Mystery car pix

kyfdx · January 2013

Starions are uber-rare in the US, so I think it's probably a Conquest...

andys120 · January 2013

Actually it's a 1987 Chrysler Conquest. According to the Wikipedia. Dodge, Plymouth ahd Chrysler all used "Conquest" to name their versions. :confuse:

kyfdx · January 2013

Don't remember seeing anything but Chrysler. Maybe the others were Canadian models?

odie6l · January 2013

The most famous version is that of Jackie Chan's in Cannonball Run. I think they also used it in the style of the Cartoon version of the Gadgetmobile.

Odie

ateixeira · January 2013

Never saw a Chrysler version.

Was in high school when those came out and I like them.

andys120 · January 2013

kyfdx · January 2013

Dodge Mirada?

odie6l · January 2013

Odie

fintail · January 2013

Go gadget go!

andys120 · January 2013

Dodge Mirada?

Sorry no, but obviously a close relative.

stickguy · January 2013

Chrysler imperial?

andys120 · January 2013

Yup, it's a 1981 Chrysler Imperial, but not just any Chrysler Imperial, it's a "Frank Sinatra Edition" :confuse: .

andys120 · January 2013

andre1969 · January 2013

1972 Chevy Impala convertible. One of many 70's battlecruisers that I've had a lusting for from time to time. Also, the last year that the convertible was in the Impala series, as they moved it to the Caprice line for '73-75.

If I bought one though, I don't think red would be my first choice.

ateixeira · January 2013

I'd love to own one of those big convertibles.

lostwrench1 · January 2013

I had a 73 Pontiac Catalina batttlecruiser. 400 cubes. What a ride!

andys120 · January 2013

Yup, it's a '72 Impala. I too have a soft spot for those big convertibles but they're just too big to mess with on today's crowded roads, and then there's the gas mileage. :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright · January 2013

last week I was driving a Chrysler 300G convertible---talk about BIG---we couldn't even find a lift that it would fit on!! Parking in a 'slot'? Forget that. And those 2 big 4bbl carbs sucking gas. What a ride, though. You park that next to *anything* and the other car immediately disappears.

tjc78 · January 2013

The G isn't that big. Looked it up and found 219in. My 79 Continental was 233 in. :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright · January 2013

I wonder if the 300G weighs more? Also, 18 years of product development between the 2 cars can certainly be felt in brakes and steering.

tjc78 · January 2013

From the same sources the G weighs in at 4430, the Lincoln shows a range of 4900-5500 lbs.

If you consider my "mid size " 2012 LaCrosse tips the scale at over 4000 the old boats aren't that bad.

andre1969 · January 2013

Also, 18 years of product development between the 2 cars can certainly be felt in brakes and steering.

My guess is the biggest difference would be the tires and steering wheel. Those old cars had big steering wheels, to compensate for versions that lacked power steering. No matter how well a car handles, an oversized steering wheel just makes it feel sloppy.

As for tires, according to cokertire.com, a 300G came with 8.00-15 bias ply tires standard, and 8.20-15 optional. I'm sure that had to hurt handling, although sometimes, putting radial tires on a car originally designed for bias ply isn't always the magic bullet many people think it is. It can vary from car to car.

But, fast forward to 1979, and steering wheels were much smaller, ratios were quicker, and a '79 Lincoln was running around on 15" radials. Cokertire.com lists the original size as "LR78-15", which I don't know how to relate to modern terms. The (presumingly) original spare in my '76 LeMans says "FR78-15" on it, so I wonder how the two would relate, size-wise? You'd think a ~5,000 lb Lincoln would take a bigger tire than a ~4,000 lb LeMans. Maybe that's where the "L" versus "R" comes into play?

I'd imagine that if you were going for relatively stock tires on a '79 Lincoln, you'd probably get a 225/75/R15, or even a 235?

blh7068 · January 2013

My dad had a 71...orange with a black interior...4 speed and a 1600 cc motor.

andys120 · January 2013

qbrozen · January 2013

Falcon... but trying to pin the year... early '60s... its like a '62 hood... but the grille.... hmmmm

uplanderguy · January 2013

'63 Falcon Sprint...first year for a two-door hardtop and first year for a V8 Falcon.

That's a pretty big spear going down the side of the car!

Mr_Shiftright · January 2013

Sprints actually ran in the Monte Carlo Rallye!

andre1969 · January 2013

I had forgotten that the Falcon was that late in adding a hardtop to the lineup. I think the Valiant/Lancer added one for 1961, and of course the Studebaker Lark had one from the get-go in 1959.

Didn't the Chevy II have a hardtop from the very beginning, in 1962? I wonder if that's what put pressure on Ford to add a hardtop to the Falcon?

andys120 · January 2013

'63 Falcon Sprint...first year for a two-door hardtop and first year for a V8 Falcon.

Hmmm... a little confusion about the nomenclature here. The seller advertises this car as simply a "Ford Falcon Futura" but Wikipedia confirms that you are correct, the 260V8-powered Sprint model was introduced in 1963. The bucket seat Futura version was introduced in '61, the second year of the Falcon.

IIRC the original name for this model was Ford Falcon Futura Sprint.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Chevy II had a hardtop in '62, and I'm pretty sure they also had a convertible in '62...my in-laws (now divorced) had a choice of a cheaper model full-size Chevy or Chevy II Nova convertible as a wedding gift and chose the Chevy II...a robin's egg turquoise per my mother-in-law. They were married in '62 and their gift from the groom's parents was a new car.

Falcon got its first convertible in '63, also. Chevy II, and Dart and Valiant, got their first V8's for '64. The Rambler American didn't get a V8 until later, and the mid-sized Classic only got a V8 in mid'63. There wasn't a hardtop Rambler Classic until '64.

andys120 · January 2013

fintail · January 2013

I really wanted one of those for my first car back in the 90s - I knew of one in town, owned by a nice old guy who was talkative about it, but wouldn't sell it - was "saving it" for his adult son who couldn't care less about the car. Then the old guy passed on and the property was emptied out overnight. It was a cool car, 260, red on red, very solid condition - I wonder what became of it.

robr2 · January 2013

It's a Shelby Mustang - year and what particular version, I don't know.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2013

69 or 70---can't tell from the photo.

fintail · January 2013

I will guess 1968

andre1969 · January 2013

Wouldn't 1968 or later have side marker lights? Or was Shelby exempt from those somehow?

qbrozen · January 2013

definitely not '68 taillights.

And shouldn't it say SHELBY across the back? Something seems really wrong here to me.

andys120 · January 2013

Boy, I didn't think it would be that hard but the green car is a 1967 Shelby (Mustang) GT-350. IMHO it may be the best looking Mustang ever (the "Eleanors" were patterned after it (mostly).

Here it is from the front>

The misaligned (fiberglass) hood was typical, the extra lights in the corners of the grille were not, these were usually twinned in the center of the hood in the '67s.

uplanderguy · January 2013

That is a '67--no side marker lights, but more importantly, it's the '67-68 bodystyle and not the new '69-70.

Oops, now I see the poster had to identify it!

qbrozen · January 2013

huh. OK. I found more pics and they do all look like that. Really thought '67 would have still had the '65-'66 taillights, and I definitely thought it said shelby on the back.

andys120 · January 2013

Yep, the side marker lights are a good way to tell a '68 from a '67 Shelby Mustang. Another is the placement of the hood scoops and the more rectangular auxiliary lights in place of the round ones in the '67.

There's a shiny metal surround on the '68 tailights which the '67 doesn't have.

Oh, and there were no convertibles in '67 (what a shame).

explorerx4 · January 2013

but where was it built?

fintail · January 2013

It's a Rolls 20/25 (plate helps

), "where was it built" is a fun question. I see it is RHD, I don't know if a Springfield built car would be RHD, and the body is later than Springfield production.

explorerx4 · January 2013

That picture was taken last September and I didn't look at it very closely, but I thought we had a picture of a Springfield Rolls and that is definitely not it!

explorerx4 · January 2013

although odd color choice for the brand

fintail · January 2013

Springfield production ended in 1930, I think. That car is probably 1935-39. But, RRs were often rebodied. It would be cool in a way to have a US built Rolls.

kyfdx · January 2013

A friend of mine, who is a collector, once had a US made Rolls..

andys120 · January 2013

That's the car that comes to mind when I hear the word "Ferrari", it's a late 50s/early 60s 250GT Short Wheelbase Berlinetta.

Ferraris don't have to be red, Stirling Moss won a race at Goodwood in 1960 driving a dark blue SWB, while listening to the radio.

stickguy · January 2013

andys120 · January 2013

That looks like a prewar BMW 327 or 328 Coupe but it could be a postwar replica made by the Eisenach Motoren Werkes (EMW) which was formed by the Communist regime of East Germany. EMW was later merged into the IFA/Sachsenring consortium which made Wartburgs and Trabants among other things.

The EMW emblem looks like a BMW roundel with red in place of the blue and I believe that's what I spy on the nose of the pictured car..

Mystery car pix

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles