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

uplanderguy · April 2018

I much-prefer the '61 Lincoln, but at Hershey some years back I saw what I think was a '60 Lincoln Town Car--looked like a long-wheelbase sedan with vinyl top. I was not aware that they had used that model name that far-back. That was interesting to me. I think the instrument panel seemed to improve from '58 to '60 although at this minute I can't think of how, LOL.

andre1969 · April 2018

I think for '58, if I was going with a luxury domestic, first choice would be a toss up between Imperial and Cadillac...I like them both, in their own way, so it's hard to really pick a favorite. For '59, Imperial would be first, then a tossup between Caddy and Lincoln. For 1960, same thing, Imperial would be first, then a tossup between Caddy and Lincoln. There's just something about the '60 Imperial I find oddly appealing...and ironically, I always thought its front-end seemed just a little bit Cadillac-ish.

And yeah, the '61+ Lincolns are MUCH more tasteful! I have a thing for the '61-62 Cadillac though, so I'd probably still sway towards them.

tjc78 · April 2018

berri said:

The biggest issue I heard about Panther platform cars was that some of the earlier OHCV8 engines burned oil. I don't know how the platform the last RWD Buick Roadmasters rode on existed, but I think it was quite durable also.

Yeah the 91-94 are the worst with that.

berri · April 2018

For whatever reason(s) I have always really liked the 62 Cadillac. Just something about its stature I guess. But I am also a fan of Imperials from 57-66. I think they became Chrysler based in 67. I recall that those Imperials were very well built.

berri · April 2018

I had a relative by marriage back in the 60's who was involved (contractor consultant) in some of the detail design work on the 61 Lincoln Continental and I admire what Ford did with it. But personally, I preferred the bit more formal (and larger) 64/66 update. My favorite Lincoln though was the MK II, even though it looks a bit boxy in today's perspective. Re: more modern day Lincoln's I think I'll go with the Mk VII.

fintail · April 2018

On the road today, a red Volvo Amazon/122 sedan with 1966 plates, a silver E-Type Series II driven slowly by an older guy, MB W126 and W201, early 70s Targa.

stickguy · April 2018

at a house I walk by with the dog, a guy has a camaro that was uncovered today. Very nice looking (has to be restored) 77ish Camaro rallye sport. tan with brown hood and roof (trunk lid is tan). Very 70s looking. Original but sitting on some sort of crager look wheels. I like it.

uplanderguy · April 2018

I love a '66 Imperial 4-door hardtop. I've never seen a LeBaron in person and would love one. I'm typically not a huge-car fan, but I also like the '65 and '66 Cadillac Fleetwood...magnificent interior including instrument panel. I like '61-63 Lincoln Continentals and love Mark II's.

I've posted this ad link over the years, but here was Ann Miller's '66 Fleetwood Brougham which was sold a few years ago. The interior is astounding IMHO. I like the '65's separate cornering lights better, and the '65's chrome headlamp framing, but I will say those separate cornering lights always started to sag after a few years, unlike the '66's built-in units.

https://www.leftcoastclassics.com/1966-cadillac-fleetwood/

omarman · April 2018

I clicked on a link for an article called 9 Worst Muscle Cars Of The 1990s. The author claims that it's "The decade that killed so many iconic muscle cars."

Ok. His description of the 1993 Camaro includes: "Like other muscle cars of the 1990s, the Camaro offered an entry-level V6 that provided the styling of a muscle car without the horsepower or insurance premiums. The base Camaro offered a 3.4-liter pushrod V6 making just 160 hp. A five-speed manual was standard while a four-speed automatic was optional." No mention of the Z/28 option with LT1 engine?

The guy who wrote this article doesn't seem to know that back in the 1960s a base model Camaro or Charger was not a muscle car either.

texases · April 2018

Weak article, like you said. Most weren't muscle cars, anyway. And all models had entry versions with weak engines, for decades.

stickguy · April 2018

the camaro always had a base 6 cyl engine. Heck, my 67 was a straight 6 powerglide. About as far from a muscle car as you could get.

uplanderguy · April 2018

Found a couple old car pics today. This is my folks' new '80 Monte Carlo V6, deep green metallic with factory gold painted pinstripe. It had the Exterior Decor Package which included the wide rocker trim and belt moldings which I always liked. V6, no A/C. Bottom of sticker $7,070.00. Built in Baltimore. I always hated how the Malibus and Montes of that era had a plastic square-block filler where the right-most A/C vent would be. Ours had a factory goof where we had the A/C vent there but nothing came out there, LOL. Looked better though.

uplanderguy · April 2018

Parents' '77 Impala coupe, which became my first car at college graduation, May 1980.

fintail · April 2018

I like those sport coupes, the unique rear window caught my eye when I was a kid. The downsized Chevys being genuinely good cars for the time helps, too.

In the background of the Monte Carlo pic, is that the Vega you've mentioned?

uplanderguy · April 2018

No, those folks at the time I think were younger, wilder, poorer folks, LOL. My grandparents did buy the very first Vega our dealer got in, a dark green '71 two-door sedan with three-speed and what I call pumpkin-color cheapo interior with rubber on the floor. My aunt had it by the time these pics were taken.

I love the profile of the '77-79 big Chevy coupes--I like the notched quarter window and the wraparound rear window. Subliminally maybe, in profile the rear window resembles an Avanti rear window in profile a bit.

fintail · April 2018

The wraparound rear window always made me look. When I was little, probably when I was 4 or 5 (as we moved that year), a neighbor had one of those coupes, but I don't know if it was an Impala or Caprice. I just remember it was an older guy, but through the eyes of a kid, the guy might have been 40. This would have been around 1981-82. At that same time the people across the street had 3 diverse cars - a later model Blazer, an RX7 that I liked very much, and a Vega wagon. My mom and the woman across the street took a small trip in the Vega, it broke down, and they had to be picked up, I remember that story.

berri · April 2018

I like that Impala more than the Monte Carlo too, even though I owned a dark blue 79 Monte Carlo V8 with bucket seats, etc. My Monte Carlo always had issues with the windows not sealing right and (apparently) glued on trim pieces falling off the car. Mine was built in the Kansas City area as I recall. If I had it to do over again, I think I would have gone for a Bonneville or LeSabre instead. They seemed much better built in those days. But young guys weren't supposed to buy full sized cars back then, right

PS - I ended up calling it my Monte Crappo. A good friend of mine had a similar Grand Prix which he liked to refer to as a Grand Pri.., well you get the idea. Except it wasn't meant as a compliment

uplanderguy · April 2018

I thought the '80 Monte was a styling improvement over the '78 and '79, with the four headlights. I didn't like the woodgrain added to the dash of the '80; preferred the subtle piano black. Somewhere I have pics of my '81 Monte, which I dearly loved, and my '85 Celebrity Eurosport two-door, but know which album they're in and can't find it. My wife's great for "organizing" and then I can't find stuff.

I do remember the bright bumper strips on the front and rear bumpers of the '78 and '79 falling off but by '80 they apparently had that handled.

fintail · April 2018

Out this morning, spotted a pristine 70s VW van, blue and white two tone, obviously restored.

stickguy · April 2018

a 1975ish Ford Ranchero.

kyfdx · April 2018

Early ‘90s Mazda MX-3. I doubt I see one, annually

Michaell · April 2018

kyfdx said:
Early ‘90s Mazda MX-3. I doubt I see one, annually

I had a thing for those. It was available with a 1.8L V6, right?

stickguy · April 2018

I think it was 1.8l. definitely tiny. still back in the days when the Japanese makes did odd engineering things like that.

Michaell · April 2018

stickguy said:
I think it was 1.8l. definitely tiny. still back in the days when the Japanese makes did odd engineering things like that.

140 HP, IIRC. Seemed like all the HP one would ever need, at the time.

kyfdx · April 2018

Michaell said:

stickguy said:
I think it was 1.8l. definitely tiny. still back in the days when the Japanese makes did odd engineering things like that.
140 HP, IIRC. Seemed like all the HP one would ever need, at the time.

That's the way I remember it, too.. 1.8l six cylinder..

roadburner · April 2018

omarman said:
I clicked on a link for an article called 9 Worst Muscle Cars Of The 1990s. The author claims that it's "The decade that killed so many iconic muscle cars."

Ok. His description of the 1993 Camaro includes: "Like other muscle cars of the 1990s, the Camaro offered an entry-level V6 that provided the styling of a muscle car without the horsepower or insurance premiums. The base Camaro offered a 3.4-liter pushrod V6 making just 160 hp. A five-speed manual was standard while a four-speed automatic was optional." No mention of the Z/28 option with LT1 engine?

The guy who wrote this article doesn't seem to know that back in the 1960s a base model Camaro or Charger was not a muscle car either.

And as I've mentioned before, I have a 1991 magazine that is a compilation of muscle car road tests from the old Hi-Performance Cars magazine. The fastest 1/4 mile time was a 12.5 posted by Joe Oldham's 1969 Motion Performance big block Camaro- with 4.10 gears, uncapped headers and slicks. Aside from that car most of the others put up 1/4 mile ETs in the 13.5-14.5 second range.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2018

Not a car, but I saw a P-51 Mustang parked at a local airport. Those gotta be worth something.

omarman · April 2018

Interesting BARN FIND Mustang for Sale. $4.5 million

uplanderguy · April 2018

I grew up 40 miles from Lordstown, live 40 miles from Lordstown, so I'm biased, and I'll admit the price is crazy, but I'm liking this blue Cosworth Vega:

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2018/04/20/hemmings-find-of-the-day-1976-chevrolet-cosworth-vega/comment-page-1/#comment-10566722

omarman · April 2018

The car has undergone a year-long/1,000 hour ‘sympathetic’ restoration in an effort to have the car appear as it did the day it left the Lordstown, Ohio plant. Every component in the car has been disassembled, corrected, and reassembled. It is an original paint car that has undergone a 100+ hour paint correction effort..

So it's an original "color" car but with new paint? (The "paint correction effort" is a new one for me.)

It looks great in the pics so I wonder what it will ultimately sell for.

ab348 · April 2018

Paint "correction" (a term I dislike, along with those such as "rightsizing") typically means small but numerous touch-ups followed by wet-sanding and polishing to make old paint look newish.

uplanderguy · April 2018

The one Cosworth our dealer got in, had an impressive-looking engine IMHO. I remember a sticker that said "No. 1 Team,Tonawanda" and had a handwritten signature--I'm assuming the engine inspector.

texases · April 2018

While nothing special today, a fuel injected DOHC 16-valve engine with tube headers was amazing in '76 (even if the power wasn't so hot):

andre1969 · April 2018

omarman said:
I clicked on a link for an article called 9 Worst Muscle Cars Of The 1990s. The author claims that it's "The decade that killed so many iconic muscle cars."

Ok. His description of the 1993 Camaro includes: "Like other muscle cars of the 1990s, the Camaro offered an entry-level V6 that provided the styling of a muscle car without the horsepower or insurance premiums. The base Camaro offered a 3.4-liter pushrod V6 making just 160 hp. A five-speed manual was standard while a four-speed automatic was optional." No mention of the Z/28 option with LT1 engine?

The guy who wrote this article doesn't seem to know that back in the 1960s a base model Camaro or Charger was not a muscle car either.

Another thing people forget, is that even the car that started the musclecar craze, the 1964 Pontiac GTO, was only good for 0-60 in about 7.7 seconds in stock form. That's with the 325 hp 389-4bbl and a stick. Most likely, no air conditioning. Of course, Tri-power is going to be a lot quicker. I always wondered how quick a '64 GTO with the automatic transmission would have been?

I always thought it was amusing that the 1974 GTO is considered to be such an insult to the name. Yet, despite the emasculation, it was still good for 0-60 in about 7.7 seconds, with a slightly hopped-up 200 hp Pontiac 350-4bbl, and a 4-speed. I'd imagine the '64 did better in the quarter mile and top speed, though.

Anyway, this past weekend, I had a conversation with Lemko, and mentioned that heck, even a modern Charger V-6 would probably spank most musclecars from the 60's...stock, at least. I think I've seen 0-60 times of around 6.6 seconds...and that's with an automatic, a/c, etc. Of course, he had to counter with "If you get a V-6, I'm going to ask how it compares to the cars of all the other girls in the secretarial pool..."

texases · April 2018

andre1969 said:

omarman said:
I clicked on a link for an article called 9 Worst Muscle Cars Of The 1990s. The author claims that it's "The decade that killed so many iconic muscle cars."

Ok. His description of the 1993 Camaro includes: "Like other muscle cars of the 1990s, the Camaro offered an entry-level V6 that provided the styling of a muscle car without the horsepower or insurance premiums. The base Camaro offered a 3.4-liter pushrod V6 making just 160 hp. A five-speed manual was standard while a four-speed automatic was optional." No mention of the Z/28 option with LT1 engine?

The guy who wrote this article doesn't seem to know that back in the 1960s a base model Camaro or Charger was not a muscle car either.

Another thing people forget, is that even the car that started the musclecar craze, the 1964 Pontiac GTO, was only good for 0-60 in about 7.7 seconds in stock form. That's with the 325 hp 389-4bbl and a stick. Most likely, no air conditioning. Of course, Tri-power is going to be a lot quicker. I always wondered how quick a '64 GTO with the automatic transmission would have been?

I always thought it was amusing that the 1974 GTO is considered to be such an insult to the name. Yet, despite the emasculation, it was still good for 0-60 in about 7.7 seconds, with a slightly hopped-up 200 hp Pontiac 350-4bbl, and a 4-speed. I'd imagine the '64 did better in the quarter mile and top speed, though.

Anyway, this past weekend, I had a conversation with Lemko, and mentioned that heck, even a modern Charger V-6 would probably spank most musclecars from the 60's...stock, at least. I think I've seen 0-60 times of around 6.6 seconds...and that's with an automatic, a/c, etc. Of course, he had to counter with "If you get a V-6, I'm going to ask how it compares to the cars of all the other girls in the secretarial pool..."

I'm not finding 7.7 seconds for the '74 GTO, more like 9.4, stock that is.

uplanderguy · April 2018

andre, my guess is that you two linked up at Carlisle.

berri · April 2018

Lemko is right - sometimes "looks" matter

ab348 · April 2018

There's a name from the past. Is he absent from here by choice or was he ejected?

I understand how someone can just choose to leave a place where they were once a regular. Over at Hemmings, their "Daily" or blog site used to be a favorite of mine. But about 18 months ago they started getting anal about comments on the posts regarding some of their advertised cars that they featured each day, and the hosts began getting snippy verging on personal with some of the commenters. I found it distasteful when they did it with other daily contributors who were usually well-behaved. When they did it with me for no reason I could tell - that despite me having sent them emails containing stuff they could use on the page which they had requested - I decided I didn't need that kind of abuse and left. I have to say that I haven't missed it.

PF_Flyer · April 2018

Mr_Shiftright said:
Not a car, but I saw a P-51 Mustang parked at a local airport. Those gotta be worth something.

Now if you took that Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin V12 into a car, I bet it would GO

omarman · April 2018

I googled for the Hi-Performance Cars magazine GTO comparison from 1974 but can't find it. I remember buying that issue and was surprised to read that the '74 GTO was pretty quick with its 4-speed and limited slip. The '64 GTO was a bit quicker even with its automatic. I can't find it online but I'm pretty sure that 7.7 sec 0-60 time was what Cars reported for the '74.

Re: the V-6 secretarial pool
Ha! That's funny! Reminded me of a friend from HS who made several pointed remarks about a new car I bought in '89. "So how's the girlfriend like your Probe?" It started there and got unprintable quickly.

Re: GO power
Doesn't the current version of "The Beast" have a Merlin engine. The old original from the '60s was a Rolls tank engine I think.

texases · April 2018

I pulled that 9.4s 0-60 for the '74 GTO off of a spreadsheet I've compiled, and zeroto60times.com lists it at 9.3s, but neither specify the transmission used. I'm betting they were with an automatic. Here's a quote about the Cars magazine test from Hotrod mag:

"In its May 1974 issue, Cars magazine compared a well-optioned ’74 GTO complete with four-speed manual transmission and 3.08 gears to a ’64 GTO with a 389 four-barrel engine, automatic transmission, and 3.55 gears. Pontiac performance legend Nunzi Romano of Nunzi’s Automotive in Brooklyn, New York, was on hand to perform the comparison. With Romano behind the wheel, the ’74 posted a best quarter-mile pass of 15.72 seconds at 88 mph, while the ’64 model was slightly quicker, turning 15.64 at 90 mph. Zero-to-60-mph times for the two were similar at 7.7 and 7.4 seconds, respectively. "

stickguy · April 2018

I think road test cars back in those days were often massaged just a bit though. If not outright cheaters. And with the primitive emissions controls, real easy to get more power with a little illegal fiddling.

ab348 · April 2018

That '64 automatic transmission GTO would have had a 2-speed automatic which probably limited it somewhat.

uplanderguy · April 2018

I seem to remember hearing somewhere, some time, that Jim Wangers of Pontiac commented years after-the-fact, that an early GTO submitted for a road test actually had a 421 disguised as a 389 (421 not available in a GTO from the factory). Second-hand, I heard that he chuckled about this all those years later.

roadburner · April 2018

In Brock Yates' book Sunday Driver he tells the story of the infamous 1966 Car and Driver muscle car test. The Fairlane GT had been tuned at Holman and Moody while Bud Moore had prepared the Cyclone GT. The GTO had received similar treatment. Only the Skylark GS, the Chevelle SS396, and the 442 appeared to be anywhere close to stock...

Mr_Shiftright · April 2018

Who says "crime doesn't pay?"

berri · April 2018

Saw an old Accord station wagon. What were those, mid 80's or early 90's? Never saw many when they were new. On a funnier note there was the prior gen (no choo-choo train cow catcher grill) Lexus with a custom vinyl roof. And get this, no Del Boca Vista Condo sticker, let alone Florida plates

fintail · April 2018

We had the Accord wagon for model years 1990-97. They are a lot less common than sedans or even coupes, but at least here in the PNW, still exist. Not bad looking cars.

berri · April 2018

Camry wagons ran a long time as taxi's in Washington DC. You'd see a lot of them at Reagan National back in those days. Accord wagons were kind of scarce commodities. Ironically, I also saw one of the original Odyssey vans a few weeks ago. The one that had normal doors and was more a tall station wagon like the old Nissan Stanza.

fintail · April 2018

We had Camry wagon for model years 1987-96, IIRC. Not too common these days, the 92-96 is memorable for its dual rear wipers. I don't recall them as taxis here, but I have seen late 90s Camry as taxis.

The original Odyssey was also badged Isuzu Oasis.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy