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

stickguy · January 2017

is tonight day 1 of BJ Scottsdale this year? My wife hates when I put that on.

sda · January 2017

stickguy said:
is tonight day 1 of BJ Scottsdale this year? My wife hates when I put that on.

X2

Michaell · January 2017

ab348 said:
Wednesday nights at Barrett-Jackson seem to be for a lot of really bad ideas and projects that should have gone in a different direction. The odd nice restoration sprinkled in amidst a bunch of clones, tribute cars, and abominations.

I changed the channel when that 3D "work of art" Torino hit the block.

ab348 · January 2017

I changed when I saw them previewing it.

Michaell · January 2017

ab348 said:
I changed when I saw them previewing it.

Apparently, I missed the preview, else I would have done the same.

Guess the good stuff will show up later in the week.

Not that there haven't been some nice cars, here and there.

tjc78 · January 2017

My wife actually doesn't mind Mecum. She laughs at how crazy the guys with the bidders act.

sda · January 2017

A dark metallic blue '86-7 Acura Integra RS driven by a high schooler.

andre1969 · January 2017

One thing I'll say for the Granada...in ESS form, it actually doesn't look too bad. I never did care for the proportioning of the front, though. The grille is too narrow, IMO, and the headlights are inset a bit too far. I think they should have either made the grille wider and moved the headlights out a bit, or given the car a quad headlight setup.

I think that's my main beef with the LTD-II as well, the headlights inset too far. I'm not overly crazy about the stacked rectangular quad headlights to begin with, but I do think they look better if they're moved further outboard, such as how Mopar did with the '77-78 Fury/Monaco, or GM did with the '76-77 Malibu/Monte Carlo, although for some reason I'm not as crazy about the treatment on the Century/Regal 4-door/wagon. The Cordoba's headlights seem inset a bit, but not quite as far as the LTD-II, and I find it fairly attractive.

Another detail about the Granada I always hated is how the gas cap seemed so exposed, on the cheaper models at least. I think the Monarch, even on the more basic models, finished off the rear end a bit better.

fintail · January 2017

I remember when I was in high school back around 1993-94, looking at a Granada that some acquaintance of my dad had for sale. It was an odd model that I now forget, either an ESS or a "sport sedan". It was a really unusual car - V8 (302 I guess?), sun/moonroof (I think it was glass), wheels, console/floor shift, power everything, black on red. I think it had every option. It was in pretty nice shape, but the transmission was failing. It could have been bought for a couple hundred dollars, I think, but neither of us wanted that project. What I remember most was the volume and pattern of the interior plood, it was like a fake burl, and was everywhere,

fintail · January 2017

Speaking of those cars, when I was a kid my uncle had an odd one that I clearly remember (he went through cars fairly quickly). It was a 75 Pontiac Ventura sedan, V8, buckets, Pontiac wheels, kind of a bronze on bronze color combo, I seem to remember. Those are seldom seen anymore. It was just an ordinary used car then, and stuck in my mind because it was very "70s" to my 80s consciousness. I'm not sure what happened to it, I think it was replaced by a Nissan 200SX (definitely no brand loyalty either).

sda said:

The LN was sharp, especially with the revised roof line for the '75 sedans. I thought Olds did a nice job with the Omega Salon version. I came close to buying a '75 Omega hatchback in '77, just before I bought my Sunbird. The Omega was metallic brown with brown interior, 260 V8, no a/c. I was disappointed how weak the V8 felt, didn't feel much different than the '71 Vega GT that I was then driving. I also wanted a/c, so I decided against that purchase.

PF_Flyer · January 2017

Michaell said:

ab348 said:
Wednesday nights at Barrett-Jackson seem to be for a lot of really bad ideas and projects that should have gone in a different direction. The odd nice restoration sprinkled in amidst a bunch of clones, tribute cars, and abominations.
I changed the channel when that 3D "work of art" Torino hit the block.

