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

uplanderguy · November 2020

The door panels on that one look nicer than the one I saw on Facebook. It had the typical screw-on armrest look. I'll have to see if I can find it now.

uplanderguy · November 2020

No, you're right. Here's the one I saw, pretty sure:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/164419583619

I was stunned to see a '65 300L convertible bidding stall at $4,600.

Here's the '65 Grand Prix dash and console, totally stock. I'm loved them since my sister's boyfriend's parents had one which was often at our house. Made our plebian Chevelle 300 Deluxe downright depressing in comparison.

Carpeted lower-door panels not on the 300--at least, not the ebay car. I wonder if the white interior ab348 posted might be a '66.

uplanderguy · November 2020

Bright trim misaligned at top of speedometer--I don't believe I've ever seen a full-size '69 or '70 Chevy that wasn't like that, too.

uplanderguy · November 2020

I always liked the first Cordobas, although the tunneled single headlights and general concept were of the Monte Carlo. A more-distinctive effort than the Elite for sure, though. I knew a guy whose parents bought a maroon '75 Cordoba that stickered for $6,200. They traded in a deep green '68 Newport two-door fastback. His little brothers decided to help Dad one day and washed the Cordoba with steel wool.

Looking at the '65 300L eBay ad again, I'm reminded of the glass-covered headlights--very elegant touch IMHO.

andre1969 · November 2020

I don't mind the '65 Chrysler dash, but it does still have a bit of that "juke-boxy" look to it, like it's still trying to shake off the 1950s. I think it might be because it still has some curviness to it, such as the top of the part over the speedometer, and the way the lower part of it bulges out. It looks to me like it sort of evolved from the 1960 Chrysler dash, and really wouldn't look that out of place in a '57-59.

The Pontiac dash is more squared off and linear. Also a bit bulkier looking, whereas that Chrysler dash seems thinner and less "in your face". All that woodgrain also dresses up the Grand Prix, and makes it seem a bit more modern, whereas the Chrysler has a lot more exposed metal, plus that brushed metal trim, which again harks back a bit to the 50's.

uplanderguy · November 2020

Yeah, anything full-size Pontiac that year below a Bonneville didn't have the grab bar, and all that woodgrain space was black vinyl, no matter the interior color. Not nearly as sharp. Even the Impala's dash was more color-coordinated, although not nearly as expensive-looking otherwise.

ab348 · November 2020

uplanderguy said:

Carpeted lower-door panels not on the 300--at least, not the ebay car. I wonder if the white interior ab348 posted might be a '66.

No, it's a '65 according to the dealer site when I found it. Of course it looks fully restored so who knows what was done.

EDIT: I looked at the brochures and you are right that the '65 300 did not have carpet on the bottom of the door panels but the '66 did. The one I pictured had that added later as the upper part of the panel is the '65 style. Of course regarding the comparison to the Bonne, keep in mind that the 300 wasn't the top line Chrysler in '65 as it was supposed to be sporty (hah!). The top of the line New Yorker did have carpeted door panels..

uplanderguy · November 2020

A '65 300L is still my favorite Chrysler!

And I LOVE '65-66 Imperials, especially a LeBaron.

andre1969 · November 2020

The white door panel trim, with the carpet, also looks like it's thicker and higher quality than the red 300, without the carpet, which looks thinner. I wonder if the white one was restored, and the door panels were re-done in something that's a thicker, higher quality, just in the original type pattern?

As for hierarchy, at one time the 300 Letter Series was quite a step up from a New Yorker in price, and had a pretty ritzy interior. But by 1965, the 300L hardtop coupe was $4153, eight dollars less than a New Yorker hardtop. The convertible was $4618. There was no New Yorker convertible to compare it to, though. The last NY'er convertible was in 1961.

Interestingly, in 1967, Chrysler jacked up the price of the regular, non-letter 300 by a pretty substantial amount, roughly $350 compared to '66. But, they also made the 440-4bbl standard, which was the same engine as the New Yorker. The previous standard engine had been a 383-4bbl with 325 hp. The 4-door pillared sedan, a slow seller, was also dropped, leaving just 2/4-door hardtops and the convertible. To fill the gap left by moving the 300 upscale, Chrysler brought out the Newport Custom, slotted in above the Newport.

It's also interesting how quickly car prices went up, in the later 60's. In 1965, the cheapest Newport was $3009, for a stripper 4-door sedan. Working back in time, even in 1957 the cheapest Chrysler, a Windsor 4-door, was $3088. But then go forward a few years to 1970, and the cheapest Chrysler was now a $3514 4-door, and for '71 it jumped to $4078.

I think we had this conversation before, and that all the emissions and some safety stuff going into the cars is what jacked up the price so much between '70 and '71. And I think some formerly optional equipment was made standard, although in '71, a 3-speed manual was still standard on the Newport.

uplanderguy · November 2020

andre mentioned earlier how the '65 300 instrument panel reminded him some of '50's styling.

Boy, I always thought that about the '63-64 Chryslers, in and out.

Of course, I know that the Imperials still had wraparound windshields through '66, though for some reason that doesn't bother me on those cars a bit.

andre1969 · November 2020

I'm not a huge fan of the '63-64 Chryslers. I thought the styling was just weird, and having the New Yorker shrunken to a size that small, when it was supposed to compete with Electras and Ninety-Eights, just didn't seem right.

In some ways, the '63-64 style is one reason I'm glad they discontinued DeSoto when they did...because if it lasted a few more years, it probably would have looked like that!

I like the '62-64 Dodge 880, though. Stylewise, it also looks like it's stuck a bit between the 50's and the 60's, but I overall I think it works, in a conservative, non-flashy way.

uplanderguy · November 2020

I like the '64 Dodge Custom 880. A neighbor of ours had a deep turquoise one, which I like.

Probably one of the last cars where the make had a nameplate down the side, as opposed to the model name. I remember "DODGE" spelled out in the rear quarters.

I liked the taillights on those cars too.

uplanderguy · November 2020

Wow, I don't ever remember a 300 four-door sedan.

stickguy · November 2020

Those Chrysler’s were all big as a whale.

Not my thing.

fintail · November 2020

They seat about 20.

fintail · November 2020

And there was definitely a 300 sedan of that era, I remember one in town when I was a kid. I think these are "non letter" 300s:

(badge at rear)

uplanderguy · November 2020

I've seen four-door hardtop 300's, but that's the first four-door sedan 300 I ever remember seeing.

andre1969 · November 2020

stickguy said:
Those Chrysler’s were all big as a whale.

Not my thing.

Yeah, none of them were exactly shrinking violets. For kicks, I looked up a few lengths...

1962 New Yorker: 219.3"
1963-64 New Yorker: 215.3"
1965 New Yorker: 218.2"

There's really not a huge difference in overall length between the '63-64 New Yorker, and the models that came before or after. But, they still just look diminutive to me.

uplanderguy · November 2020

Just looked online at the '65 Chrysler brochure. Weird--no 300 4-door sedan shown. Text says there are "five 300 models, including two 300-L's". That'd be convertible, hardtop coupe, and four-door hardtop. Also this last page makes me scratch my head.

That 300 4-door sedan fin posted, has Quebec plates. Wonder if it was Canadian market only?

http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chrysler_and_Imperial/1965_Chrysler/1965_Chrysler_Brochure/1965 Chrysler-24.html

andre1969 · November 2020

I just looked in my old car book, and they list a 300 sedan as being offered every year from 1962-66. But it was always very low volume, like 1600 to 2200 units per year. And, oddly, in the production tables, there's always a bit of information missing. For instance, the weight is not listed for '62, the price is not listed for '63. For '64-65 they don't list the weight or the price. In 1966, they list everything, and that was the year it had the highest production: 2353 units.

