks are now terribly dated, but at the time the car was very well-regarded.
But you're right, Studebaker was near death at the time, much worse off than Packard, who they absorbed, looted, pillaged and discarded.
For a "futuristic" design it has aged badly. The contemporary Studebaker Hawk has aged better IMO.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Austin Healey 3000? YES!
Jensen Healey? Uh-uh
65 Alfa? YES
85 Alfa? Eh.
I think the "Kammback" principle (for instance) is instant death for most classic cars. There may be a kammie I like, but I can't think of it right now.
I don't think Avanti's "shovel nose" worked in the later gen Camaro either.
I thought the Jensen-Healey was ugly then, it hasn't improved with age.
I'm sure you could think of a Kammback you liked, Shifty>
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
85 Alfa? Eh.
05 Alfa Si!>
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Alfa needs to send us a Miata, not a Lexus.
If you look at a 60s Alfa spider or coupe, they are so clean simple well-made and stylish. Not enormously powerful, they are enormously fun to drive, rev like crazy (up to 7,000 rpm and perhaps more). They are light, economical, easy to fix, comfortable, weather-proof and technically right up to date.
Agreed but at least they're considering sending one Alfa over for the Budget crowd, the Mi.To and there are rumors that it'll be priced to compete with a Mini. There's even speculation that they'll make a Spider version.
I think the Brera in basic 4-cyl trim cost less than $45K across the pond. The bad news is the Brera and Mi.To are both FWD.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
True the original MINI was FWD but even that's only a sports sedan.
But wait, there will be a small Alpha car after all. Cadillac will introduce a RWD Series 3 fighter in 2010, as a 2011 model. It won't be an Alfa, but I'm excited about GM's forthcoming Alpha platform.
It surely didn't handle like a 'pig' compared to an Impala convertible of the day, with its traction bars and radius rods, and braking was the best in the industry with the only domestic use of discs at the time. In automatic form, it had a 3-speed that could be shifted manually through three gears, as opposed to Powerglide only in the Chevy. And frankly, at $4,445 base cost, it was more than an Impala convertible and was priced right up there with its fiberglass cousin, the Corvette!
As far as the purchase of Studebaker by Packard, Packard had more money on hand at the time of the 'merger', but they should have, with as little updating as they did on any of their postwar offerings right up until the '55 model year, unlike Studebaker (new cars in '47, new trucks in '49, an OHV V8 in '51, two new bodies in '53). In '56, the company's combined loss was $43 million. In '57, without Packard and with only a modestly-restyled '57 Studebaker, the loss was down to $11 million. In '59, with the Lark, they had a $28 million profit, and Packard (and Edsel, run by Packard's Jim Nance and with two levels, senior and junior, like Packard) were gone or near-gone. This should show where the production costs and sales problems really were in '55 or '56 for Studebaker-Packard Corporation.
Styling is of course subjective, but the Avanti, with its curved side glass and lack of fake scoops and bright trim, certainly looks less dated today (and I mean by today's standards) than absolutely any '63 domestic I can think of..and I include Corvette...
Although, I must admit I still love a '64 Studebaker Hawk, which was basically the '53 bodyshell, heavily updated. Such was the beauty of the '53, as eleven model years later with updates, it still looked great, in and out, and is considered a "Milestone" car now.
And I grew up thinking there was no other car worth looking at besides a Chevy!
Bill P.
But yes, you're right, relative to all other cars, the Avanti certainly was not the worst handling car of its type and probably better than most. I've driven Avantis, and they are alas typically American in how they feel---soft, lots of push, and god help you if you hit a bumpy turn at high speed. Fast, fun, primitive. You must remember that American automakers were under no compulsion to innovate at this period of time.
You hit it right on the head---the Avanti was WAY too expensive.
Yes I liked the Gran Turismo Hawk as well. I used to own one and it was a good 'ol car and very handsome I thought.
An interesting car, the Avanti, to be sure, but surely not a 'sports car' by any stretch of MY imagination at least. Even a Corvette barely makes the grade in 1962, but a Vette could handle reasonably well on a smooth flat track without too many sharp turns. Take it on a *tight twisty road course* and the MINI Cooper S used to beat up the Corvettes pretty badly. The Corvettes roared ahead on the first stretch, the MINI caught them in turn 2, and the Vettes never saw the MINI again, because their brakes were on fire. This is why Corvette never amassed much of an International racing records. It had way too much power for its suspension and brakes. We'd have to wait for the Ford GT40 for that kind of glory.
Of course you are correct, styling is subjective. I think though that if we include all the subsequent failures of the Avanti design (as we speak, someone is probably coming out with the Avanti XII), we have to entertain the possibility that not too many people really want to look at that shape anymore, or at least not PAY for it.
Consider how many still pay for the shape of a replica Cobra!
As for Studebaker, compared to Packard, it did not have anywhere near the engineering skills and its management style was near-barbaric, even by GM standards. As a member of a Packard family, I was delighted to see Studebaker fall victim of its own business incompetence.
I admire many Packards, but they were late to the party with a postwar car (and even when they did one, it was still the pre-war car underneath...the 'bathtub' or 'pregnant elephant' models); they were last to the party with a V8 (inexcusable in their price class), and to go fro '51 to '54 in that price class with such little styling change and that old-fuddy-duddy high beltline...well, I'm not so sure I agree with your engineering assessment.
They tried to play catch-up in '55, and the Torsion-Level provided a remarkable ride; best in the industry I've heard folks say and I agree it's smooth (I've ridden in several), but quality control was among the worst in the industry too, with many, many fit and finish issues and problems with rear axles, Ultramatic, and the V8 engine, right out of the box. An excellent book on this period is James Ward's "The Rise and Fall of the Packard Motor Car Company" which is available in my local library. It's the most unbiased reading on the subject I've seen, and was written largely from documents of that period located in the Studebaker National Museum, without the hindsight of years and wishful thinking to cloud realities.
Bill P.
Perhaps the way they ended up South Bend production was harsh, true.
If ever in South Bend, check out the brand-new Studebaker National Museum building and its collection, and Archives Center right next door. Truly impressive for a defunct auto maker (and in fact, truck maker until Dec. 1963).
I always thought that even though they were smaller than AMC, they made more interesting cars right up 'til near the end (Gran Turismo Hawk, fiberglass Avanti, Lark Daytonas, sliding-roof wagons, pickups, big trucks with or without diesel, superchargers, three-speed automatics that could be shifted manually through three gears, disc brakes, full gauges, sun roofs, reclining seats, etc.)
One last thing, in your assessment of 'Vettes of that period...my favorite 'Vette is a '62 with hardtop! Primitive in the way a '64 Studebaker Hawk might be considered, but I think better styling than the better-engineered Sting Rays!
Bill P.
How about this?
Studebaker threw the entire Packard archives into the trash.
Hey this is a great subject but let's not veer from topic, which is "Sports Cars of the 60s"
I'm a Host, I'm supposed to set a good example about 'topic drift'. :P
We can continue this discussion here if you'd like!
PACKARDS
best
MrShiftright
Host
Bill P.
Here's how it looked the next month at the International Auto Show in NY>
The E-Type was technically advanced with twin cam heads, 3 carbs, 4wheel disc brakes and IRS. In fact it was so technically advanced that Enzo Ferrari's sales chief told him they'd better get to work on matching it and eventually this resulted in the fabulous racer, the 250 GTO and the road-going 275 GTB which cribbed the entire front end of the Jag.
There's no doubt that however advanced the E-Type's design was marginal, cooling systems, electrics and braking systems were maintenance nightmares and you had to pull the engine to change the clutch. However I was fortunate enough to drive a well-maintained '67 Series II (4.2 motor/all syncro trans) and I've never driven a nicer car, in fact I'm not sure there ever could be a car nicer to drive. I also doubt anyone will ever make a regular production sports car more exciting to look at.
Happy 50th Anniversary, E-Type Jag!
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
The car's bugs didn't seem to slow down its popularity, sex appeal, current high values or the ambition of restorers, so what's not to like?
Besides, modern fixes for all those bugaboos are now abundantly available.
Even the 300SL Gullwing (a far better, and way more technically advanced car) couldn't match the impact the E-Type had on the automotive world. I doubt another car will ever equal the shock and awe of it in 1961.
It looked *great*, it went *fast*, and the rest is history, yep. I think it was the only car to ever be put in the Museum of Modern Art in NY
The car also makes you realize how far the modern day Jaguar company has deviated from its origins.
While I know you're not a fan, Shifty, the current 5.0 Mustang has gotten positive press from pretty much everyone, big power + handling for decent price.
I couldn't even put "Taurus" or "Minivan" or Mustang in the same universe. I mean, there may be categories of "bang" called *utility* or "value* but people went NUTS when the E-Type came out. I mean, they were wild, rhapsodic, beside themselves.
Nobody ever swooned over a Taurus that I saw....polite applause from the back of the room, maybe.
I think the '49 Jaguar XK-120 was phenomenal in its day, in terms of styling, performance, technology and value for the money. One could argue that the XKE was the spiritual successor to the XK-120.
I guess I just wanted to emphasis, in my own opinion, that no car EVER, before or since the E-Type, in the history of the automobile, has ever created such a stir, such desire and such praise.
Perhaps this has now somewhat faded a bit, but history is, after all, "in the books" and we can look it up.
My Mustang II had a 5.0 :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Just to be clear, I was talking about the 2011 with the new 'full' 5.0 l engine. Shifty, you might want to take one out for a test drive, the quality is way up, as is the fun factor compared to earlier Mustangs.
But I won't argue that any Mustang generated the impact of the E-type.
While the '65 Mustang didn't feature new technology, it introduced original new styling, and a wide choice of configurations for varying needs, from trendy economy to high performance, all at an affordable price. It was aspirational, yet attainable. The result was a smash hit of historical proportions. The Mustang, more than any other model, was responsible for creating the pony car segment in the market.
The most that could be said about the Fox platform 5.0, beginning in '83/'84, was that it was a breath of fresh air, after a period of dashed hopes for performance buffs. It announced that affordable high performance could co-exist with tne tightened emissions and safety regulations. The fact that the 5.0 used massaged old technology was disappointing to some (including you and me), but it hardly mattered to pony car buffs. In fact, it may have been a plus to many, because they were familiar with it. Ford successfully appealed to the intended market with the 5.0. It should also be noted, in evaluating the 5.0, that in North America the pony car market is considerably larger than the sports car market.
Going back 10 years, the '55 Chevy also generated shock and awe when it hit the showrooms, in my estimation. It was a game changer in the "low price field." I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the '55 Chevy lifted spirits in America.
I had no idea you were referring to the new Mustang--I read the road tests of the Laguna Seca model, and it seems like a very impressive car indeed.
But again, there's nowhere near the excitement among the general population that the E-Type elicited--that car excited people who didn't even care about cars.
To be fair about it, I don't think we live in an age where that level of excitement about a mere car is even possible anymore.
I appreciate your assertion, but the fact is the '65 Mustang created more of a stir, desire & praise because it was significantly more affordable than the E type Lucas carrier.
I just don't see the two cars in the same universe much less the same showroom. It's not the same market, and lets' face it, what is less attainable is by definition more desirable to those who cannot afford a thing. The Mustang was easily bought by a secretary or the common man. So it's more Model A than E-Type.
But yeah, people were camping out at dealerships to see the new Mustang. It certainly drummed up curiosity and a *lot* of buyers.
But you weren't going to go 150 mph in one, get onto a race track, or go around corners really fast, and you certainly weren't going to attract a trophy wife (or husband I guess :P )
When you stepped out of dad's car into an MG or Jaguar or Alfa or ???, you stepped into an entirely different universe.....NOTHING was the same as in a regular passenger car, except a steering wheel and seats. The dash, the wheels, the engine, the body, everything was different, and solely dedicated to...well...sport.
comfort? reliability? practicality? luggage space? BAH! simply "not the point of it all".
The only reason it took a few years for Corvette to be called a "sports car" and why T-Bird and Mustang never were called that, was because Corvette didn't 'get it right' the first few years.
The basics for a sports car were:
bucket seats
4-speed floor shift
two seats or 2+2
wire or fancy wheels
light weight
excellent performance and handling (for the time)
So Corvette didn't sort all that out until (starting in) 1956 and gradually getting the braking and handling required to do something other than go fast in a straight line.
My '66 Ford Mustang GT Coupe devalues your opinion of 1st generation Stangs so we are not always in agreement. Shelbys?
I think the Shelby phenomenon edged closer to the sportscar crowd, but really the Shelby 350 was a rather brutal car---sophisticated, it was not. It's not like you put on your string gloves and leather Italian driving shoes. More like a cowboy hat and a cigar.
Ah, the 1960s....when race drivers were fat and their tires were thin!
But then comes the sobering cold shower of reality. Trim pieces? Wheels? A steering wheel?----where on earth is THAT coming from and how much will I have to pay for it?
Then there's the problem of "do I really want to drive this thing?" Here we have a honkin' 300HP in the same chassis as a Detomaso Vallelunga---be afraid, be very afraid.
Would I like to take this car out for a straight line burn? Yes! Would I like to own it? No!
As for straight line acceleration, you can buy this level or performance for less elsewhere. This car does have an exotic sounding name, though.
There is a Studebaker Avanti in the Museum of Modern Art in Paris.
Loewy was born in Paris actually. The French are fond of him.
Are you sure you don't mean the Industrial Design exhibit at the Louvre (temporary exhibit)?