Yea, that just didn't seem to fit at an auto auction

uplanderguy · January 2017

Not necessarily a fan of these cars, but a friend was checking out a '70 GT for sale at Hershey this past year. Looks like this could've been a decent buy.

https://www.barrett-jackson.com/Events/Event/Details/1970-OLDSMOBILE-TORONADO--201231

fintail · January 2017

That's a lot of car for 6 grand. Even with fees, probably a nice deal.

uplanderguy · January 2017

Supposedly that's including buyer's commission.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2017

Always like the Toronados. They are, however, back-breaking gas hogs, so you do have to cope with that. In CA at least, it's going to cost you .25-.30 cents a mile to drive anywhere. I suppose 100 miles a week wouldn't hurt too much.

andre1969 · January 2017

The '70 is my least favorite of the first-gen Toronados, as I prefer the earlier ones, especially the '68-69 models. But, I still find it reasonably attractive. I think they did a better job with that final year update on the Toronado than Buick did with the Riviera. IMO, the '70 Riviera looks like a bloated Skylark, and has sort of an old man's car look to it. Ironically though, I believe it was 1970 that the Riviera offered its most powerful engine, so even if it looked like an old man's car, it sure didn't act like one!

Mr_Shiftright · January 2017

I had a '66 Toronado, and it's on my Short List of cars I regret selling. I had that car in Boulder & Aspen, and with chunky snow tires, it was virtually unstoppable. I even used to off-road with it occasionally

An engineering marvel, and a real brute of a car, too. Later on, they became poofy and went to the grayhairs, but the '66 was macho.

andre1969 · January 2017

sda said:
https://youtu.be/QPK8vy8n9PM

Here's a fun blast from the past. It is embarrassing how poorly the Cougar performed.

It's interesting that they'd test that Cougar from 0-50, and 0-70, but not 0-60. I think the ad said it did 0-50 in about 7 seconds, and 0-70 in around 14, so I'd guess 0-60 was still good for around 9.5 seconds? IMO that's actually not too bad...I mean, I know it's a 460, but still, that's at least two tons of car, and the 460 was pretty choked down by that time.

I noticed that guy also tested a '74 LeSabre, with a 455-2bbl. They mentioned it only put out 175 hp "at the rear wheels". Often when reviewers start throwing around phrases like that though, it can get confusing. was the 455-2bbl actually choked down to 175 net hp (which wouldn't account for losses from the transmission, driveshaft, and rear end) or did it actually put out 175 hp at the rear wheels? Anyway, for that test, 0-50 was around 10 seconds, and 0-70 was around 19! Kinda sad to think that just a couple years earlier, a Centurion with the 455 was good for 0-60 in around 8.8 seconds.

uplanderguy · January 2017

Funny, I don't like the '68 and '69 Toro at all. I didn't like the '66-67, for styling, until a few years ago. I thought they were too big for the styling. I've changed my mind on that.

The '71 and later aren't bad, but it's like the original concept of the car changed.

andre1969 · January 2017

I think the main reason I like the '68-69 is that even though it's a bit bulked up compared to the '66-67, it just seems to have a bit more style to me. The '66-67 is almost a bit too clean, in contrast.

I like the '71-78 Toronado as well. Even though it had a stronger resemblance to the Eldorado, it usually seemed less ostentatious and pimpy. And in '71-74 you could still get it as a true hardtop, which was nice, although by this time most of them probably had a/c, so very few people back then probably cared whether the back windows rolled down or not. I like the low-grille design too. In some years, it could look a bit ugly, but I thought it also made them look a bit exotic.

I've also noticed that workmanship seemed better on the Toronados than it did the Eldorado by that time. Especially in '75-78, if you compare them at the rear, it seems like the Toro has fewer individual pieces, and they seem to line up better.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2017

75-76 Eldos were grotesque parodies of a Cadillac, if you ask me.

uplanderguy · January 2017

I'd say that extended to '78.

When the '71 Eldo came out, the coach windows intrigued me, but after '72, I didn't really like the cars any more. I preferred the 'standard' Cadillacs.

I think I mentioned, a classmate of mine told me she'd have given me her late Dad's '76 Eldo convert in Firethorn (whatever Caddy called it), had she known I lived so close to her and still liked old cars, LOL. He died maybe five years back. Not sure what I would've done with it anyway.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2017

Sell it hopefully.

andre1969 · January 2017

I dunno...with the Eldorado, I actually prefer the style of the '75-78 to the '71-74. The '71-74 models seem kind of fat to me, and stubby in the rear, although that might be an optical illusion created by the fender skirts. The '75-78 models have a longer, yet trimmer look in my eye.

BTW, "Firethorn" is the color my '76 Grand LeMans was, originally. I think it might have been a Cadillac-only color a year or two before, but then they extended it to the other divisions for '76.

ab348 · January 2017

andre1969 said:
Another detail about the Granada I always hated is how the gas cap seemed so exposed, on the cheaper models at least. I think the Monarch, even on the more basic models, finished off the rear end a bit better.

For the first year or two of production Granada/Monarch had a vinyl or plastic trim piece between the taillights with a spring-loaded flap that covered the gas cap. A few years in, a lot of those flaps had broken and you'd see them driving around with the flap laying open and the gas cap exposed. Later on the Granada had a cheaper model with less trim and it didn't have the filler panel, so the gas cap was the only thing you saw in the middle, like a Maverick.

One thing about our Luxury Decor Option Maverick was that it got some sort of high-end gas cap with a rather large ornate die-cast chrome bezel. That thing felt like it weighed several pounds when you took it off.

ab348 · January 2017

I never liked the '70 Toro that much when new although it came out better than the '70 Riviera. I thought that GM did their typical de-contenting and made them look worse by getting rid of the hidden headlights.

As time has passed I don't mind the '70 Toro as much. If you could get the GT model that thing was a beast despite the large size of the car.

sda · January 2017

I was disappointed when they did away with the hidden lights on the Eldo '69, Toro '70, and Riv ,70. The '67-68 Eldo with its lean tail lights and simple egg crate(?) grille was sharp looking.

uplanderguy · January 2017

As much as I love the exterior of '67-70 Eldos, I thought the interiors were a little bland, considering.

That said, I'll never forget when I was probably about 13 and was looking at a used Eldo at our hometown dealer's lot over a weekend and it had the keys in it. First time I saw that those little-sliver-of-a-quarter-windows actually went back into the sail panel, instead of down!

sda · January 2017

My orthodontist had a new '71 Eldo convertible with white top, white leather and navy blue metallic body. I remember when he first got it, he hadn't removed the window sticker and it listed for over $12k. Later I had to come see him for a follow up visit to do something with my retainer in '76 and he now had a dark blue Rolls Royce Corniche. Mom laughed and said, wow, that's the profession to get into!

andre1969 · January 2017

It's interesting how in some years, there was a strong family resemblance in Chevy and Cadillac grilles, and yet it never seemed to tarnish Cadillac's image. If anything, it helped Chevy because people would think they were driving a "baby Cadillac". But when Mopar would try it, it seemed like it would backfire. I seem to recall one reviewer saying that the '69 Imperial "smelled too much like a Plymouth".

GM did do a better job differentiating their cars though. Even if a Chevy and a Cadillac had styling similarities, very few people would confuse the two. But with Mopar, often the cars had too much of a similar, generic "corporate" look to them. Often even when they'd change the sheetmetal, it really wasn't that noticeable.

ab348 · January 2017

The "smells like a Plymouth" line was from Brock Yates in n article about the '69 Imperial. And you right about the sheetmetal similarities. Chrysler had only a C-body and it looked very similar across all makes/models that used it, especially in the Fuselage era. GM had an advantage in having both a B and a C body so they could look different.

The '71 Caprice looked a lot like a Cadillac in terms of detailing.

sda · January 2017

I think it helped GM differentiate the cars as each division had their own engines. Olds had an Olds V8 engine, Pontiac their V8 etc., at least for the most part. I know there was some sharing of engines such as using the Buick V6, the Iron Duke and the Vega 2300 in some smaller cars, however, in '76 there was a big stink that Olds used some Chevy 350s in the full-size '77 Olds 88s. That really offended loyal Olds buyers. From that point there was greater sharing of engines between divisions.

imidazol97 · January 2017

sda said:
I think it helped GM differentiate the cars as each division had their own engines. Olds had an Olds V8 engine, Pontiac their V8 etc., at least for the most part. I know there was some sharing of engines such as using the Buick V6, the Iron Duke and the Vega 2300 in some smaller cars, however, in '76 there was a big stink that Olds used some Chevy 350s in the full-size '77 Olds 88s. That really offended loyal Olds buyers. From that point there was greater sharing of engines between divisions.

If I recall, the Olds 350 cu in engine was about 50 pounds lighter than the others.

ab348 · January 2017

The Chevy 350 is the lightest of all the various GM divisional 350s I believe. If you look at all 4 at a show or wherever, the Chevy is physically quite small in comparison. It isn't very substantial looking.

roadburner · January 2017

I recall that Chevrolet put up a fight-and lost-when the suits/bean counters/bureaucrats at GM dictated that all engines were to be painted the same corporate blue color- causing the SBC and BBC motors in particular to to be stripped of their iconic "Chevrolet Orange" finish. Of course the standardized paint allowed engines to be swapped around between divisions and only the gearheads would be the wiser.

explorerx4 · January 2017

@fintail,
A while back I think you posted a picture of a blue and white Mercury Turnpike Cruiser at a dealership near you.
In the website description, it said it was going to B-J.
It's coming up for auction shortly.

ab348 · January 2017

It looks nice in the preview I saw, except for some yellowed and hence aged-looking whitewalls.

I must say that the bloom has gone off the rose for B-J with me. Last night they were whipping through auction cars on the block at what seemed like a minute or less per car. If I was a seller paying whatever they charge I wouldn't be happy with that kind of fast shuffle. Tonight they seem to be taking a little more time. So many "pro tourers" and other catalog cars and monuments to bad taste that regardless of how well they are done really don't interest me.

explorerx4 · January 2017

@AB348,
That Mercury sold for 46k. Funny thing was after Mike Joy opened the passenger side door to show the interior, it wouldn't latch when he closed it, so he held it closed until it was off the display section.
I'm basically watching for the perversity of it.

fintail · January 2017

Yep, here it is, wonder what it will bring - seems like a long way to ship such a thing:

uplanderguy · January 2017

I think that year Merc looks so very much like the Packard prototypes being considered when Packard in Detroit shut down.

uplanderguy · January 2017

Regarding Imperials, I remember as a teenager being disappointed that an Imperial had the same instrument panel as lesser Chryslers. This wasn't the case for either Cadillacs or Lincolns. This is in the early '70's.

andre1969 · January 2017

ab348 said:
The Chevy 350 is the lightest of all the various GM divisional 350s I believe. If you look at all 4 at a show or wherever, the Chevy is physically quite small in comparison. It isn't very substantial looking.

Actually, I think it's the Buick 350 that's the lightest, which I find odd, because it's a deep skirt design. This actually carries over to the V-6es of the era as well...I've seen a Buick 231 listed at 375 lb, versus 425 for the 229/262 Chevy engines. The Chevy smallblock is physically small, but when it was first built it was also very weak. However, rather than redesign it from the ground up to make it right from the get-go, Chevy simply beefed it up here and there, which added unnecessary weight.

The Olds smallblock was also pretty lightweight because it used a lot of nickle in the block, which made it stronger, yet lighter, than what Chevy was doing. As for Pontiac, my understanding is that they never really did do the "big-block/smallblock" thing, but rather came out with, for lack of a better term, a "medium block", which ultimately accommodated CID ranges from 287 CID on up to 455. They'd use a raised deck for the largest versions, when they needed a longer stroke.

Ultimately, the Chevy smallblock won out, but not because it was the best. Most likely because it was the cheapest. The Pontiac and Buick engines were good units, but didn't adapt well to stricter emissions controls. I'm not sure about Buick, but Pontiac engines tended to run cool, and didn't do so well when the emissions controls forced them to run hotter. The Mopar slant six suffered from this, as well. Pontiac's V-8's got banned in California for '77, and the Buick 350 may have, as well.

The Olds engine was the cleanest running of them all, and as a result was in high demand, which is part of what led to that whole engine-swapping fiasco. But, as time went on, there was simply less demand for V-8 cars, and by the 1980's, for the most part the cars that were getting Olds 307s were the types of cars people would buy regardless of how advanced the engine was (or wasn't), so Olds never really advanced it the way Chevy did their smallblock. I think the 1990 Olds 307 might have been the last domestic car to be produced with a carburetor.

As for physical size, I remember years ago my mechanic saying that one reason the Chevy smallblock looks so small is the design of the heads. Same with the Ford smallblock. I guess there could be some truth to that...I remember awhile back, seeing my DeSoto's Hemi all pulled apart, and with the heads off, the block looked a lot smaller than I thought it would.

andre1969 · January 2017

My '79 New Yorker looked kind of photogenic today, glistening in the slightly post-apocalyptic morning light, so I figured I'd snap a pic...

uplanderguy · January 2017

Looks nice, andre. I seem to remember a lot of those cars being a beige color back then.

ab348 · January 2017

uplanderguy said:
Looks nice, andre. I seem to remember a lot of those cars being a beige color back then.

Doesn't Andre have one of those as well?

andre1969 · January 2017

uplanderguy said:
Looks nice, andre. I seem to remember a lot of those cars being a beige color back then.

Thanks. Like they say in the old Steve Miller Band song, "Everything's better when wet!"

For 1979, Chrysler built about 15,000 5th Avenue Editions, and every single one of them was a 2-tone cream-over-beige, so that might be why the beige seems to stick in everyone's mind. I think they built around 55,000 New Yorkers in total, so that one color scheme would account for roughly 27% of them.

For 1980, sales cratered, and I think they only built around 13,000 New Yorkers in total. I don't know how many were 5th Avenues, but Wikipedia states that 7356 were built in 1980-81 combined. For 1980, they added a "Black Walnut metallic" as a color choice on the 5th Ave. Here's a brochure pic of it.

For 1981, the 5th Ave package offered "Driftwood Gray over Light Heather", "Mahogany Starmist over Heather Mist", or "Light Creme over Light Cashmere". That last one might have simply been the same 2-tone creme/beige from earlier years, just with a different name. For 1979, it was called "Designer Cream over Designer Beige".

sda · January 2017

Dad's company that he worked for was approached by Chrysler reps to offer new Chrysler's at a deep, deep discount somewhere around '79,early '80 IIRC. This was when Chrysler appeared to really be going bankrupt and out of business. I was in IL that summer, and there were fields being used for storage of unsold new Chrysler products. I mean it went on and on field after field filled with new cars, an incredible and depressing sight.

Dad's cousin took up on the offer and bought a black on black with tufted red leather New Yorker just like yours. It had the wire wheels that were popular at the time. Not sure what engine it had. I thought it to be a good looking car and he kept it for 5+ years. They also had a 2 dr '79 Buick LeSabre Palm Beach edition in the cream/beige that was similar to the 5th Ave editions. Oddly, they didn't keep the Buick very long.

sda · January 2017

andre1969 said:

uplanderguy said:
Looks nice, andre. I seem to remember a lot of those cars being a beige color back then.
Thanks. Like they say in the old Steve Miller Band song, "Everything's better when wet!"

For 1979, Chrysler built about 15,000 5th Avenue Editions, and every single one of them was a 2-tone cream-over-beige, so that might be why the beige seems to stick in everyone's mind. I think they built around 55,000 New Yorkers in total, so that one color scheme would account for roughly 27% of them.

For 1980, sales cratered, and I think they only built around 13,000 New Yorkers in total. I don't know how many were 5th Avenues, but Wikipedia states that 7356 were built in 1980-81 combined. For 1980, they added a "Black Walnut metallic" as a color choice on the 5th Ave. Here's a brochure pic of it.

For 1981, the 5th Ave package offered "Driftwood Gray over Light Heather", "Mahogany Starmist over Heather Mist", or "Light Creme over Light Cashmere". That last one might have simply been the same 2-tone creme/beige from earlier years, just with a different name. For 1979, it was called "Designer Cream over Designer Beige".

Do you still have the cream colored 5th Avenue in your signature picture? 318 or 360 in those cars?

uplanderguy · January 2017

Seems like the Newport and Dodge St. Regis of that era are rarely seen now and not often seen even then, at least where I was living then.

andre1969 · January 2017

Yeah, still got the cream colored one too. They both have 360-2bbls. All 150 hp of it.

That's one of those engines that got banned in CA for being too dirty, so there it was replaced by a 318-4bbl.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles