-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Things You'd Like to See Revived In Cars
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Who knows? I should probably track down my old car (I still have a title history, VIN, last known license plate number, etc.) and see if it's stuck in a barn where I can purchase it for a $1000 (probably next to an abandoned RSK Spyder). Yeah, right.
A blue car.
If the blue car you are refering to is an RS SS than that is supposed to be the only documented car out there. I think it's in Washington State.
I know what you mean about fakes. I have a RS SS L78 convertible with no documentation. But it's a fun car to own which is what's important to me.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Some prettier colors and interior cloth designs.
Separate options instead of "packages".
Roll down rear windows in 2 doors-even a pop out style like the V W and the Maverick had would help.
A protected area for the license plate instead of the very edge of the bumper where it is easily torn off.
A vehicle that makes a virtue of being simple and easy for the owner to repair, and engineered to that end.
Whitewalls,two tone paint,some real NAMES for trim lines instead of letters. Give us all a break:DTS? SLT? TRD? Look closely enough and they DO mean something but it's not very flattering.
Monterey, Montclair, Park Lane. Biscayne, Bel-Air...even the inexpensive models at LEAST gave you a sense of adventure, exclusivity or the romance of rich and far off places!!!
They were nice, because you could crack your window a bit while it was raining and not have to worry about the water pouring in. Evidently, they've been phasing them out for awhile...neither my '79 Newport nor my '89 Gran Fury had them.
I'm sure that's just something else that got jettisoned in the name of aerodynamics.
-Andre
It seemed like the A-body alone covered more fields than all the Chrysler cars put together today!
-Andre
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Get one while you can :-)
In 64 the engine was enlarged and the easily warped oil pan reinforced. I spent weeks learning about the car - I even wrote to Chevy and got an SAE booklet with all the specs. The dealers around me were hotbeds of apathy about the vehicle.
I put together a very nice van - the top series in turquoise (or was it called aquamarine?) with the white band around it. I went for the 110 HP engine and a 4-speed tranny. The wheel covers were the same ones used on the Impala that year. It was really a cute little beggar. I even had to fill out the order forms for the dealer and pay the SOB a commission when I did all the work!
When I ordered it, my then wife told me that I could buy it, but she would never set foot in it. After two days of her driving it I couldn't blast her out of it with dynamite!
It would seat 9 comfortably and the rear two seats were easily removable. My record was five adults and 9 kids for a short haul.
Even with bias ply tires and those swing axles, I never got stuck in an Indiana winter. But I did find that if I drove at a sustained 85 MPH on an 85 degree day the engine hot light would come on.
The only real problems I ever had with it were a couple of blown head gaskets on the individual cylinder heads (easily replaced) and a repack of the front u-joints. And the fan/accessory drive belt finally let go while I was stuck in traffic about a mile from the nearest service station. But by shutting off the engine as I inched ahead I made it - and the place even had a belt on site!
It was worth every penny and really fun to drive. If only it had had a full independent rear suspension . . .
Daimler-Chrysler has just lost a sale to me this year because I can't get just the things I want on one of their new minivans. I was all set to leap into one of their new, more reasonably-priced EX series (even though they still would make me take things I don't want like a roof rack and power liftgate) until I discovered that I couldn't get one with a trailer towing package.
Talk about bloody-minded thinking! Why does DC think that just because someone can't afford one of their top line vans they will never have a need for the bigger engine to tow a heavier load or that EX buyers will never want to tow anything large?
Even back in the 60s when computers were a lot more primtiive than today, I could order just about any make of car by choosing from a rather goodly list of individual options and still get the car delivered in about the same time as today.
In 1969 I ordered a Plymouth Valiant Signet sedan. It would be a car only I would drive, so I did it my way. I chose the slant 6 because I didn't need the extra power and didn't want the extra weight on the front. I chose fast ratio manual steering and non-power disk brakes for better steering response and braking control. The wheels and wheel covers were the same as on the top Plymouth intermediate for that year and the tires were Goodyear bias belted wide ovals (good on the dry but real pigs on the slightest amount of snow - I once couldn't even back out of a level parking spot with about a half-inch of snow on the ground).
The color was an emerald green metallic for the body with a gold metallic roof (no vinyl for me!). The interior was a luxury gold vinyl with a pull-down armrest in front and even the steering wheel was gold - which cracked and chunked after one summer of expanding and contracting in the sun.
And of course it had air - the kind that hung under the dash and didn't look real nice, but did allow me to still use the under dash air vents on each side.
When it arrived at the dealer, I found out later that he cleaned it up and set it out on the front of the lot for a week to draw traffic without telling me it was in. One of the salesmen told me later that the dealer sold 6 cars to people who had stopped to look at my car - but no commission for me, alas.
That car was a beauty and was everything I had hoped for (except for the tires - but a set of Michelin radials corrected that in a hurry - and that stupid steering wheel) because I was able to order exactly what I wanted and no more. I wish now that I had it back, but I traded it in on a 1970 Datsun 2000 roadster that I mention in another forum. I guess my mid-life crisis set in early (grin).
Unit body construction undoubtedly killed these; you need a frame to keep the car from bending in half, since with the doors open, you have nothing but frame and floorboard connecting the front and back halves. Of course, true full-size cars are a rarity in themselves.
And please...make the back window GLASS.
I wasn't ordering new cars in '69 but I've owned a few GTOs from that era and I have this harmless fantasy that I order a late-'60s Tempest (not the heavier, more expensive LeMans) coupe (not the heavier, more expensive, less rigid hardtop) with the hi-perf OHC six (not the heavier, less efficient but cheaper 326/350 V8).
Transmission would be four speed, or maybe even 3 speed with floor shift if I'm feeling especially frugal. Quick-ratio manual steering (20:1 instead of 24:1), buckets (or maybe just the cheaper, lighter bench), definitely full gauges, HD suspension and cooling. AM/FM with reverb for crusing. For brakes, I'd keep the standard manual drums but replace the fronts with junkyard Buick finned aluminum drums. Maybe a 3.90 posi but then I couldn't have AC, so probably a 3.55 and air. Maybe the stock soupbowl hubcaps but Rally I styled steel wheels would be great. A dyno kit from Royal Pontiac with a curve kit and different jets for the Q-Jet.
End result would be a very fun, well balanced car, very sharp, reasonably priced and decently quick. Might even make a good driver now. Of course, back then that kind of car was the answer to a question very few people were asking, and it would be now too.
I think, more than anything, downsizing and air conditioning killed convertibles more than anything. My mother had a '66 Catalina convertible when she was a teenager. She got rid of it when I was 2, I'm guessing partly because she thought it was unsafe to have a child and a convertible, but my father might have helped rag it out, too ;-) Anyway, I remember asking her if it had air conditioning, and she replied "Of course not...it was a convertible!" I guess that was the attitude back then.
I currently have a '67 Catalina convertible, and even though the convertible cuts down on space a bit, this thing is still a true 6 passenger car with a full-size trunk. Unfortunately, while cars have gotten smaller, it seems that the space the convertible top takes up has not. My '67 could afford to lose 3-4 cubic feet of trunk space, or whatever it takes, and the 5 or 6 inches of shoulder room, and still be a roomy car. Today, if you take 6" of shoulder room away, you reduce a car from a full-size to a subcompact!
I've seen a few relatively modern chop-job convertibles, such as Cutlass Cieras, FWD Coupe DeVilles, and RWD 80's Monte Carlos. One of the most beautiful ones was a 1982 Dodge Mirada. Big as these cars are, though, none of them had a usable back seat. Might as well have been a K-car! Another problem with them is that all of these aftermarket convertibles look horrible with the top up!
-Andre
1. Body and powertrain options (2-door sedan vs 4-door sedan vs 2-door hardtop etc., six vs V8, 3-speed manual with or without overdrive vs 4-speed manual vs automatic, and final drive ratios).
2. Convenience options (power steering, brakes and windows, air conditioning, sound systems such as AM radio or AM-FM radio).
I think that the first category has been more or less killed by the requirements for emission certification, and possibly safety. Most of the former options in the second category are now standard. I would like to see other peoples' responses to the above statements. I would also like to know whether people, if given the option, would be willing to live without the items in the second category (I have to admit that I would not drive a car without air conditioning anymore, and I am even getting used to the power windows). Finally, what else would people like to have as options. Thanks.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Funny that I've owned four GTOs and fantasize about a Sprint while you had a Sprint and really wanted a goat. The grass is always greener...
Yeah, the 326 2v with AT was slow off the line but that's mostly because of the standard 2.56 axle ratio, and the convertible's extra weight didn't help. I had a '65 LeMans pillared coupe with the same set-up and it was fairly quick. Sticks came with 3.23s and that must have helped a lot.
Back then Popular Mechanics tested a '66 Tempest Sprint coupe with 4 speed and 3.90s (and probably a massage by Royal Pontiac) and it got to 60 in about 10 seconds, quick for those days. They also tested a LeMans with the base 165-hp OHC six and AT and I think they're still trying to get it up to 60.
I always wanted a 400 firebird (67-69) a ragtop for sure... again the camaro with the chevy engines were more desireable, but I guess I'm a Pontiac man.
Don't assume the Chevy big block is better. The big valve Pontiac 400/350 used in the GTO and Firebird is stronger than the 396/325 chuffer and easily a match for anything up to but not including the 396/375. The optional 400 HO put out a real 360 hp, and the various Ram Airs were even stronger.
Although 1/4-mile times and speeds from the old tests are sometimes suspect, a '68 396/375 Chevelle had a trap speed of 98.8 mph while a Ram Air II did 99.7--same magazine did both tests. And back in the '80s my RA III Judge beat a 440-6 pack Challenger at the strip, so they can motorvate. It ain't all hype.
Pontiac just fell a little behind after the 421 days... until the 455 SD.
But I think the Pontiac 400 can hold its own with most of the stock streetable wedge engines. Those big port solid lifter rats, fuelies and hemis were rare. They're in a class by themselves but the road tests indicate they were happier on the strip than on the street. Part of Pontiac's success was due to designing engines that weren't overkill, engines anyone could live with.
But the overkill engines were great marketing as well as engineering--they gave even some fairly ordinary Chevy and Mopar engines a halo effect. I went down the strip even with a '70 440 Magnum Road Runner--we were even shifting at the same time--until he missed the 3-4 shift, and that tells me his 440 was making the same 360 net hp +/- as my '67 400 HO.
But your're right, Pontiac did eventually lose it and by '70 didn't really have an answer to even the hotter wedges like the 455 W-30s and Stage Is. Actually the '68 Road Runner 383 was the first nail in the coffin--cheap and fast, just like the original goat. But it was a good run while it lasted.
There's only one engine these days that I know of that would have the necessary right-now torque, and that's the 3800. The new Chevy truck V8 probably has it too. That might be it. With everything else you've got to wait to get on cam.
Combine that with an inexpensive rear-drive chassis. A body-on-frame truck chassis would be perfect. That way you'd get numb steering and brakes and chassis flex just like in the old days, and you could drill the frame with holes to lighten it just like the swiss cheese Catalinas ;-).
Offer it with manual steering, roll-up windows and 12" drum brakes--just kidding about the drums--and meaningful performance options like limited slip and full gauges (no spoilers).
If they can bring back the 427 Cobra in the Viper why not the Road Runner? Of course, Viper is probably a loss leader and the original musclecars were based on high-volume sedans to keep the costs down, but these are just details.
Pontiac did try this formula again in the 350 formula, but it was too little too late. We want leather, windows, etc. The last real offering was the 350 Impala, but it was fat, slow, and never crossed the line into a real muscle car. A rear wheel drive intrepid with the jeep v-8. Rear wheel drive bonneville with the ls1... this could carry on the GTO name... my SSEi is close, but is not a muscle car. Maybe a lemans or Monte with the
S/C engine would be fun.
I have a '67 Catalina 'vert and used to own a '69 Bonneville 4-door ht. Even with a vinyl roof and fender skirts, that '69 still looked like a sporty car, where the '70 full-size lineup had a neo-classic personal luxury look to it. Same thing with the intermediates. The Lemans took on a more upscale, ritzy look for '70, as well, and became more of a budget Grand Prix than a sporty intermediate.
Also seems that the GTO was overshadowed for 1973 by the Grand Am, which showed where Pontiac was headed. "Grand Prix luxury, Trans Am performance", I think was the slogan. Of course, the X-body (Ventura) GTO for 1974 was a true slap in the face, although, with emissions controls, I wonder if a compact with a 350 was really any worse than an intermediate with a 400.
As for a "bargain basement" performance car, I have a friend who used to own a 1971 Tempest T-37. Is that anything special? He owned it before I knew him, so I never got to see it. He said it was basically a "poor man's" GTO, but I've always wondered if he was just kidding himself. I've heard of the T-37, and seen a few T-37 badges, but never knew much about it? Anybody care to educate me?
-Andre
Bad handling and substandard brakes. I really miss those.
--Scissors
"Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!"
high torque like the 2 speed POWERGLIDE in the '63 CHEVY 409 with single Carter AFB. Not the SS, but the
slower street friendly 409 with single 4bbl...
We tend to joke about senior citizens nowadays and how they can't drive. Well, I bought my '57 DeSoto from an older couple, and the reason they held onto the car for so long is because the wife liked the way it handled! Now this thing has a 126" wb, and is about as long as a Suburban. It's RWD, no suregrip, tons of low-end torque just waiting to lose control in bad weather, and this sweet little old lady who can barely see over the steering wheel liked it because of the way it handled in bad weather!
Now for their time, Chrysler vehicles were supposed to be some of the best handling big cars, but there's no way it could compare to its modern day equivalent, except maybe in acceleration and top speed. But today, we have a whole generation of drivers who have probably never owned a car without FWD, ABS, air bags, fuel injection, crumple zones, etc etc etc. The cars may be safer, but I think they're making a lot of the drivers dumber!
-Andre
Example:
Jimbo (IQ approx. 59) is headed over to the park in his car to ensure that he will be forever listed in the FBI's annals as a "Most Wanted Sex Offender." Thanks to laws that require him to wear a seatbelt, he makes it there alive after being in an accident.
Ban Seatbelts!
Ban good brakes too!
--Scissors
"Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!"
Seems like 2-doors with roll-down rear windows are almost non-existent nowadays. Except for convertibles, the last I remember seeing was the Acura Legend.
And does anybody even make a hardtop anymore? I know Mercedes used to make a couple hardtop coupes, and I think the BMW 850 lacked a B-pillar.
-Andre
The Man Of The One Eyed Smiley,
Runs With Scissors
here's a pic of a '56 Plymouth 4-door hardtop...
http://www.cherrysoda.com/plymouth/56hardtop.jpg
I think it's kinda cool, because of the way the back window rolls down. In the pic, it looks like it has a piece that rolls down, and then a vent window, but in reality, the little spacer window is attached to the big window, so that they both roll down all the way.
I'm sure the thing must've leaked like crazy after a couple years, but I think it's a pretty neat design. Think of it...45 years ago, they knew how to make a rear window roll down all the way, and now today, in some cars, you're lucky if it even rolls down half-way!
-Andre
When I took over the driving my early thoughts were that it was Not a GTO and pity me. Greater experience with that car (60+ mph...in first!) and many poorer handling cars since have reminded me what a great chassis that was when not overloaded and unbalanced by a anvil engine up front. Great brakes and solid build likely saved my life and the lack of a GTO motor not doubt saved my driving priviliges.
I saw it on the hook being towed while at work six years after I sold it and was daydreaming about it (more than usual) for the rest of the day.