I've got a cute story regarding the reintroduction of the HEMI in '03 or '04 (when ever the first year was). I took my daughter who was about 6 at the time to boat show in Kansas City. Remember all of those "Does that thing have a Hemi" commercials back then. Anyway, Dodge had a display of Rams at the show and one had the hood up. I was looking under the hood and out of the blue, my daughter asks, "is that the hemi?" The power of TV!
That would be an odd beast indeed...maybe more reliable than the big V6. Was that 2.5 some kind of outgrowth of the 2.3 from the Tempo (not a wonderful unit)?
A few years ago I saw a MT5 in the small town where my mother lives, I remember pointing it out as if someone cared.
That would be an odd beast indeed...maybe more reliable than the big V6. Was that 2.5 some kind of outgrowth of the 2.3 from the Tempo (not a wonderful unit)?
A girlfriend's dad back in HS had a 80's something Taurus MT5. What a dog and a complete pile of crap. The 2.3HSC 4cyl in the Tempo was bad and the 2.5 unit was bad too. I wonder how it compared to the iron duke. No wonder so many small car buyers walked, no, ran to the imports.
My '85 Celebrity Eurosport was a very good handling car for FWD. Shod with Goodyear Eagle GT's and what Chevy called "sport suspension", it was a flat cornerer, and with the multiport FI V6 was a pretty decent performer in the day. It was mechanically the same as the Pontiac 6000 STE, the darling of the enthusiast magazines back then.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
4 cyl with column shift automatic in a Celebrity Eurosport? Sorry to hear that!
But, hey, it's still on the road and it's at least 22 years old, and (gasp)..American!
When I bought mine, I actually entertained the thought of buying a Citation X11, which was on the cusp of being discontinued and I knew it. Fact is, the crap had been ironed out by then and it was the same car underneath as a Celebrity, but they could be bought with a 2.8 and stick, unlike the Celebrity, and could be bought for a lot less. I chickened out because of resale value worries, which I never do now.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I don't think the Ro ad Run ner is really too pathetic, for the context of the time.
Motor Trend tested a 400-4 bbl with the 3.21 open rear and got 0-60 in 8.6 seconds and the 1/4 mile of 15.77 @ 89 mph. They also gave it good marks for ride and comfort, although the test car was equipped with the rear sway bar and handling package.
Unfortunately though, the 318-2bbl, all 145-150 hp of it, was the standard engine, and about half of the Ro ad Run ners came with it. Good workhorse of an engine, but a musclecar it is not. The 360 was most likely offered as well, in 2- or 4-bbl form. I can't remember if the hot 360 that was offered in the Duster was also offered in these cars.
Some car books list a 240 hp 440-4bbl as being offered in these midsized cars, but I think that was a copcar-only engine, and wasn't going in any civvy models by '75.
That Olds Calais 4(cyl)-4(valves per cyl)-2(dual exhaust) was an insult to the old 4-4-2, though, IMO. If they had just taken the old GM10 Cutlass Supreme and offered a 4-4-2 version of it with, say, that DOHC 3.4 Chevy V-6, I would have bought it (figuratively...I don't mean I would've run down and actually BOUGHT one! :P ) Olds did offer a Cutlass Supreme with that engine, but I forget now what they called it...International Series, or something like that?
The Tempo we had was blessed with the 2.3. Maybe the slowest semi-modern car I have ever driven (slushbox too, for added misery). Pretty sad when an ancient fintail can dust something smaller and decades newer while having less displacement.
Actually that's slower than a 2000 Toyota Echo but yes, in 1975 there weren't many "fast" cars. 8.6 seconds was respectable and certainly better than the pathetic Cadillac Seville and other similar cars which didn't have the engines to push their weight. It's even faster than a 1975 Corvette, of all things.
The Tempo we had was blessed with the 2.3. Maybe the slowest semi-modern car I have ever driven
I am sorry to say I drove one for a year. My dad had an '85 Tempo that he bought new and I drove it for about 6 mos. prior to leaving for college in '90 or so. While it wasn't a disaster reliability wise (it did go down hill fast after 100k miles), it was dog slow. But for the honor of being the slowest car I've ever driven, that's a tough one.
It would have be between my friends Pontiac T1000, and '87 Celebrity with the iron duke, and another friends '78 or so Cutlass with a 260v8. The term "nutless Cutlass" had to originate from that era. I'm sure the Tempo could be lumped into that group too.
I bet Andre might have some 0-60 times laying around on those vehicles. I bet it's a toss up between the T1000 and Cutlass. An '86 Escort I had in HS with a 4speed stick, would easily out run either, so that should put into perspective.
>>I knew a guy who would when someone parked their car in his numbered >>apartment parking space, would "pop" the hood and mix up the spark plug wires.
>I had a similar but easier theft-proofing technique. I would simply take the coil >wire off and pocket it. At least I didn't have to remember which wire went where.
----- The idea was to punish the guy who stole his assigned spot. I knew another character back then who, to earn a tip, would disconnect the coil wire of several up-scale cars in a mall parking and wait until the drivers returned from shopping. Of course the car wouldn't start and he would, on Que, offer help.
Actually that's slower than a 2000 Toyota Echo but yes, in 1975 there weren't many "fast" cars.
A Toyota Echo is actually pretty quick with a stick shift. 0-60 in something like 8.4 seconds? My uncle test drove one with an automatic though, and it was a dog. It also had my uncle, the salesman, and me in it, so we had it weighted down pretty good.
IIRC, the fastest domestic car in 1975 was the Duster/Dart Sport, with the 360. Can't remember if it was fastest in 0-60, quarter mile, top speed, all three, or what? I did find mention of a 1975 Corvette with a 205 hp 454-4bbl and a 4-speed manual doing 0-60 in 7.7 seconds, quarter mile in 16.1. Dunno the quarter mile speed though. That's really sad, though. :sick:
And worse, the standard engine was a 350-4bbl with 165 hp. Jeezus, my '85 Silverado, with its 305-4bbl, has 165 hp! And to compare with something more of the time, my '76 LeMans has either 165 hp or 175, depending on who you want to believe (Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia for the 165, or the big old blue "Motor's" repair manuals in my Granddad's garage for the 175).
Y'know I was always under the impression that the Seville was a pretty good performer for the era, with its 180 hp fuel-injected Olds 350. But I've found these acceleration times:
1976 Cadillac Seville 350ci 0-60 in 12.9, 1/4 mile in 18.8 1977 Cadillac Seville 350ci 0-60 in 13.7, 1/4 mile in 18.2 (interesting that it would start off slower in 0-60, but then more than make up for it at the end of the 1/4)
And oddly enough, the much-derided bustleback '80, which was choked down to about 145-150 hp, showed an improvement!
1980 Cadillac Seville Elegante, 0-60 in 10.6, quarter mile in 17.9
Wow, I would not have guessed the Cutlass to do so poorly. My parents had a 1978 Cutlass with the 260. My sister had a 1976 Ford Mustang II with the 4 cyl and an automatic. I would have bet money that the Cutlass was quicker.
The 0-60 time of my sister's Mustang would have required the use of a calendar vs a stop watch...
The Pontiac T1000, my god those were the dark days of performance...
Engines of that time period were grossly inefficient. Until sophisticated engine management systems and a whole new array of modern motors were put into play, basically you had a bunch of old tech being strangled by emissions requirements.
And of course our Tempo (also an 85) was an automatic. It hung around the family until 1999, when it had 190K on it. Still on the original unrebuilt powertrain, but electrical things had been going wrong for ages.
Back then I recall domestic cars in particular would have sensitive throttles to give the illusion of power.
I clearly remember the '85 Celebrity brochure stating a "10.0 sec 0-60" time for the 2.8 MFI engine, which is what I ended up ordering. Of course, there was a carbureted V6 as well as the four-cylinder.
'80 Cutlass could be had with a V6 or V8.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The anti-theft system in my Chevy Cavalier is amazing. I can leave the top down with the keys in the ignition but nobody ever steals it. I wonder how that system works. :confuse:
I have to keep a club on the steering wheel and a hidden kill switch in my Studebaker to keep that from getting stolen again. But that is never a problem with the Cavalier. I have to admit, those folks at GM know how to build a car that won't get stolen. ( :lemon: )
That '75 Road Runner, except for the graphics (the one on the trunk lid is clever but corny!) is a handsome car I think. I was reminded of how nice they looked when Hemmings Classic Car recently had an article about a Fury 2-door Hardtop from 1975 (same car). Compared to the bolt-upright, formal roof w/opera window, landau top look that was so popular then, those Furys have an appealing, clean look to me...and no one would ever say I was a Mopar guy back then!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Come on, can you blame some engineers for seeing if an aluminum body would work for a volume model? I like the initiative, even if it was and still is a pipe dream.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Although I did own the old beast while the Tempo was still in the family, I never raced them side by side. But I drove them both with the pedal to the metal, and the fintail sure seemed faster ,and could also pull away from other cars faster. Mind you, my fintail is the "hot" W111 with 135hp, and is fairly light for its size...I think the Tempo was something like 95hp.
Two odd sightings today - BMW E36 M3 sedan, and an E28 diesel of unknown model.
I didn't know the horsepower disparity was that great. Thinking about it, the Fintail automatic also has an extra gear.
To answer one of your earlier questions, the 2.5 four cylinder engine that was available in the early Tauruses was indeed based on the Tempo 2.3. Both had OHVs rather than OHCs. From what I've read, these engines were based on the I-6 that was first used in the Falcon, then the Maverick and many later Ford and Mercury models.
Of course, the fintail also has second gear start (which can be overridden), but yeah, the extra gear can't hurt. The old car keeps up with modern traffic fairly well. I'm hoping to be able to take it in for the yearly oil change next week.
I think the 2.3 might have also had some kind of South American connection, but I can't recall the details and am too lazy to look it up. I really can't complain about our old Tempo...it was no great car, but certainly no worse than a period domestic. When I was a kid, I even thought it was fairly sharp - "Medium Regatta Blue" sedan with matching interior, loaded GLX model with power options and wheels, etc. Never needed engine or transmission work. I do remember it had some kind of sticker on a window about being union built, I believe in St. Louis, and one of the words was spelled wrong, always amused me.
That must've been with a stick shift. Or, with the slightly hopped-up engine that was optional that year. My Consumer Guide from 1985 tested a Topaz with the regular 2.3 and 3-speed automatic, and got 0-60 in 15.9 seconds.
And judging from the 1984 Tempo my stepdad had, which I drove once, I'd say 15.9 was about right. My 1980 Malibu, with its 229 V-6, was no powehouse itself but it felt like a musclecar compared to that Tempo!
1980 Cutlass Supreme 0-60 in 14.0
Yeah, that sounds like the 231 V-6, although it could be the 260 V-8. MT or C&D did a test of a 1981 Grand Prix with a Pontiac 265 V-8, and got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds! The only test I can recall of a similar car with a V-6 was a Consumer Reports test of something around 1980 and they got 0-60 in around 15 seconds. I think it was a Buick Century.
The Cutlass did offer one other V-8 that year (not counting the Diesel), a Chevy 305-4bbl with 155 hp. I'd guess something like that would've been good for 0-60 in around 11-12 seconds?
Compared to the bolt-upright, formal roof w/opera window, landau top look that was so popular then, those Furys have an appealing, clean look to me...and no one would ever say I was a Mopar guy back then!
Oh, the landau roof was optional on those "New, Small Furys" and the Coronet/Monaco, if the buyer so desired! But, I agree, that pillarless style does have a nice, clean look about it.. I've always wondered if this style was ever offered as a true hardtop? I've seen factory photos of them where it looks like the back window is down, and you don't see the little chrome strip, but I have never seen one in person with roll-down rear windows.
In those days though, sometimes they would take the window glass out for the brochure and factory photos, making it look like a real hardtop. Which, IMO, is false advertising. I've also seen a picture of a 1970 Duster with the back window taken out (an easy task, since it already flips out, and the chrome strip it attaches to is easily removeable. And I've even seen factory photos of 1973 GM intermediate sedans where they'd take the back window out, which made it look like it rolled down all the way. In reality, they stuck up about 4 inches. And Consumer Reports tested a '73 Malibu that even had issues with the FRONT windows not going down all the way!
When I was a kid, I didn't like those 70's Mopar intermediates for the most part. They tended to have a generic, unattractive, appliance-like quality to them better suited for police cars and taxis. A lot of them WERE police cars, taxis, fleet cars, etc, so that might have helped influence my childhood mind. But compared to GM's '73-77 intermediates, they just lacked a certain flair (some might say, tackiness). And when I was a kid, I used to think the Ford Torino from that era was good looking, too. Not so much the Montego, but it didn't seem to have as much presence around these parts. The '77-79 T-bird/Cougar looked sharp for the time, too.
But now, looking back, I can appreciate the clean, unadorned style of those '75-78 B-body coupes. And I think the rear styling of them is attractive...much more toned down, and upscale, than the sedans, which had a big butt.
Scroll down to the pictures and look at the two interior shots of the rear A/C system in the roof. Any chance the factory did it that way? I have never seen anything quite like that and cannot quite believe Chrysler did that, but who knows...
Why can't we blame them for being silly? I mean, we have no problem blaming Delorean for trying a stainless steel body when 100 years of automotive history suggested that this was not in fact a maintenance-free material.
True, aluminum panels are common on even everyday cars today, but very few modern automobiles, and no inexpensive ones that I know of, utilize an all-aluminum body.
Working aluminum, as you no doubt know, takes a lot of skill and training. It's one thing to replace a panel or tappity tap for hours on one panel, but straightening out a broadside on an aluminum bodied car....well, that's going to cost more than the MSRP of an aluminum Taurus I think....or they would have had to charge so much for the car to make it unsaleable.
Maybe they weren't serious----you know, like when they build flashy concept cars out of glass or gold-plate or pasta. That sort of thing.
Or perhaps they were trying to out-exotic the European exotica of the day?
You know what? A high-school buddy of mine's parents had a '72 T&C. Another friend had a '72 Buick Estate wagon and it seemed so classier than the T&C...more refined, less gargantuan, or something.
I am pretty sure I remember a similar rear A/C setup in my friend's '72 T&C, so I'd say it probably is factory.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Did Dodge actually call their version of the 'small' Fury, the Coronet--even the coupe? For some reason I thought I remembered some of them with "Charger" nameplates, but that could be '78 or so when the Charger became known as the 'Magnum'.
I think the quarter windows in the Fury are fixed, but not sure. It sure has the side profile of a true hardtop, a rarity by that time in Detroit. I like those cars better now than ever!
At the time, I just loved '73 Chevelle coupes...even with the big bumper if they were built after mid-year with the body-color (instead of gray) filler between the grille and the chrome bumper. I'd have to have had one with the optional "Appearance Decor Group", which put wheel-opening trim and chrome roof gutters on a Malibu. I love the large triangular quarter window...sleek looks and wonderful visibility/airiness, but apparently I'm in the minority as the very next model year, most had the tiny little opera window with humongous blind quarters. Only the cheapest models could be had with the large windows.
I always wish you could have gotten a '76 Malibu Classic with the triangular quarter windows and without a stand-up hood ornament. Classy and sporty at the same time. But, not to be. Love the Malibu Classic interior and the '76's ornate grille.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I remember liking the '75-'78 (?) Fury coupes in the rear view, less so from up front. I recall that there was a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer not far from our house back then and on Sundays I would go there and look at what was in stock. Those cars could be trimmed out to look very handsome, though as I recall the interiors were pretty hit or miss. I did not like the dual round headlight look, but if memory serves they changed that to stacked rectangular lights after a couple of years, which looked marginally better.
Interestingly enough, up to a couple of years ago i would occasionally see one of these being tooled around town by a little old lady. It was in rough shape and the rear bumper had been replaced by a wooden device of some sort. It was very rusty overall. But she would drive it to the market; she probably had it for decades.
That C-P dealer was always very tolerant of me when I was a kid. It was a friendly place for neighborhood kids, and I was able to go into the showroom and browse what was on display without being hassled. They even let me take away catalogs. My one long-term memory of cars they had on display -- and remember, this was the era of Cudas and Road Runners -- was a '71 Valiant Scamp 2-door hardtop. It just looked sweet because of the color -- it was powder blue with a white vinyl roof and white vinyl interior, w/w tires, full wheel covers. I loved the look of that car. Can't tell you why. But maybe it was the wheel covers.
Did Dodge actually call their version of the 'small' Fury, the Coronet--even the coupe? For some reason I thought I remembered some of them with "Charger" nameplates, but that could be '78 or so when the Charger became known as the 'Magnum'.
Dodge juggled their names around a lot in the 70's, and it probably confused buyers. From 1971-74, in the midsize ranks, the 4-door and wagon was called Coronet, while all the coupes, even the cheapest ones, were called Chargers. Typical Detroit fashion of watering down a name.
For 1975, all the midsized cars were once again called Coronet, while the only Charger was the Cordoba-clone SE. Personally, I preferred the SE to the Cordoba; I liked its cross-hatch grille better than the more pretentious vertical affair of the Cordoba.
Now for 1976, they went back to calling the regular coupes Charger, and the Cordoba version the Charger SE. For 1977, in a lame attempt to make the public think that they were offering downsized cars to compete with GM, they rebadged the midsized cars Monaco (sedan, coupe, wagon), while calilng all the big mastodon cars Royal Monaco. The only Charger this year was the SE.
Finally, for 1978, they brought out the Magnum, although they also ran off about 2800 Charger SE's, as well.
I remember sitting in one of those "small" Furys, or maybe it was a Monaco, coupe model that was for sale at Carlisle one year. It seemed roomier inside for themost part than my '76 LeMans, and the passenger compartment was more open and airy, thanks to that fake hardtop style. In comparing cars with nonpower seats, the Mopar B-bodies seemed to have better fore/aft travel than GM's A-bodies, although the Mopar seats were a bit lower to the floor. I prefer the seating position of the B-body, although my LeMans, having a power seat, has an unfair advantage, I guess.
I preferred the big triangular windows to the smaller formal windows, as well. My Mom's '75 LeMans had the big triangular windows, and they helped give the car a more open feeling. Unfortunately, the LeMans went to the small opera window for 1976-77, even on the cheapest model. You could still get the louvered windows though, on the base and Sport Coupe, but I doubt if you could get them on the Grand LeMans.
Those GM intermediates did offer some really nice interiors, if you went for the Limited/Brougham/Classic/Grand models. The Fury and Coronet/Monaco actually offered some pretty nice interiors as well, although they weren't all that common.
I know big old 4-doors aren't that popular, but I actually think the '73-77 colonade sedans were really cool. In an era where Detroit was making even the 4-door models somewhat closed-in and claustrophobic, the GM cars seemed almost futuristic. And maybe this isn't the best thing to remember it for, but the reason they used a '76 or so Cutlass sedan as the basis for the 6000SUX in "Robocob" was because the prop department wanted a car that was big, but could easily be made to look futuristic. The roofline/greenhouse area is one of the hardest and most expensive parts of a car to change, so they just started with something that required the least amount of modification. And, when you think about it, the greenhouse of, say, a '73 Malibu sedan, really isn't so different from that of an '86 Taurus. And with the low beltline, fairly generous glass area, and slim pillars, it almost looks MORE futuristic in today's world of thick pillars, high beltlines, and narrow windows, which is really more of a throwback to the 40's and early 50's.
I kind of it look at it this way, if you were an engineer and got permission to do it as R & D, why not? Ford had bought Jaguar a few years before that and how do you know how far you can take that aluminum technology until you try? I assume they got permission and funding to do this. Ford must have had a lot of money back then.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I never really cared for that particular hubcap. It made me think of something that would adorn the fat lady's costume at the opera. In fact, I remember a cartoon in Consumer Reports that showed two guys at the opera, and one of them was looking through binoculars as the fat lady sang, and he was exclaiming "You're right!! Those ARE the hubcaps from a '76 Dodge!!" :P Okay, so they were a few years off, but I thought it was pretty funny, and quite racy for CR, I guess.
I also have a mental image of Dennis Weaver losing one of these hubcaps on his Valiant, and it getting flattened when the tanker truck ran over it in "Duel".
But, powder blue, with a white top and interior, still sounds like a sweet car overall! Back in 1993, about a month after I bought my '82 Cutlass Supreme, I saw a '74 Valiant Scamp 2-door hardtop with a 318, powder blue with a white top and interior, for sale at a local car lot. I think they wanted $1995 for it, but the salesman said "What if we could do an even trade for your Cutlass?"
If I could go back in time knowing what I know now, I would've jumped on it! That Valiant was in really nice shape, proverbial little-old lady car. Not as quick as my '68 Dart, but it would blow the doors off the Cutlass. And, as luck would have it, the Cutlass's 231 pretty much committed suicide the following April. Heck, for all I know, I could very well still be driving that '74 Valiant today, if I had bought it!
4-door E36 M3.. those aren't all that rare around here... I think the 4-door M3 actually out-sold the coupe for the years '97-'98....
'69 Camaro coupe... purple with a black vinyl top.. restored nicely..
A nice C3 Corvette... Somewhere '69-'72.. had the eggcrate grill.. Seems like that's maybe a '71? In that nice medium blue with black interior and the top down... At the county clerk's office with temporary tags.. SWEET!!
today, a Jeep CJ. not odd normally, but this one was really, really old. Looked almost like a toy. Had to be one of the early CJ models. Surprising actually, to see how much different the "same" car is today.
and last night, a cougar. Not sure what year, but early. maybe a '67. Think it had some mods, with a hood scoop and hood gauges. maybe the scoop was orig. Burbled nice, and that wonderful smell of unburned hydrocarbons as it idled.
Comments
I've got a cute story regarding the reintroduction of the HEMI in '03 or '04 (when ever the first year was). I took my daughter who was about 6 at the time to boat show in Kansas City. Remember all of those "Does that thing have a Hemi" commercials back then. Anyway, Dodge had a display of Rams at the show and one had the hood up. I was looking under the hood and out of the blue, my daughter asks, "is that the hemi?"
The power of TV!
A few years ago I saw a MT5 in the small town where my mother lives, I remember pointing it out as if someone cared.
Badging is all about showing off what you have, or didn't buy.
A girlfriend's dad back in HS had a 80's something Taurus MT5. What a dog and a complete pile of crap. The 2.3HSC 4cyl in the Tempo was bad and the 2.5 unit was bad too. I wonder how it compared to the iron duke. No wonder so many small car buyers walked, no, ran to the imports.
I can only imagine what a European tourist of the day thought when they were stuck with one of those gems as a rental.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
But, hey, it's still on the road and it's at least 22 years old, and (gasp)..American!
When I bought mine, I actually entertained the thought of buying a Citation X11, which was on the cusp of being discontinued and I knew it. Fact is, the crap had been ironed out by then and it was the same car underneath as a Celebrity, but they could be bought with a 2.8 and stick, unlike the Celebrity, and could be bought for a lot less. I chickened out because of resale value worries, which I never do now.
Quad 442
1975 Ro ad Run ner
Motor Trend tested a 400-4 bbl with the 3.21 open rear and got 0-60 in 8.6 seconds and the 1/4 mile of 15.77 @ 89 mph. They also gave it good marks for ride and comfort, although the test car was equipped with the rear sway bar and handling package.
Unfortunately though, the 318-2bbl, all 145-150 hp of it, was the standard engine, and about half of the Ro ad Run ners came with it. Good workhorse of an engine, but a musclecar it is not. The 360 was most likely offered as well, in 2- or 4-bbl form. I can't remember if the hot 360 that was offered in the Duster was also offered in these cars.
Some car books list a 240 hp 440-4bbl as being offered in these midsized cars, but I think that was a copcar-only engine, and wasn't going in any civvy models by '75.
That Olds Calais 4(cyl)-4(valves per cyl)-2(dual exhaust) was an insult to the old 4-4-2, though, IMO. If they had just taken the old GM10 Cutlass Supreme and offered a 4-4-2 version of it with, say, that DOHC 3.4 Chevy V-6, I would have bought it (figuratively...I don't mean I would've run down and actually BOUGHT one! :P ) Olds did offer a Cutlass Supreme with that engine, but I forget now what they called it...International Series, or something like that?
There was a Ciera "international series" with body cladding, wheels, etc...I am pretty sure it existed on the Supreme too.
I am sorry to say I drove one for a year. My dad had an '85 Tempo that he bought new and I drove it for about 6 mos. prior to leaving for college in '90 or so. While it wasn't a disaster reliability wise (it did go down hill fast after 100k miles), it was dog slow. But for the honor of being the slowest car I've ever driven, that's a tough one.
It would have be between my friends Pontiac T1000, and '87 Celebrity with the iron duke, and another friends '78 or so Cutlass with a 260v8. The term "nutless Cutlass" had to originate from that era. I'm sure the Tempo could be lumped into that group too.
I bet Andre might have some 0-60 times laying around on those vehicles. I bet it's a toss up between the T1000 and Cutlass. An '86 Escort I had in HS with a 4speed stick, would easily out run either, so that should put into perspective.
>I had a similar but easier theft-proofing technique. I would simply take the coil >wire off and pocket it. At least I didn't have to remember which wire went where.
-----
The idea was to punish the guy who stole his assigned spot. I knew another character back then who, to earn a tip, would disconnect the coil wire of several up-scale cars in a mall parking and wait until the drivers returned from shopping. Of course the car wouldn't start and he would, on Que, offer help.
A Toyota Echo is actually pretty quick with a stick shift. 0-60 in something like 8.4 seconds? My uncle test drove one with an automatic though, and it was a dog. It also had my uncle, the salesman, and me in it, so we had it weighted down pretty good.
IIRC, the fastest domestic car in 1975 was the Duster/Dart Sport, with the 360. Can't remember if it was fastest in 0-60, quarter mile, top speed, all three, or what? I did find mention of a 1975 Corvette with a 205 hp 454-4bbl and a 4-speed manual doing 0-60 in 7.7 seconds, quarter mile in 16.1. Dunno the quarter mile speed though. That's really sad, though. :sick:
And worse, the standard engine was a 350-4bbl with 165 hp. Jeezus, my '85 Silverado, with its 305-4bbl, has 165 hp! And to compare with something more of the time, my '76 LeMans has either 165 hp or 175, depending on who you want to believe (Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia for the 165, or the big old blue "Motor's" repair manuals in my Granddad's garage for the 175).
Y'know I was always under the impression that the Seville was a pretty good performer for the era, with its 180 hp fuel-injected Olds 350. But I've found these acceleration times:
1976 Cadillac Seville 350ci 0-60 in 12.9, 1/4 mile in 18.8
1977 Cadillac Seville 350ci 0-60 in 13.7, 1/4 mile in 18.2 (interesting that it would start off slower in 0-60, but then more than make up for it at the end of the 1/4)
And oddly enough, the much-derided bustleback '80, which was choked down to about 145-150 hp, showed an improvement!
1980 Cadillac Seville Elegante, 0-60 in 10.6, quarter mile in 17.9
1980 Cutlass Supreme 0-60 in 14.0
1984 Pontiac 6000 STE 0-60 in 11.2
1984-86 Chevrolet Celebrity 0-60 in 10.5
1984 Ford Escort 0-60 in 11.6
The 0-60 time of my sister's Mustang would have required the use of a calendar vs a stop watch...
The Pontiac T1000, my god those were the dark days of performance...
Back then I recall domestic cars in particular would have sensitive throttles to give the illusion of power.
'80 Cutlass could be had with a V6 or V8.
I have to keep a club on the steering wheel and a hidden kill switch in my Studebaker to keep that from getting stolen again. But that is never a problem with the Cavalier. I have to admit, those folks at GM know how to build a car that won't get stolen.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Two odd sightings today - BMW E36 M3 sedan, and an E28 diesel of unknown model.
To answer one of your earlier questions, the 2.5 four cylinder engine that was available in the early Tauruses was indeed based on the Tempo 2.3. Both had OHVs rather than OHCs. From what I've read, these engines were based on the I-6 that was first used in the Falcon, then the Maverick and many later Ford and Mercury models.
I think the 2.3 might have also had some kind of South American connection, but I can't recall the details and am too lazy to look it up. I really can't complain about our old Tempo...it was no great car, but certainly no worse than a period domestic. When I was a kid, I even thought it was fairly sharp - "Medium Regatta Blue" sedan with matching interior, loaded GLX model with power options and wheels, etc. Never needed engine or transmission work. I do remember it had some kind of sticker on a window about being union built, I believe in St. Louis, and one of the words was spelled wrong, always amused me.
That must've been with a stick shift. Or, with the slightly hopped-up engine that was optional that year. My Consumer Guide from 1985 tested a Topaz with the regular 2.3 and 3-speed automatic, and got 0-60 in 15.9 seconds.
And judging from the 1984 Tempo my stepdad had, which I drove once, I'd say 15.9 was about right. My 1980 Malibu, with its 229 V-6, was no powehouse itself but it felt like a musclecar compared to that Tempo!
1980 Cutlass Supreme 0-60 in 14.0
Yeah, that sounds like the 231 V-6, although it could be the 260 V-8. MT or C&D did a test of a 1981 Grand Prix with a Pontiac 265 V-8, and got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds! The only test I can recall of a similar car with a V-6 was a Consumer Reports test of something around 1980 and they got 0-60 in around 15 seconds. I think it was a Buick Century.
The Cutlass did offer one other V-8 that year (not counting the Diesel), a Chevy 305-4bbl with 155 hp. I'd guess something like that would've been good for 0-60 in around 11-12 seconds?
Oh, the landau roof was optional on those "New, Small Furys" and the Coronet/Monaco, if the buyer so desired! But, I agree, that pillarless style does have a nice, clean look about it.. I've always wondered if this style was ever offered as a true hardtop? I've seen factory photos of them where it looks like the back window is down, and you don't see the little chrome strip, but I have never seen one in person with roll-down rear windows.
In those days though, sometimes they would take the window glass out for the brochure and factory photos, making it look like a real hardtop. Which, IMO, is false advertising. I've also seen a picture of a 1970 Duster with the back window taken out (an easy task, since it already flips out, and the chrome strip it attaches to is easily removeable. And I've even seen factory photos of 1973 GM intermediate sedans where they'd take the back window out, which made it look like it rolled down all the way. In reality, they stuck up about 4 inches. And Consumer Reports tested a '73 Malibu that even had issues with the FRONT windows not going down all the way!
When I was a kid, I didn't like those 70's Mopar intermediates for the most part. They tended to have a generic, unattractive, appliance-like quality to them better suited for police cars and taxis. A lot of them WERE police cars, taxis, fleet cars, etc, so that might have helped influence my childhood mind. But compared to GM's '73-77 intermediates, they just lacked a certain flair (some might say, tackiness). And when I was a kid, I used to think the Ford Torino from that era was good looking, too. Not so much the Montego, but it didn't seem to have as much presence around these parts. The '77-79 T-bird/Cougar looked sharp for the time, too.
But now, looking back, I can appreciate the clean, unadorned style of those '75-78 B-body coupes. And I think the rear styling of them is attractive...much more toned down, and upscale, than the sedans, which had a big butt.
'69 Chrysler T&C
Scroll down to the pictures and look at the two interior shots of the rear A/C system in the roof. Any chance the factory did it that way? I have never seen anything quite like that and cannot quite believe Chrysler did that, but who knows...
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
True, aluminum panels are common on even everyday cars today, but very few modern automobiles, and no inexpensive ones that I know of, utilize an all-aluminum body.
Working aluminum, as you no doubt know, takes a lot of skill and training. It's one thing to replace a panel or tappity tap for hours on one panel, but straightening out a broadside on an aluminum bodied car....well, that's going to cost more than the MSRP of an aluminum Taurus I think....or they would have had to charge so much for the car to make it unsaleable.
Maybe they weren't serious----you know, like when they build flashy concept cars out of glass or gold-plate or pasta. That sort of thing.
Or perhaps they were trying to out-exotic the European exotica of the day?
I am pretty sure I remember a similar rear A/C setup in my friend's '72 T&C, so I'd say it probably is factory.
I think the quarter windows in the Fury are fixed, but not sure. It sure has the side profile of a true hardtop, a rarity by that time in Detroit. I like those cars better now than ever!
At the time, I just loved '73 Chevelle coupes...even with the big bumper if they were built after mid-year with the body-color (instead of gray) filler between the grille and the chrome bumper. I'd have to have had one with the optional "Appearance Decor Group", which put wheel-opening trim and chrome roof gutters on a Malibu. I love the large triangular quarter window...sleek looks and wonderful visibility/airiness, but apparently I'm in the minority as the very next model year, most had the tiny little opera window with humongous blind quarters. Only the cheapest models could be had with the large windows.
I always wish you could have gotten a '76 Malibu Classic with the triangular quarter windows and without a stand-up hood ornament. Classy and sporty at the same time. But, not to be. Love the Malibu Classic interior and the '76's ornate grille.
Interestingly enough, up to a couple of years ago i would occasionally see one of these being tooled around town by a little old lady. It was in rough shape and the rear bumper had been replaced by a wooden device of some sort. It was very rusty overall. But she would drive it to the market; she probably had it for decades.
That C-P dealer was always very tolerant of me when I was a kid. It was a friendly place for neighborhood kids, and I was able to go into the showroom and browse what was on display without being hassled. They even let me take away catalogs. My one long-term memory of cars they had on display -- and remember, this was the era of Cudas and Road Runners -- was a '71 Valiant Scamp 2-door hardtop. It just looked sweet because of the color -- it was powder blue with a white vinyl roof and white vinyl interior, w/w tires, full wheel covers. I loved the look of that car. Can't tell you why. But maybe it was the wheel covers.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Dodge juggled their names around a lot in the 70's, and it probably confused buyers. From 1971-74, in the midsize ranks, the 4-door and wagon was called Coronet, while all the coupes, even the cheapest ones, were called Chargers. Typical Detroit fashion of watering down a name.
For 1975, all the midsized cars were once again called Coronet, while the only Charger was the Cordoba-clone SE. Personally, I preferred the SE to the Cordoba; I liked its cross-hatch grille better than the more pretentious vertical affair of the Cordoba.
Now for 1976, they went back to calling the regular coupes Charger, and the Cordoba version the Charger SE. For 1977, in a lame attempt to make the public think that they were offering downsized cars to compete with GM, they rebadged the midsized cars Monaco (sedan, coupe, wagon), while calilng all the big mastodon cars Royal Monaco. The only Charger this year was the SE.
Finally, for 1978, they brought out the Magnum, although they also ran off about 2800 Charger SE's, as well.
I remember sitting in one of those "small" Furys, or maybe it was a Monaco, coupe model that was for sale at Carlisle one year. It seemed roomier inside for themost part than my '76 LeMans, and the passenger compartment was more open and airy, thanks to that fake hardtop style. In comparing cars with nonpower seats, the Mopar B-bodies seemed to have better fore/aft travel than GM's A-bodies, although the Mopar seats were a bit lower to the floor. I prefer the seating position of the B-body, although my LeMans, having a power seat, has an unfair advantage, I guess.
I preferred the big triangular windows to the smaller formal windows, as well. My Mom's '75 LeMans had the big triangular windows, and they helped give the car a more open feeling. Unfortunately, the LeMans went to the small opera window for 1976-77, even on the cheapest model. You could still get the louvered windows though, on the base and Sport Coupe, but I doubt if you could get them on the Grand LeMans.
Those GM intermediates did offer some really nice interiors, if you went for the Limited/Brougham/Classic/Grand models. The Fury and Coronet/Monaco actually offered some pretty nice interiors as well, although they weren't all that common.
I know big old 4-doors aren't that popular, but I actually think the '73-77 colonade sedans were really cool. In an era where Detroit was making even the 4-door models somewhat closed-in and claustrophobic, the GM cars seemed almost futuristic. And maybe this isn't the best thing to remember it for, but the reason they used a '76 or so Cutlass sedan as the basis for the 6000SUX in "Robocob" was because the prop department wanted a car that was big, but could easily be made to look futuristic. The roofline/greenhouse area is one of the hardest and most expensive parts of a car to change, so they just started with something that required the least amount of modification. And, when you think about it, the greenhouse of, say, a '73 Malibu sedan, really isn't so different from that of an '86 Taurus. And with the low beltline, fairly generous glass area, and slim pillars, it almost looks MORE futuristic in today's world of thick pillars, high beltlines, and narrow windows, which is really more of a throwback to the 40's and early 50's.
I assume they got permission and funding to do this.
Ford must have had a lot of money back then.
I also have a mental image of Dennis Weaver losing one of these hubcaps on his Valiant, and it getting flattened when the tanker truck ran over it in "Duel".
But, powder blue, with a white top and interior, still sounds like a sweet car overall! Back in 1993, about a month after I bought my '82 Cutlass Supreme, I saw a '74 Valiant Scamp 2-door hardtop with a 318, powder blue with a white top and interior, for sale at a local car lot. I think they wanted $1995 for it, but the salesman said "What if we could do an even trade for your Cutlass?"
If I could go back in time knowing what I know now, I would've jumped on it! That Valiant was in really nice shape, proverbial little-old lady car. Not as quick as my '68 Dart, but it would blow the doors off the Cutlass. And, as luck would have it, the Cutlass's 231 pretty much committed suicide the following April. Heck, for all I know, I could very well still be driving that '74 Valiant today, if I had bought it!
'69 Camaro coupe... purple with a black vinyl top.. restored nicely..
A nice C3 Corvette... Somewhere '69-'72.. had the eggcrate grill.. Seems like that's maybe a '71? In that nice medium blue with black interior and the top down... At the county clerk's office with temporary tags.. SWEET!!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
and last night, a cougar. Not sure what year, but early. maybe a '67. Think it had some mods, with a hood scoop and hood gauges. maybe the scoop was orig. Burbled nice, and that wonderful smell of unburned hydrocarbons as it idled.
not a show car, but looked pretty clean.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.