I also tried googling "1962 Chrysler 300 4 door", "1963..." etc, and every 4-door that showed up in pics was a hardtop. I did see one pillared sedan pop up for '63, but it was actually a New Yorker that had been mis-tagged.

Maybe it WAS just a Canadian-only model?

andre1969 · November 2020

Follow up on Canadian Chryslers...

I just looked online, and it looks like Chrysler in Canada held onto the older names longer. In '62 their lineup was Windsor/Saratoga/New Yorker, which was last seen in the US for 1960. In the States, for 1961 the Saratoga was dropped, and the Newport came in cheaper than the Windsor had been. Then for '62 the Windsor went away, and the non-letter 300 was introduced, at prices just a few bucks more.

In the '65 brochure, they're calling the mid range a "Saratoga 300", and showing a 4-door sedan.
So, mystery solved, eh?

uplanderguy · November 2020

You know me--I trust brochures more than other books. My guess, only that, is that it was Canadian-market only.

EDIT: Mystery solved! No wonder I never saw one. I was a weird kid, absorbed and could identify years and makes of everything domestic. My parents used to have me show off to their friends from our front porch on a busy street.

I can positively identify every Chevy from '49 on. I know the 'era' of about everything else prior to '55 (like "'53-54 Pontiac", etc.). From '55 on, I can identify every GM car, Ford product, and most Mopars. That is, until the mid'80's or so on non-GM's, when cars went years without styling differentiation except for maybe paint colors.

roadburner · November 2020

My wife and I decided to take a couple of days and visit a small town in another part of the state. On the Main Street I saw an older shop with some antique car dealer signs and such inside. I struck up a conversation with the owner and he offered to show me his garage. Enjoy.

roadburner · November 2020

A few more:

uplanderguy · November 2020

Very cool, thanks for sharing.

uplanderguy · November 2020

Unrelated, but I think this is the very last place I post stuff, where everyone has an alias, LOL.

I'd be game to show our names here. I think I suggested that once to Edmunds and got a "no, no!" back.

Probably a pain to tie our old posts to a new name though, sigh.

roadburner · November 2020

There were also some imports- a 1980 Celica convertible, a 1977 MGB, and a 1971 MG Midget.
He also had a 20's vintage fire engine as well as a hearse.

stickguy · November 2020

The rubber nose B really looked out of place in those pictures.

ab348 · November 2020

uplanderguy said:
Unrelated, but I think this is the very last place I post stuff, where everyone has an alias, LOL.

I'd be game to show our names here. I think I suggested that once to Edmunds and got a "no, no!" back.

Probably a pain to tie our old posts to a new name though, sigh.

Well, I know your name, and you know my name. And we both know that Andre is Andre. I do agree though that real names would be nice. I tried putting it in my sig line once but it didn't take.

andre1969 · November 2020

uplanderguy said:
Unrelated, but I think this is the very last place I post stuff, where everyone has an alias, LOL.

I'd be game to show our names here. I think I suggested that once to Edmunds and got a "no, no!" back.

Probably a pain to tie our old posts to a new name though, sigh.

I think that might be because these forums are old enough that they date back to the early days of the internet, and I remember in those days, it was much more common to be anonymous, and to come up with nicknames, aliases, etc. People were paranoid about sharing too much personal information.

And then, facebook happened!

fintail · November 2020

Ha, I forgot the nomenclature between sedan and hardtop is indeed different. I did find it odd that you weren't familiar with a 4 door 300, just not the sedan

uplanderguy said:
I've seen four-door hardtop 300's, but that's the first four-door sedan 300 I ever remember seeing.

uplanderguy · November 2020

I first came up with "Uplanderguy", not because I wore it as a badge of honor or anything; I had a question or two about the vehicle and figured "WTH?"; just wanted to get online ASAP.

I'd probably pick "Studeguy" now, if I had to.

andre1969 · November 2020

I used "andre1969" simply because it was what I was using for an email account at the time, either with Yahoo or Hotmail; can't remember now. Andre is just the French version of my middle name...I'm a mix of French, German, Welsh. And 1969 is the year I was conceived.

Overall, I guess it flows better, and sounds a bit more exotic than "andrew1970" would have.

I forget exactly why I got on Edmunds, initially, but at the time I probably wanted to just get on as quick as possible, too. And at some points, I think the servers Edmunds uses had a hiccup, and lost all posts before a certain year, so it would be hard to find out exactly when I joined, or why I first posted a message.

My profile says I joined in June 2000, but I think it's been longer than that. I seem to recall making a post about a used '94 and '96 Caprice I had just test-driven, which would have been around October 1999, soon before I bought my '00 Intrepid.

Michaell · November 2020

I believe I joined the forums in '96 or '97, and my user name is pretty boring - it's my middle name and last name initial,

tjc78 · November 2020

Mine is really original, my initials and birth year.

I'm consistent across any forum I frequent.

tjc78 · November 2020

@roadburner

What a find!

ab348 · November 2020

My user name is the email address account name I got assigned when I first got online in ‘94 or ‘95.

sda · November 2020

About the Chrysler 300s discussed earlier, wasn't 65 the only year Chrysler added lightly white striped clear glass to cover the head lights? I thought that was a neat touch.

uplanderguy · November 2020

I'm not sure if that's the only year, but it's a nice touch.

andre1969 · November 2020

I'm pretty sure Chryslers only had the clear headlight covering in '65, although Imperial had it in '65-66. I'm not sure, but I think at some point the government stepped in and banned it, stating that you could not have anything covering the headlights, even if it was clear. I dunno what the rationale was, though.

As for the clear taillights with the red bulbs, supposedly the elimination of that was just a cost-cutting move. The clear assembly was more expensive to produce, and had a high defect rate in production, so at some point in '65, they just went to the regular red taillight with clear bulbs.

uplanderguy · November 2020

So some New Yorkers in '65 had 'normal' taillights? Boy, back then it was unusual for anything to change in the middle of a model year, LOL.

At Hershey a few years ago I looked at a '65 Newport convertible in the car corral. It was a 4-speed! The owner told me he actually met the salesman who sold the car new at a car event! I'm foggy on some of the details, but the dealer had to take it (as opposed to a retail order? I could believe a cancelled order), and they had it a good while before finding a buyer.

It was that sort-of light maroon that a lot of '65 Chryslers were, a nice color.

andre1969 · November 2020

Yep, in fact, the one they show on Wikipedia's page on the New Yorker is even sporting the red taillights...

I wonder how hard it is to find replacements for the clear ones, nowadays? I have a feeling that a lot of people, when they restore them, might use the red ones.

ab348 · November 2020

andre1969 said:
I'm pretty sure Chryslers only had the clear headlight covering in '65, although Imperial had it in '65-66. I'm not sure, but I think at some point the government stepped in and banned it, stating that you could not have anything covering the headlights, even if it was clear. I dunno what the rationale was, though.

I vaguely remember reading that the glass covers made some sort of headlight aim testing device used by CHP (I think) impossible to use so they complained and the covers were eliminated. I think it later became a US federal standard in the first round of safety legislation and so they disappeared from cars like the Jag E-type as well .

sda · November 2020

I meant to mention the clear taillights. That was a neat feature as well. The headlamp covers on the Dodge St Regis and Magnum remind me of the clear covers that were on the 65/66 Imperial/Chrysler. Clear covered taillights made a brief comeback in the late 90s. My 2000 Intrigue had them, which actually hadn't changed from MY98. Funny thing, a small Oldsmobile script was molded into the clear section of the right taillight. You really had to look for it. I guess many didn't see it at all and Olds started to add a stick on Oldsmobile emblem on the right side of the trunk lid. They started out with a small font emblem and in later years increased the size of the emblem. Like hey guys! This is an Oldsmobile, got it??

ab348 · November 2020

sda said:
I meant to mention the clear taillights. That was a neat feature as well. The headlamp covers on the Dodge St Regis and Magnum remind me of the clear covers that were on the 65/66 Imperial/Chrysler. Clear covered taillights made a brief comeback in the late 90s. My 2000 Intrigue had them, which actually hadn't changed from MY98. Funny thing, a small Oldsmobile script was molded into the clear section of the right taillight. You really had to look for it. I guess many didn't see it at all and Olds started to add a stick on Oldsmobile emblem on the right side of the trunk lid. They started out with a small font emblem and in later years increased the size of the emblem. Like hey guys! This is an Oldsmobile, got it??

I'm pretty sure my 2002 Intrigue didn't have clear taillights. I would have noticed because I despised the "Altezza" style taillights that Nissan began to use on Altimas back around that time. I have some pics of it somewhere but Windows 10 decided to break my home network again so I can't get at them right now. Also, I am pretty sure those covers on the Magnum and St. Regis were retractable.

sda · November 2020

Those on the St Regis and Magnum were retractable. Many that I saw as they got older were in the open position, I guess they failed in the open position? There may have been a manual override to keep the open. My 92 LeBaron convertible had a button to keep the light doors open. The St Regis and Magnum did remind me of the coveered light design of the earlier Chryslers.

sda · November 2020

ab348 said:

sda said:
I meant to mention the clear taillights. That was a neat feature as well. The headlamp covers on the Dodge St Regis and Magnum remind me of the clear covers that were on the 65/66 Imperial/Chrysler. Clear covered taillights made a brief comeback in the late 90s. My 2000 Intrigue had them, which actually hadn't changed from MY98. Funny thing, a small Oldsmobile script was molded into the clear section of the right taillight. You really had to look for it. I guess many didn't see it at all and Olds started to add a stick on Oldsmobile emblem on the right side of the trunk lid. They started out with a small font emblem and in later years increased the size of the emblem. Like hey guys! This is an Oldsmobile, got it??
I'm pretty sure my 2002 Intrigue didn't have clear taillights. I would have noticed because I despised the "Altezza" style taillights that Nissan began to use on Altimas back around that time. I have some pics of it somewhere but Windows 10 decided to break my home network again so I can't get at them right now. Also, I am pretty sure those covers on the Magnum and St. Regis were retractable.

You're right, the taillight on the Intrigue was not clear like the Altima. The largest section had see thru red, amber section for the turn signal and the backup light section was clear though that section of the taillight was small.

uplanderguy · November 2020

That pic of the NewYorker makes me smile a bit at their vinyl roof then.

andre1969 · November 2020

From what I've heard, the St. Regis headlight covers were troublesome, almost off the showroom floor. Supposedly, the police would get fed up with them, and simply disable them to stay open. Oddly though, I've never seen a '79-81 New Yorker with headlight cover issues. And I'd presume they'd be the same basic design?

On the two New Yorkers I have, the mechanism is electric. If you need to change a headlight, all you have to do is turn the ignition off before you turn off the headlights, and the covers will stay open. Or, if you happen to turn the car off before the covers fully close, they simply stop where they are.

I think the systems Ford used back then, on '77-79 T-birds and Lincolns, used vacuum hoses to open and close them. As they'd age and get leaks, sometimes one or both headlights would fail. I remember back in the day, it seemed especially common on the T-birds, to have one of the covers failed...they almost looked like they were winking at you!

uplanderguy · November 2020

Other than Corvettes and Fieros and Firebird/Camaro cars, it seems like GM didn't have hideaway headlights as a luxury car feature, in the '70's and '80's. I'm thinking the optional headlights on the '69 Caprice, and the '69 Riviera, were probably the last.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles