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

andre1969 · April 2013

LOL...well, to the best of my knowledge, I try to be! :shades:

hpmctorque · April 2013

I know; just kidding.

tjc78 · April 2013

or a Gran Fury/Diplomat, which had a standard 318 by then

I know these (as the Fifth Avenue) are considered midsize, but in all reality aren't they really full size cars? I've had some seat time in an 86 Fifth Ave (318, 3 sp) it wasn't a bad car but IMO my 89 Grand Marquis was a much better car overall. The Chrysler was carbed right until the end in 89 when Ford and Chevy were FI. Heck Ford went squential FI in 86 on the 302.

I always thought it a bit odd that Olds held onto the Supreme sedan for so long

I believe it was a pretty decent seller right to the end. It was decently priced for a RWD car with a V8 that many buyers wanted.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

I don't recall exactly how durable the Dauphine engine was or wasn't but I don't remember any heinous or obvious faults.

But you are exactly right---a torqueless, high-revving engine and American drivers are a losing combination. At least they punched the Beetle out to 1600 cc. And it was pretty easy to work on.

Oh, I do remember one problem with the Dauphine design. Both the radiator filler and the gas filler were in the engine compartment, sitting right next to each other!

Yeah, you can guess what used to happen!

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

re: 1958 Thunderbird.

On the one hand, it really is, compared to what came before it in '57, a rather complex, birthday-cake of a car. One usually does not hear the word "beautiful" when describing a '58 Squarebird.

On the other hand, going to 4-seats, and defining a niche such as the "personal luxury car", probably allowed the T-Bird to continue on as a profitable product for many years to come.

The two-seater "classic" T-Birds were lovely cars, but in no sense like the Corvette they were trying to compete with. They were completely incompetent on a race course, even an amateur one.

So yeah, "context" is important when talking about any car.

andre1969 · April 2013

I know these (as the Fifth Avenue) are considered midsize, but in all reality aren't they really full size cars?

Well, they were on a 112.7" wheelbase, and about 205-206" long, so they were pretty near full-size in many respects. In contrast, I think a Crown Vic or Grand Marquis of that era was on a 114.3" wb (I've seen 114.7" quoted for later Panthers), and around 210" long, and a Caprice was around 212" long on a 116" wb.

On the smaller end of the spectrum, I think most midsized sedans topped out at around 200" long at the most. I think my grandparents' LTD was around 196" long, and I think a Cutlass Supreme or Bonneville sedan was around 197-200". The coupes like the Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, etc might have stretched a bit to 202?

So, an M-body was sort of in between, I guess. I had an '89 Gran Fury ex copcar for a few years. It had good legroom, both front and rear, and headroom was excellent. It did come up short in shoulder room though, only around 56", where something like a Crown Vic, Caprice, or an old Mopar R-body was more like 61+" But, the M-body has its roots in the F-body, which first made the scene as the 1976 Volare. And even though it was a midsize for EPA purposes, the Volare and Aspen were originally marketed as compacts. And, 56-57" of shoulder room is about all you could expect from a compact in those days.

My biggest complaint about my Gran Fury was the steering wheel location. It was too close to my chest to really be comfortable. That's probably an artifact from the 1970's, when most steering wheels WERE closer to your chest. It also had a trunk that was oddly shaped, and with a full-sized copcar tire on a 15x7 rim in there, it didn't have much room.

On the plus side, it had good legroom up front. In fact, Chrysler played up the advertising of their police cars, to emphasize the fact that the M-body had more legroom up front than the old R-body, in order to get police forces to accept this as a suitable standard-sized police car. It also had a nice complement of gauges, with temp and amps being standard (and the police package adding oil pressure), excellent visibility, good handling (again, this was a police car, not a civilian model). And, one detail I really liked was that, as large as the windows were, they still managed to get the rear window to go down almost all the way. It stuck up maybe an inch and a half. In contrast, I remember the old Panthers only went down about 3/4 of the way, and GM's B/C bodies only went down about half way.

Consumer Reports did a comparison test in 1985 of a Grand Marquis, New Yorker 5th Ave, and a newly-downsized Electra. Overall, they actually preferred the Grand Marquis! As I recall, the Electra didn't impress them all that much, and they were concerned about its reliability, as GM had been dropping the ball in that regard, pretty much with every new model introduction since the 1980 Citation. For the 5th Ave, they liked its emergency handling and projected reliability, which was average, the same as the Grand Marquis. But, overall, as a full-sized car, they thought the Grand Marquis fit the bill the best. In conclusion, they did mention the Caprice, but said that they were concerned about its reliability, which had been slipping.

andre1969 · April 2013

I always thought the old 1953 Studebaker Lowey coupes should get credit for kicking off the personal luxury coupe craze. But, it was the '58 T-bird that truly opened up that market.

imidazol97 · April 2013

> They were completely incompetent on a race course

Compared to the then current Vette, that is likely true. I remember riding in one of the two seaters with my buddy.

The 100 list of of ugly cars, it did not purport to measure their road racing or track capabilities. So I think the Thunderbird 58-60 is right in the era's cars with attractiveness. The 58 was in the feel of replacing the Continental Mark II, IIRC, as the Lincoln Mark III came out as much larger.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

There really wasn't any luxury in a '53 Studebaker coupe, as it was a rather spartan car built on an ancient platform, but the car did presage the lowering of the roofline on American cars and won praise for styling that was far more modern than most 53s.

I always thought it forshadowed the milestone Citroen DS---the only reason the DS gets more credit is because it was technologically a very advanced car, whilst the Stude was not.

andre1969 · April 2013

Maybe not in the luxury aspect, but I was thinking more in the proportioning...low-slung, long hood, closely coupled passenger compartment, and a bit of a long-ish rear end. And sheetmetal that looked almost nothing like its sedan counterpart.

tjc78 · April 2013

Consumer Reports did a comparison test in 1985 of a Grand Marquis, New Yorker 5th Ave, and a newly-downsized Electra. Overall, they actually preferred the Grand Marquis

I could see the Marquis winning that competition. Like I said I believe it was a better car than 5th Av and with the Electra being a new model I understand why CR would have been hesitant on giving it a good review at the time. The Marquis was already a six year old model by then, and aside from early transmission issues I believe was pretty solid. The box Panthers became much better in 1986 with the addition of SEFI.

andre1969 · April 2013

There's a 1981 Imperial that's been sitting at a local car lot for a few months now, and is just now showing up on their website. So, I called about it. It's a nice, deep light/medium blue that the guy I talked to said was the "Frank Sinatra Edition" color, even though this isn't an FS edition.

Anyway, I figured they'd want some ridiculous figure for it, but was pleasantly surprised when he said $3999.

Hate to say this, but I'm a bit tempted! I did stop off a few months ago and looked at it. Looked nice at a quick glance. However, the guy on the phone did say that there's a bit of rust coming out on one of the rear quarters, right behind the wheel opening.

Also, I don't know the mileage, or whether the fuel injection was swapped out for a carb. He's going to call me back.

lemko · April 2013

Nice bronze-colored 1986-1989 Lincoln Town Car heading north on Tabor Avenue near Ripley.

White 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis LS with blue landau roof that looks like my old ride at Naplfle and Verree Road.

Light blue M-body Dodge Diplomat near Rising Sun and Longshore.

White Cadillac Allante near Magee and Bingham.

Light green 1974 Dodge Dart near Levick and Bingham.

lemko · April 2013

Do you remember the rubber distributor cover on your 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis? Wonder why they did that? It didn't look like it was in a place where it would constantly get wet.

andre1969 · April 2013

Just talked to the owner of the lot where this '81 Imperial is, and unfortunately I'm losing a bit of interest.

He says the car has 30,000 miles on it, but that the odometer is reading 24,000. Supposedly the car was converted, by a dealer, from fuel injection to 2-bbl carb when it was almost new, and he said that when they do that, they switch out the electronic instrumentation, and put in a new unit that registers zero miles.

Does that sounds right? Sounds like odometer tampering to me!

Also, the headliner has a few bubbles here and there. That's not a big deal to me, though. However, he also mentioned that the paint is about 4-5 years old, and I guess knowing that it's a repaint tarnishes its image a bit, to me.

I guess I shouldn't be too picky, as they're only asking $3999 for it. I paid $3000 for my '76 LeMans eight years ago, and it was a repaint. And honestly, not a very good one at that. But, I think I've gotten pickier since then.

tjc78 · April 2013

Do you remember the rubber distributor cover on your 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis?

Sure do, my 89 Town Car had it too. I guess with the TFI module residing in the base of the distributor they didn't want to take any chances. On many Ford forums that cover is referred to as a distributor condom

tjc78 · April 2013

Does that sounds right?

Well, according to this article.... it may

The throttle body fuel injection gave a lot of trouble. Chrysler soon discovered that someone who could afford a $20,000 car could also afford an attorney! Instead of repairing the fuel injection, Chrysler replaced them with a carburetor. The kit included a new gas tank, complete exhaust system, and a new digital dashboard, and, of course, the intake manifold and carburetor.

Original is at Imperial cars by Chrysler, 1981 to 1983 http://www.allpar.com/cars/imperial/1981.html#ixzz2PzOjeo00
Follow us: @allparcom on Twitter | allparcom on Facebook

Someone had one on Ebay recently and claimed to have the factory conversion done, but it was clearly an aftermarket hack job. The seller had the full factory bulletin posted about the procedure, but I can't find it at the moment.

While searching for that document I came across a picture that shows the odometer was a six digit so it will show over 99K. That must have been a rarity for the times.

uplanderguy · April 2013

The '53 Stude did have an OHV V8 when many cars didn't yet. I don't care for some of the pastel colors they used in '53, but I could like owning one that was bone-stock. I think when they put the tall grille in on the '56 Hawks, and squared up the decklid, one really noticed the long-hood/short-deck styling which of course everybody used later.

I always thought that if I owned a '53 or '54 Stude coupe, at general car shows I'd always ask to be parked by other '53 or '54 domestic coupes! The differences were certainly dramatic. There's a woman in our local Stude club who is younger than me, has small kids, is widowed and drives her very nice, melon-colored '53 pillared coupe to meets all over the place. At Hershey two or three years ago, I was at a red light and she pulled up right next to me in it! The hobby needs more gals like her!

I don't hate the '58 T-Bird--I think it's obvious the Gran Turismo Hawk cribbed much of the look of the roof and I love Gran Turismos--but it always looked to me that it was on a short wheelbase--the rear wheels look moved up too far to me. And I think it started something T-Bird had through '63--a hard to define thing, IMHO, that was an effort to make the side look like a bird with its wings tucked under. I don't know, maybe not, but for some reason I always think that. I wouldn't refuse ownership of a nice '58-63 T-Bird if one came my way though.

Re.: the Continental Mark II--I just LOVE those cars but don't see them often enough!

uplanderguy · April 2013

The Postmaster at the Greenville, PA Post Office where my Dad worked (and where a guy on NPR who visits post offices as a hobby--LOL--said last year was the most beautiful post office of the 1,400 he visited, and NPR had pics of it on their site), had an early '80's Imperial coupe. My dad SWORE that he was told that Lee Iacocca phoned him at work to ask him (the owner) if he liked it! I guess a secretary waited 'til the postmaster picked up the phone and said, "Can you hold for Mr. Iacocca?" and he did!

I know it sounds amazing, but...who knows?

fintail · April 2013

It''s tough to line them up. A Tempo was definitely nicer than a Cavalier, and might have competed with the aging Citation in 84-85. But the Corsica/Beretta seems a level higher, at least in my eyes. Corsica styling always caught me as unusual too, for how it mixed aero with some angularity in the C-pillar. Maybe Chevy was playing the "tweener" role Caddy has tried with the CTS. At the same time, the Cavalier seemed more substantial than an Escort.

My mother had a loaded 85 Tempo GLX - seemed like a nice proper modern car at the time, but like andre mentions, they were terribly slow. It stayed in the family for several years after I started driving, and I am pretty sure even my fintail could dust it in a 0-60 race.

uplanderguy · April 2013

I always thought the Tempo and Topaz coupes looked a little 'chubby', mostly because there was a lot of sheetmetal above the wheel openings I think. I'll say this, it seems like I saw a ton of them over the years though.

My folks' last new car was a '90 Corsica V6 with column shift! I tried to be excited for them.

Dad traded in an '84 Monte Carlo 305 4-barrel and Rally Wheels for it.

A few months later, when my wife's old '78 Chevette was on its last leg, I asked her if she'd prefer a new Cavalier wagon (which would've been my choice) or a Corsica. She chose the Corsica. They were about the same price. It was a four-cylinder 5-speed--same combo I'd have looked for in a Cavalier wagon. We drove it 6 1/2 years and 108K miles, and it was reliable.

fintail · April 2013

My uncle had an early Taurus, 86, base "L" model with hubcaps ,3.0. It did seem like a spaceship, and even at 10 years old looked decent. I remember it had a cool blue backlit clock, amusing plood, and cheap but nice upholstery - very low-pile, like in some old cars. It was good for some time, but I remember lost a transmission in 1996.

My mother had a 93 Taurus, GL, usual spec, 3.8. I remember laughing at a little due to its fleet-style color scheme (white with dark blue interior), but for some reason, she loved that car. The facelift kept the car looking modern, but by that time was becoming a real rental queen.

fintail · April 2013

They do look kind of tall. The sedan looked sleeker, and had lines borrowed from the significant 1982 Euro Ford Sierra, which got the aero ball rolling for the mass market.

When I was a kid, my parents knew an old couple who bought a new Corsica 5-door - even when I was 12 or 13, I knew that was an oddball car. I remember they replaced it with a big final run K-car NYer ca. 1993.

uplanderguy · April 2013

Those first Tauruses did reinvent the field, didn't they? But, I'm afraid they started the 'jellybean' look, like it or not.

First rental one I had, I liked it. I thought the back seat was roomy and had a center armrest...usually reserved for top-line sedans only then.

A small thing, but those early Taurus low-line models were the first domestic car I can remember where the hubcaps were painted instead of bright metal.

A guy I used to work with, who moved to WV, there bought a new Taurus with a stickshift! I never saw it, only heard about it. He thought it was a good car.

tjc78 · April 2013

My mother had a 93 Taurus, GL, usual spec, 3.8. I

Rare to see a GL with the 3.8 that was mostly reserved for the LX models. Did your moms blow the head gasket? Mine did at around 75K IIRC.

tjc78 · April 2013

A guy I used to work with, who moved to WV, there bought a new Taurus with a stickshift! I never saw it, only heard about it. He thought it was a good car.

Ah, the ultra rare "MT-5" they made about 7 of them from 86-88. I've never seen one but literature says they also made a wagon version in 86 and 87.

It also could have been an early SHO as they were available in manual.

fintail · April 2013

At the time, it was the way to go. Malaise angularity was looking tired, and the cool Euros had been moving to the aero look for a few years. Comparing that Taurus to the Ciera that was in my family was night and day.

My uncle's L had those hubcaps, I called them frisbee hubcaps. Very reminiscent of silver painted European style caps, which had been common there for several years prior (MB might have started it around 1980).

fintail · April 2013

I think my uncle's car had that steering wheel and plood. IIRC, were the MT-5s all 4cyl?

andre1969 · April 2013

Comparing that Taurus to the Ciera that was in my family was night and day.

My grandparents' '89 Taurus got into a pretty major accident a few months after they bought it. Grandmom was taking Granddad to the foot doctor, and some woman in a '74 Catalina sideswiped them and pushed them into a telephone pole. I think every piece of sheetmetal except for the roof and trunk was damaged. Total came out to around $6,000, which seemed expensive back then, but nowadays with labor rates and the increased complexity of cars, I bet it would've been totaled.

Anyway, the body shop had the car for about a month, and their loaner was an '89 Century. That thing seemed like a dinosaur compared to the Taurus. About the only thing nice about it was the velour fabric which seemed nicer than the Taurus, but also kind of a combination of Grandma's house and a bordello. And the dash padding seemed fairly high-quality, similar to what was in my other Grandmother's '85 LeSabre, or my R-bodies...almost has a leathery texture to it, and its very resistant to cracking.

fintail · April 2013

It was a GL that also had power seat/windows etc, and it had wheels. It's been so long now that I can't recall exactly, but when you either lifted the driver's door handle or unlocked it, the interior lights automatically came on. Somehow, this seemed cool to me.

Yep, gasket went at 80K IIRC.

tjc78 · April 2013

were the MT-5s all 4cyl?

As far as I know, yes. I bet being manual helped acceleration, I've driven a first gen 4 cyl auto..... slooooowwwwww.

ateixeira · April 2013

I remember seeing in the brochures and yes the MT-5 was manual only, and conversely the only way to get a manual.

I think Audi may have done the look first, but Taurus brought the look to the mainstream and then made it successful, so they're typically given credit.

My step mom had a Sable with the glowing grille/light thingy.

fintail · April 2013

I remember my uncle telling me about a 4cyl Ciera he drove that was also a real dog.

Odd car sightings today - red E24 6er coupe of some kind, and a Mitsu Diamante wagon.

andre1969 · April 2013

Audi often gets credit for doing that look first, but to me the Audi has more of an GM type of angularity to it. Sort of like a Celebrity, but a bit more rakish. And, with perhaps a bit of Mitsubishi thrown in.

Now, I do think the Audi 5000 has aged better than a Chevy Celebrity, because cars have gotten more aerodynamic, and sort of followed that style. But, in judging early 80's standards, I don't think it really stands out.

In contrast, I think one car that deserves credit for bringing us aerodynamics, that often gets overlooked, is the 1983 Thunderbird. They seemed downright radical at the time. And the 1984 Tempo/Topaz, while hardly beautiful to look at, really pushed that jellybean aero look.

While the Taurus really pushed the midsized car forward, stylewise it wasn't *that* radical to me, I guess, because my stepdad had already had a Tempo since 1984. And IMO, a Taurus really isn't THAT radically different in style from a Tempo. Just a bit more tasteful and better proportioned, but cut from the same basic cloth.

Another car from that era I think is a bit under-rated, is the 1985 LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer. I remember some buff rag calling them "what the Tempo and Topaz SHOULD have been!" I think they still look pretty good, although they could only round them off so much I guess, because of their K-car underpinnings.

The 1987 LeBaron coupe and convertible deserve some credit as well.

With GM, most of their efforts to advance aerodynamics were in the 1970's and maybe 1980-82. The re-skin of the 1980 full-sized cars got their drag coefficient down from around 0.55-.60 to maybe 0.45. And when the personal luxury coupes were restyled for 1981, they saw similar improvements. I've read that the 1982 Firebird was the first domestic car to break the 0.40 barrier, but I don't know how true that is. Supposedly the 1970 Plymouth Superbird had a drag coefficient of 0.28. But, it had that huge nose cone and rear wing to do it, and I've read that it didn't really give you any advantage over a RoadRunner with the same drivetrain until you hit 95 mph or so, due to the increased weight of the nose and wing.

IMO, GM's first serious attempt at aerodynamic cars was the GM10 coupes of 1988...Cutlass Supreme, Regal, and Grand Prix. Unfortunately, they put too much effort into a dying market, and really dropped the ball on getting out sedans that were competitive to the Taurus.

ateixeira · April 2013

I liked the LeBarons from back then as well.

For whatever reason 3 of my friends were "Dodge Boys" so I saw a lot of those. The turbos would only last so long. They were quick, though.

GM10s brought 2 big coupes when the market wanted sedans. Bad timing. It would be like spending all your R&D budget today on a minivan when the market wants crossovers.

uplanderguy · April 2013

GM10s brought 2 big coupes when the market wanted sedans

My guess is that the coupe versions of the cars they replaced were handily outselling the sedans...i.e., Cutlass Supreme coupe versus sedan, Regal coupe versus sedan, etc.

But that is saying that the modern-styled FWD coupes would appeal to the same customer who bought the older-style RWD coupes, and I'm not sure they did.

ateixeira · April 2013

Yes, less perceived sportiness, for starters.

I liked the Regal coupe but had hoped for a Grand National of some sort.

The Olds model was...odd? Plus the ads kept telling people it wasn't your father's Olds and alienated the people who might have actually bought them. I remember a hot rod I saw bracket racing that had "This IS your father's Oldsmobile" painted down the side. :shades:

What was the 3rd? Pontiac Grand Prix. Yes, the wide track that had a track more narrow than its siblings, and about 300 pounds of plastic cladding. No wonder I liked the Regal.

GM did sedans later but they all looked pieced together instead of designed from the ground up. At least the 3800 was grenade proof.

Good case study for business schools. GM simply couldn't see where the market was headed. Had they done sedans from the get go their whole decade would have been stronger.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

The '53 Stude was very pretty but technically it was 1948, and not very luxurious--which I think was the other poster's opinion -- that it was perhaps luxurious. My recollection of the car wasn't like that. It's *still* attractive to the modern eye, and often taken for a 60s car, not a 50s car.

Most Americans back then equated "luxury" with gadgetry and gimmickry and nouveau riche touches, and the '58 Bird had plenty of all that.

uplanderguy · April 2013

Maybe not in the luxury aspect, but I was thinking more in the proportioning...low-slung, long hood, closely coupled passenger compartment, and a bit of a long-ish rear end. And sheetmetal that looked almost nothing like its sedan counterpart.

The '56 Golden Hawk, IMO, could be called the first 'personal' car...luxurious, long hood, short deck, powerful. Its fins are tame compared to the '57's, too.

Now that I think about it, the '55 President Speedster was luxurious inside (all leather; engine-turned instrument panel) and had the same attributes I mentioned. As long as it's not lemon and lime!!

uplanderguy · April 2013

The '53 Stude was very pretty but technically it was 1948

We've disagreed on this before, but I think the Stude having an OHV V8 can't be discounted. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, had one in a few years after that. Though, even in '53, Packard, Chevy, Pontiac and others still didn't have one. Of course, Chevy didn't have an eight of any kind then.

andre1969 · April 2013

My guess is that the coupe versions of the cars they replaced were handily outselling the sedans...i.e., Cutlass Supreme coupe versus sedan, Regal coupe versus sedan, etc.

Part of the problem is that GM tried, three different times, to split up this market, with three different cars, and none of them were really class leaders.

The first attempt was 1982, when the Celebrity, 6000, Ciera, and Century came out, ostensibly to replace the Malibu, LeMans, and RWD Cutlass and Century. However, they found a way to keep the old RWD cars around. For instance, the Malibu stuck it out in 1982-83. The LeMans became the Bonneville G for '82-86. The Cutlass Supreme sedan stayed around through 1987, and the wagon through 1983.. And at Buick, they simply took the Century sedan and wagon and re-badged them as Regals. The wagon went away after 1983, same as all G-wagons, and the sedan went away after 1984.

The second attempt was 1985, when the Somerset Regal, Grand Am, and Calais came out. Originally, these were supposed to replace the Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme coupe, and Regal coupe. But, as the bigger cars continued to sell well, and gas started getting cheaper, GM balked at the last minute, gave the larger cars a stay of execution, and tried to pass off these N-body coupes as upscale compacts. The Grand Am was positioned as sort of a 3-series contender. I'm sure it never fooled the purists, but it was a hot seller for awhile.

In 1988, the final attempt to replace these cars was put in motion, as the GM10 Grand Prix, Regal, and Cutlass Supreme were born. Initially they outsold their 1987 versions. Especially the Grand Prix, which had really fallen from favor starting way back in 1982. But, I think GM was banking on a resurgence of the personal luxury coupe market, and that just wasn't happening.

The new cars actually seemed a bit more focused for their intended markets, with the Grand Prix going for more of the traditional boy racer crowd, the Cutlass Supreme going for a more sophisticated, yuppie buyer, and the Regal going for a more mature crowd. In contrast, the RWD cars were more like a jack of all trades, or Mr. Potatohead. Same basic car, but you could deck it out to suit your needs.

Want something inexpensive, yet still upscale looking? Get a base Monte, Grand Prix, Regal, or Cutlass Supreme. Want something luxurious? There were upscale packages called LS, Limited, Brougham, etc. Sporty? Monte SS, Olds 442, and Regal T-type Grand National were available. If you wanted old fogey, you could get wire wheels and a landau roof. If you wanted sportier, you could get bucket seats, console, and Rally wheels. But, all four models could be anything you wanted them to be.

But, with the new ones, you couldn't turn a Grand Prix or Cutlass Supreme into an old people's car. And it was hard to turn that Regal into anything resembling youthfulness.

When the 4-door sedans came out for 1990, they seemed kind of half-hearted, and awkward. And, I thought it was a big loss that Chevy never got a true replacement for the Monte Carlo, as its last year was 1988, when it was produced for a couple months, and then they had to wait until the 1990 Lumina coupe, for anything resembling a true replacement.

I wonder if things would have been different if, in the early 80's, GM had simply replaced all of these A/G bodies at once, with something truly competent, rather than coming out with something half-hearted that the older model often ended up outselling?

fintail · April 2013

I remember the Grand Prix also having probably the worst exhaust note of any car from that era. The Lumina would also inherit this.

andre1969 · April 2013

I remember the Grand Prix also having probably the worst exhaust note of any car from that era. The Lumina would also inherit this.

To me, they all sound about the same. I tend to associate it wit a Cavalier Z-24. Even my Dad's '03 Regal and my Park Ave sound about the same.

fintail · April 2013

If some of those are all it takes, the Continental mentioned earlier would be the first "personal car" - (long hood, luxurious, short deck, powerful), and many 1930s classic were also designed like that.

I've thought of the "personal luxury car" being relatively attainable, and kind of big and heavy - 58+ T-Bird, Riviera, Toronado, Monte Carlo, etc. The Studes are sportier, to me anyway.

fintail · April 2013

I think I recall the 3.1 and 2.8 being the worst. Sometimes like a hyper popcorn popper.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2013

OHV V8s are not a new technology--they go back to the early 1900s. Chevrolet built one in 1917, with exposed valve gear of all things.

The only reason they took so long to mature is that there wasn't the right type of fuel to justify their expense and weight. Once compression ratios could be raised, then it made sense to have an OHV V-8 motor and a short stroke for lower deck height.

If you want to give Studebaker 4th or 5th place, that's cool.

uplanderguy · April 2013

I can say this with a straight face...you are the only person I've ever heard say that an independent with a OHV V8 in 1951 wasn't an achievement. Same with Torsion-Level (no springs) being an achievement.

The OHV V8 was not widely used by a good chunk of the Big Three by that time. That shouldn't be discounted...and isn't by most auto writers.

uplanderguy · April 2013

I think I recall the 3.1 and 2.8 being the worst. Sometimes like a hyper popcorn popper.

Definitely raspy. That, and in the salty areas in which we live, the exhausts didn't last very long, making them even raspier.

A 2.8/3.1 is one of the only cars I could tell blindfolded...that, and '60's and '70's Mopars starting.

uplanderguy · April 2013

If some of those are all it takes, the Continental mentioned earlier would be the first "personal car" - (long hood, luxurious, short deck, powerful), and many 1930s classic were also designed like that

True, but a decade or more later, I am hard-pressed to think of anybody other than Stude and the Continental Mark II doing 'long hood, short deck'. Starting with the '63 Riv I think, everybody else started to after that point.

fintail · April 2013

I guess I see the Stude as being too small and sporty to be a personal luxury car. It has similar proportions, but I don't know if that was the intention. Correctly equipped, almost more like something to compete with an early Corvette or T-Bird roadster.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles