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

andre1969 · August 2010

My grandparents had a 1977 Granada coupe with the 250-6. I don't really remember much about it, as I was 7 when they got it, and around 10-11 when they traded it on an '81, which had the 200-6.

I think the 250 had around 95-98 hp, while the 200 was more like 88 hp? Power to weight ratios probably were similar. The Fairmont (and fox-based Granada) were lighter, but then they had less hp and I'm sure a lot less torque. I wonder if maybe the 200 was a better revver though. Maybe it had a broader torque curve, so it made better use of what little it had?

And, like you suggested, they might have used better gearing for the Fairmont? I wonder if they might have also used a smaller transmission and rear-end with the 200, which would probably sap less hp?

Most people would probably thumb their nose at it today, but I thought my grandparents' '81 Granada was a sharp looking car. It was a coupe, and a 2-tone brown/champagne sort of color. I always thought the '77-80 style was kind of tacky looking, but the '81-82 looked pretty sharp, for a tarted-up Fairmont!

That '81 Granada gave way to a 1985 small LTD, which I logged a lot of seat time learning how to drive, parallel park, and also do some of the driving on a trip to Florida. It had the 232 "Essex" V-6, the one that later became famous for head gasket failure. It wasn't widely known back then though, and my grandparents would usually trade a car before it got to high miles.

I remember that I liked that LTD. It didn't have quite the substantial feel of my 1980 Malibu. It was smaller inside, and didn't ride quite as nice. But it was more nimble, and that fuel-injected, ~119 hp 3.8 seemed to perform a lot better than the 2-bbl carb 115 hp 229 in my Malibu did!

Mr_Shiftright · August 2010

Great old car---I had (I dimly recall) either a '47 or '48, but a 4-door. I remember, aside from the wheezy old 216 cid 6-cylinder "stove bolt six", a vacuum shifter of some sort.

These are actually (compared to 50s and 60s domestics) very well made cars. I wouldn't mind having another to putt around town in.

kyfdx · August 2010

My girlfriend (no, honey, not the current one) had a Monarch with the 250 I-6.. She would turn the A/C off, to go up a hill.... :surprise:

The 302 V-8s of the late '70s have what seem like really low HP numbers, but they had a lot of oomph... not doggy, at all..

andre1969 · August 2010

The 302 V-8s of the late '70s have what seem like really low HP numbers, but they had a lot of oomph... not doggy, at all..

I wonder if Ford might have used a quicker axle ratio back then, than GM or Chrysler? One Consumer Reports test that always sticks in my mind was where they tested a '79 Caprice against an LTD and a Dodge St. Regis.. The Caprice had a 130 hp 305-2bb,, the Ford had a 129 hp 302-2bbl, and the Dodge had a 135 hp 318-2bbl. The Dodge would've used a 2.45:1 axle, and the Chevy most likely a 2.41:1, but I'm not sure what Ford would've used.

Anyway, none of the 0-60 times were anything to brag about, but I remember the Ford coming in at around 13.9 seconds. Bit of a dog, but the Caprice came in at 15.4 and the St. Regis, 15.9!

I briefly dated a girl who had a '77 Granada with a 302. I drove it a few times, and it seemed to have pretty good power.

kyfdx · August 2010

I had a '77 Mustang Cobra II.. A crappy car in all respects.. except for the 302 -V8.. Only rated at 135hp... but, very torquey.. With the standard 4-speed, it was very quick, up through about 50 mph.... Got wheezy after that, with that tiny 2-bbl and all the smog equipment...

texases · August 2010

"The 302 V-8s of the late '70s have what seem like really low HP numbers, but they had a lot of oomph... not doggy, at all.. "

Yep, I had a running conversation in about '85 with a Saab fan who talked about how American V8s were 'junk, they don't put out as much hp as a Saab turbo!" He had no understanding of the importance of torque.

I did get a laugh when he boasted of his 900's interior quality, even though the seat fabric wore through in about 3 years...

Mr_Shiftright · August 2010

The Saab Turbo of those days was like driving the Wild Mouse at Disneyland...the torque steer was downright scary once boost came on. I doubt a 302 could have stayed up with a Saab T once it spooled up, but off the line, there wasn't much there.

uplanderguy · August 2010

I remember that I liked that LTD. It didn't have quite the substantial feel of my 1980 Malibu.

I know one won't find much to say complimentary about the "A" bodies such as the Malibu of the day, but I always thought they felt more substantial than the actual size would indicate, and in the 'Classic' model weren't fancy inside, but had a 'quality' feel to the interior appointments. I remember that they were the smallest car made then in the U.S. with body-on-frame construction.

I had a new '81 Monte Carlo stolen. I got an '81 Mercury Cougar to drive as a rental for the 30-day waiting period after the Monte was stolen. The Cougar was the Mercury version of the LTD you mention. Compared to the Monte, the Cougar screamed 'cheap' to me. It was a six, two-door, and I remember it had only four lug nuts per wheel (and one was missing on one wheel!), had the dash that was a glitzed-up Fairmont dash, and on the roof sail panel outside, right at eye level, a horizontal seam that GM-of-the-day would have filled in. I know many will say that reliability of the Ford products was better though.

omarman · August 2010

A friend from high school would sometimes drive his dad's 1977 Granada with a 302 and manual 3speed + overdrive. I wonder if that combo ever made it to the Mustang II? Or just the later Fox body Mustang?

uplanderguy · August 2010

A friend from high school would sometimes drive his dad's 1977 Granada with a 302 and manual 3speed + overdrive. I wonder if that combo ever made it to the Mustang II? Or just the later Fox body Mustang?

Not sure about the Mustang II, but a longtime coworker had a new '79 Zephyr Z-7, in a firethorn-like color, that was a 302 and "4-speed" (I'm assuming 3 + OD). It went through a clutch quickly, but was pretty unique. The fellow who restored my '63 Studebaker is married to a gal who had (and still does, tucked away) a '78 Fairmont two-door sedan, big boxy bodystyle, with that same engine and trans combination.

Along those lines, I remember you could get a 4-speed with V8's in the '78 and '79 (not sure about later) GM G-bodies. In the sixes, if you got the standard trans, it was a floor-mounted three-speed, kinda neat. I plainly remember an ordered green standard Malibu wagon at our dealer's, '78, with rally wheels, Monte Carlo gauge cluster and instruments, and a big-old 3-speed floor shifter, waiting to be picked up by the customer.

andre1969 · August 2010

I liked the three A/G bodies I had...1980 Malibu coupe with a 229, 1982 Cutlass Supreme coupe with a 231, and 1986 Monte Carlo with a 305.

I think my biggest beef, and this doesn't apply to the coupes, is the stationary rear door windows in the sedans and wagons. That was just cost-cutting to the extreme, although I've heard that with the front windows down and the vent windows flipped open, ventilation was good. And those recessed door panels gave you some incredible elbow room. Also, in 1978-79, Chevy used an under-sized 3.3 V-6 and Buick used a tiny 3.2. Pontiac and Olds, at least, started off with a 231 as the smallest engine.

As for reliability, 1981-82 were definitely the low point for the A-body, with that troubleprone "CCC" computer system that was in its infancy, and emission controls that made sure even less of that meager hp got to the ground. And it seemed like quality in general went down in those years. But, 1978-79 and 1983-88 were pretty good years, although you could get an occasional bad THM200 tranny, or a bum 231 or 301.

I think Ford and Chrysler were actually starting to get their acts together by 1981. They had to...if they sunk any worse than they were, they would have certainly gone under. But GM was getting fat and happy...even in 1982, Caprices were often going out the door at full MSRP.

One thing that's interesting about GM's A-bodies is that they were the only downsized intermediate that was actually DESIGNED to be an intermediate. At least, until the 1986 Taurus came out. Everything else in that timeframe that was advertised as an intermediate was based on a compact, and could be traced back to an Aspen/Volare, Fairmont, Citation, or K-car.

In a lot of respects, I think the Aspen/Volare were pretty good too, as long as you stayed away from the '76-77 models. They were substantial-feeling cars, although in some areas, mainly shoulder room, trunk space, and the placement of the steering wheel, still let you know they were compacts.

ab348 · August 2010

Gotta jump in here with some comments... we owned a '74 Maverick 4-door with the "Luxury Decor Option" (LDO) and the 250 6-cylinder. For the wayit was driven, it seemed adequate, but nothing more. That was a pretty awful car even by the standards of the time. I remember that it was built in Kansas City and I figured they must have had a bad day when they built it. It was OK on the highway up to about 55 mph, and after that it was all over the road. You didn't want to drive on the highway anyway, because it had a wind whistle in the windshield that the dealer was unable to fix. I eventually found it on my own -- they used a rubber gasket for the windshield on those, and it had not been sealed on the passenger side where it met the body. It also had a bad dive to the left whenever you used the brakes. The instability on the highway (and maybe the braking problem too) was due to front-end problems that were eventually diagnosed by an independent shop after the warranty ran out, but were too expensive to bother fixing. By then the car was rusting badly after just 3 years, with water leaks galore and either poor quality metal or just poor design that trapped water and dirt. We dumped it beforwe it turned into a pile of rust in the driveway. .

We then bought a '78 Grand Lemans Safari right at the start of the model year. It might have even been a pilot car, as it came in to the dealer early without retail pricing. It was built in Baltimore. It had manual windows and I recall that the shafts were obviously not correct, as the handles stood proud of the door panels by nearly an inch. It was also not a good story. The rear window/tailgate assembly rattled badly and leaked like a sieve. The roof rusted where the roof rack attached. The drivers door window fell into the door twice. Various interior trim pieces did not fit at all. It had the SBC 305 V-8 and had plenty of punch, but it would occasionally run wild on startup and the only way to stop it was to shut it off. Never did figure that out. The car did not have A/C and from the back seat I can tell you it really needed it in the summertime. While the interior trim was nice on the Grand Lemans and the dash looked good, the overall build quality was not there.

Before buying that we test drive 2 other wagons: a '77 LTD II, as the Fairmonts were not yet available, and a Aspen. The LTD II was a nice car but just too big for what we wanted. The Aspen was a loaded SE model but we didn't like it much. It seemed "tinny" in my mom's words. I remember driving it and it seemed nose-heavy with the 318. I liked it well enough, but when dad saw the Lemans, that was the car he wanted.

kyfdx · August 2010

my '77 Mustang II was just a straight 4-speed... Ran pretty high RPMs in 4th, if I remember right.... Top speed was 108 mph... downhill..

hpmctorque · August 2010

I never drove the Fairmont based Granada that your grandparents had, but since it weighed something more than the Fairmont, as a result of more sound insulation and a few other differences to make it more upscale, I imagine the Fairmont accelerated a little better than that Granada.

We had a light blue '80 Zephyr 2 door in the family, with the 200 I-6, bucket seats and a a vinyl top. Call it a dressed up Fairmont. It had ~96,000 one owner, well maintained miles on it when we bought it for third car use. Interestingly, the engine and the automatic transmissions crapped out within a few hundred miles of each other, when it had ~156,000 on the odometer. That car was quite good for what it was. It was reliable and generally low maintenance.

"... I thought my grandparents' '81 Granada was a sharp looking car. It was a coupe, and a 2-tone brown/champagne sort of color."

Yeah, I agree.

"That '81 Granada gave way to a 1985 small LTD..."

Didn't these also use the Fairmont platform? As I recall they were longer, and maybe a tad wider than the earlier Fairmont, but had pretty much the same interior dimensions as the Fairmont.

While the Essex V6 provided adequate performance in a family car, it was indeed disappointing from a durability standpoint. I believe the Essex was a 302, minus two cylinders and whatever else was needed to utilize the V8 tooling for the V6. I considered that to be Ford's counterpart to GM's (Buick) 231.

hpmctorque · August 2010

Ah, yes, the Maverick LDO, Ford's tarted up compact. Well, hardly compact by today's standards.

The 250 I-6 did perform better in the Maverick than in the Granada, perhaps because the Granada was somewhat heavier.

Based on the experiences you described, it's no wonder why the Japanese cars became popular. That's sad, when you consider that Detroit produced the world's best massed produced cars in the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s.

berri · August 2010

I recall those Fairmont's having very uncomfortable bench seats - too erect or something. Hated them as rentals. It was a bit unusual because I always felt Ford's tended to have more comfortable seats than GM.

The mid 70's and early 80's just had mostly disappointing engines. I had a Cutlass with a 4bbl 350 and the carb lag made it a major pig (wished I had gotten a Chevymobile engine!), I remember the Ford 351 as a pig and the one of the versions seemed prone to major engine failure as well. The Mopar's didn't ever seem to be able to keep their electronic controls working right. Detroit really opened the door to the subsequent surge in imports.

andre1969 · August 2010

Didn't these also use the Fairmont platform? As I recall they were longer, and maybe a tad wider than the earlier Fairmont, but had pretty much the same interior dimensions as the Fairmont.

Yeah, same Fox platform. The wheelbase was the same, around 105.6", and I think the car was around 196-197" long...about the length of a Fairmont, but maybe the slope of the LTD's front and rear, and the more integrated bumpers, somehow made it look longer?

I think interior room was identical. Perhaps even a bit less, as the door panels were better padded, and so were the seats. They might have made the doors thicker as well, to give the car a slightly beefier look. As I recall, the Fairmont had some pretty thin doors.

The decklid on the LTD was also a bit higher than the Fairmont. I think overall trunk space was smaller though, as raising the height wasn't enough to offset the loss from sloping off the rear. However, it did seem to make the trunk a bit more useable.

I also want to say that the LTD used the same basic dash design as the earlier versions of the T-bird/Cougar? One of my friends in college had an '86 T-bird Elan or Fila or something like that, which had an updated looking dash, so the T-bird changed it at some point, evidently.

andre1969 · August 2010

The mid 70's and early 80's just had mostly disappointing engines. I had a Cutlass with a 4bbl 350 and the carb lag made it a major pig

My '76 Grand LeMans isn't the fastest thing in the world, either. It has a Pontiac 350, and when I first bought the car, I just assumed it was one of those big 2-bbls that looks like a 4-bbl with the secondaries welded shut. Later on though, I found out that those were only used on the Olds 260?

Well, one day it wouldn't start, and I was fiddling around with the carb and accidentally touched one of those secondaries. Imagine my shock when it actually opened! My first thought was cool! It's a 4-bbl after all! But then my second though was y'know, for a 4-bbl, this thing kinda sucks!

According to my Consumer Guide encyclopedia, which is often wrong, the Pontiac 350-2bbl had 160 hp and the 4-bbl had 165 in 1976. But, I have one of those big "Motor's Repair Manual" books that lists the 4-bbl at 175 hp. I would presume the Motor's book would be more likely to be accurate?

One thing I noticed was a bit odd though...the 2-bbl had 280 ft-lb of torque, while the 4-bbl actually had less...260 ft-lb! I've seen a lot of cases where going from the 2-bbl to the 4-bbl leaves the peak torque untouched, but is it often that it would actually lower the torque?

Anyway, the 150 hp 360 2-bbl that my '79 New Yorkers use feel like they'll smoke the LeMans from 0-60, but then the LeMans seems to get its second wind at higher speeds.

lemko · August 2010

The mother of one of my high school classmates had one of those fastback Cutlasses.

Oh man! If that Buick turns out to be an Electra or a Park Ave with the 403 V-8, let me know, especially if it is in as nice condition as my Cadillac Brougham!

lemko · August 2010

...medium blue 1974 Plymouth Satellite sedan with white top and medium blue brocade and vinyl interior at my local mechanic's shop. I remember these cars being dirt common when I was a kid, but they're quite scarce nowadays. I imagine most were used up as police cars and taxis back in the day.

fezo · August 2010

Dang. I missed much of the Grenade talk. My dad bought one of those. :sick:

Today in the parking lot at Costco there was a black 53 Ford that didn't look like too much had been done to it in intervening years. It had collector plates on it but looked more daily driver-ish.

michaellno · August 2010

... I saw not one, but two, BMW 8-series. One red, one black, both looked to be in good condition (the red one had temp tags on it, so was recently purchased).

Both of them in my little (well, 50,000 population) town.

fintail · August 2010

This morning saw a white 356 that I see now and then, a black TR 7-8 that I think I saw last week, and an 80s GM diesel van that was letting off more fumes than the most out of tune 300SD.

uplanderguy · August 2010

This day in history went by w/o even a mention on the news, that I heard, but I stumbled on this video. Check out the '30's and '40's cars...back then! The celebrating at that point is something to see...the end of World War II and 400K American soldiers killed by that time. I''m one of those guys that truly does think those guys were the "Greatest Generation". I wonder how many people in that video are still with us today.

http://vimeo.com/5645171

toomanyfumes · August 2010

That was a great video.

hpmctorque · August 2010

I'd seen that video before. It's excellent.

fintail · August 2010

Great footage , the old color is awesome and it is fascinating to see the old cars as they were - not the Hollywood scenes where everything has wide whites and 90% of cars are coupes and convertibles. If it was the 40s, I think I'd be driving a Packard, maybe a Buick...and I like the '40 and '42-8 Fords and Mercuries too.

Speaking of that generation, there was a very entertaining WW2 vet at the MBCA show I attended last weekend. He had "Former POW" plates on his car...I talked to him a bit, he was a prisoner at Bad Orb in Germany...he was very personable and positive, probably eternally grateful he has made it through so much for so long. His car? Brand new loaded E350 cabrio.

au1994 · August 2010

RE: Greatest generation...you are not the only one. The things those guys endured and accomplished are mind boggling. They are fading fast and I hope we have captured enough of their stories and wisdom to pass on.

That is if you can discuss things like war in school anymore.

lemko · August 2010

Awesome video! My wife's father was in the Navy in the Pacific Theatre during WWII. Sadly, he passed away in July 2006 of cancer just short of his 85th birthday. My Grandpop was in the Army in the European Theatre during the war and he too is gone as of September 6, 2008 just short of 87. They truly were the Greatest Generation though they were probably too modest to claim that title themselves.

uplanderguy · August 2010

They truly were the Greatest Generation though they were probably too modest to claim that title themselves.

I believe that too.

So many of those guys were put through sheer hell 'over there', then came home and modestly built the industrial giant this country was in the postwar years.

I was from a small town. Our Chevy-Cadillac dealer was a family-run place from 1936-91...good place to do business. The owner (actually, son of the original owner) was a good guy, soft-spoken, and a community leader in so many ways. He passed away in Jan. of this year and I was surprised to see in his obit all the action he saw in the European theater. I'd not known about it.

berri · August 2010

I think the difference in the generations is really pretty simple. During our parent's generation guys in their 40's and up that were in corporate leadership positions actually cared about their country. Today's exec's only care about money in their pocket. Wall Street players only amplify this. And our Washington politicians aren't really any different unfortunately - its all about campaign donations (of which the unspent portion stays in their pocket after they leave). I'm starting to think we need a 3rd party, because I'm becoming pretty disgusted by both Democrats and Republicans.

michaellno · August 2010

I'm starting to think we need a 3rd party, because I'm becoming pretty disgusted by both Democrats and Republicans.

+1 on that statement, berri.

Here in Colorado, we've got a unique situation for our governor's race. One D candidate - current mayor of Denver. One R candidate - political unknown and businessman who knocked off the parties' chosen candidate in the primary. And, one 3rd party candidate, who was a former R congressman and has joined the American Constitution Party.

This, in effect, will split the R vote and almost guarantee the D candidate the victory. The ACP candidate has repeatedly gone to the R candidate and suggested that they both drop out of the race so the R party can field a candidate who has a chance of defeating the D candidate, who is quite popular in CO.

There are times where I wish we had a true 3rd party that would force the R and D parties to form a "coalition" government, much like we see in Canada. NDP, PQ, along with Conservative and Liberal parties.

ab348 · August 2010

The Canadian model is not the one to follow. In our parliamentary system it often leads to minority governments which pander to everyone and never accomplish much in the way of decisive or dramatic change.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2010

Gentlemen, please--this is an automotive forum, so let's say on track. Thank you much!

Shifty the Host.

fintail · August 2010

"This car holds the distinction of being the first xxxxx produced"

Great name, car looks pretty great too

Turbo

Almost new, including the price

Historical significance

"Le Cabriolet"

One of the better ones of these left no doubt

Seems a few of these survived, surprising

"very special"

Ambitious project

Gorgeous W108

Of all the things to privately import

Bonnie getting bids

Patina

Czech

Price seems kinda high for what you get

Bold independent

" it was manufactured right here in the USA, in Pompano Beach, Florida to be exact"

Mr_Shiftright · August 2010

Hmmm....seems to be a little sag in the Zimmer market....ask $47,000, bid $12,000.

Frazer Vagabond --- regrettable front end treatment.

1914 Overland---it's all about originality, which is not reproducible. Well, maybe Disney technician could fool a lot of people.....

Renault Alliance -- who cares? Anyone on the face of the earth? Doubt it.

73 Buick-- the last good year, when a Buick was still its own marque, could get out of its own way, and still made you point at one.

81 Buick --- yawn.

Datsun B210 @ $1800 -- fair enough.

73 Dodge Police Car -- should have brought a higher bid. Seller wise to decline.

Dodge Aspen Pickup -- too many beers at the late night garage.

1938 Mercedes -- here's the line you really want to pay attention to---" BUT SOME PARTS APPEAR TO BE MISSING. " Can you say "unobtanium"? (actually, you can make 'em, but that's not gonna be cheap).

tjc78 · August 2010

I really like the 73 Buick, good color combo too. For 93k on the clock, it looks really, really clean. It has the "speed alert" my Grandfather's Riviera of the same vintage had this feature. I was a little kid, but IIRC it buzzed when you hit the speed it was set at. Grandpop liked to drive fast and I remember it buzzing a lot!

The only thing I noticed is, what is up with that spare tire? A modern SUV tire just looks goofy in there.

stickguy · August 2010

Just read the descirption on the Aspen PU (which in some perverse way, I like. Dodge should have made one of these back in the day).

Anyway, I hpoe Richard does not see this, his head might explode.

" I have a very special vec.it was a dodge aspen stationwagon cut down in to a truck like it has a super slant 6 2 br front set is all it got it was running the outher day but it got bad gas in it i gartee it run with smoke where it set for the last 5 year it would be a special car iif some one fixen it i am moveing and dont have the time or money to fix it tran does work very well your SWEET HEART would look good in it this car can be made to real SHARP it has some rust but nother u can fix little time need paint god i wish i had the money to fix it for my hunny well you can call if you want to know more 1 304 634 3160 thank and happy bidden "

Mr_Shiftright · August 2010

Interesting. What language is that? Are their subtitles?

andys120 · August 2010

-'51 Frazer Vagabond: I find myself wondering if that Olive Green is a factory color, it would have been very unsual in 1951. I can't agree with Shifty's comment about the front. Exaggerated, over-chromed grilles were the order of the day and that Frazer's
is about par for the era.

imidazol97 · August 2010

The blurb says it's the original color. I recall a few cars having eye-catching colors in those days.

That one's a "woody."

andre1969 · August 2010

Count me in on that '73 Centurion. Sharp looking car. My favorite Buick B-body of that era is actually the '75 LeSabre...there's just something about that massive front that I like. But I think the '71-73 models, with their low grilles, are clean and sleek, and actually sporty for such a big car.

For some reason, the '74 Buick doesn't do it for me, though. There's just something too fussy, pretentious, and even pimpy about the front-end that I don't like.

uplanderguy · August 2010

Count me in on that '73 Centurion. Sharp looking car.

Those '71-73 Centurions are beautiful cars, but I always think the interior is somewhat plain. I like the '71-72 Grand Ville convertible interiors better. Not the '73, however...with that cheap plastic air-rifle stock-look wood on the door and dash and the fussy 'monogramming' on the seat backs. I probably think the '73 Delta 88 convertible has the best interior of the pack. The '73 Caprice Classic? Dud interior...it's an Impala interior, literally, in a Caprice!

andre1969 · August 2010

Here's something you don't see every day: an F-word in my yard!

tjc78 · August 2010

Andre.. you know you need a Panther platform vehicle in your stable. Looks right at home there.

andre1969 · August 2010

That's my buddy's 2004 Crown Vic LX. He left it at my place for a couple of days when he went to Philly for something-or-other, and I gave him a ride to the station. I think it has around 180-185,000 miles now. It seems to be holding up well, although a lot of the paint has peeled on both the front and rear bumper fascia, and it's starting to rust a bit in that unfinished seam at the top of the C-pillars, where the paint always seems to be a little thin.

It had about 10,000 miles on it when he bought it, and I wonder if it might have taken a slight hit to the front and rear, been repainted, and then subsequent parking lot bumps just caused the repaint to start falling apart?

I wouldn't be opposed to picking up a slightly-used one, if I ever found myself in need of another car. A Panther was on my list of cars to consider, until the Park Ave came along. The only real strike against it was that they seem almost impossible to find with a sunroof!

tjc78 · August 2010

I am not 100% sure on this, but, I don't think the GM/CV was ever available with a factory moonroof. The Town Car was since the 70s, however, every GM/CV I have ever seen with a moonroof was aftermarket.

I think you may be right about possibly being repainted. My Grandfather's 04 GM has a few dings to the front and rear bumpers but no peeling paint anywhere. Of, course, his has led a slightly easier life having only covered about a 1/3 of the miles your buddys did.

explorerx4 · August 2010

i wasn't sure if that engine in the '73 Buick was a 455 because of the siamesed middle cylinders, but I found this unusual video.
455 Buick engine for sale

stickguy · August 2010

mid-60s 120 series wagon (was this a 125? Or an Amazon?) Nyway, 5 door wagon.

pretty nice shape overall. paint looked good, and no signs of rust. Sitting in a driveway in an upscale neighborhood, so not a beater. Must be a volvo guy, since he has a very sharp burgandy 850 wagon too.

stickguy · August 2010

across the street from the Volvo guy, another person has matching all-white Vettes. one is a C4 of come vintage, and the other is a mid-70's C3 (maybe a 75? Has the plastic rear bumper, but I have never seen the front end). Nice looking matching pair.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles