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

fintail · August 2021

Never seen one in that color combo before. When I was a kid, there was a black and gold one in town - I didn't think it looked bad. This was maybe around 1990, I recall the owner kept it looking new.

imidazol97 said:
I never knew the aeroback had the 442 moniker.

https://barnfinds.com/rare-aeroback-1978-oldsmobile-442/

uplanderguy · August 2021

RE.: That black '82 Malibu Classic sedan andre posted--what bugs me about the '82 and '83 worse than even the quarter window, was how they made the front-end flat and blunt, but you could still see the seams where the slanted-in-at-the-bottom grille of the '78-81 used to be! Same with the '73 and '74 Nova. At least there wasn't a visible seam right at eye-level on the C-pillar, filled in with a piece of plastic or fiberglass, like the '81 Cougar two-door sedan I got as a rental after my '81 Monte Carlo was stolen! Man, that thing was cheap. One wheelcover was missing and the car had only four lugnuts per wheel, and on one wheel, one was missing.

The slantback Cutlasses--not a fan of the big graphics, but I've often thought I could enjoy a Salon Brougham two-door, Super Stock wheels, 305 engine. I'd prefer one over the same year Supreme, just for more rarity, plus I like the round wheel openings. There's hardly any of those cars around in stock condition.

A female college friend of mine, who I'm still friends with, lived in room 442 of her dorm and wanted a 442 with big graphics like the above car, or maybe a '76-77. Her Dad bought her a '68 442. She was actually disappointed at the time! Amazingly, she still has the car and is slowly getting it restored although it was still a solid, presentable car.

uplanderguy · August 2021

Light Jade vs. Light Jadestone--funny how GM called the same colors different names among the divisions. Chevy usually by that time was the plainest name, and they puffed up the color names for the more 'prestigious' brands.

On my '81, it was definitely called 'Jade'--both light and dark.

EDIT: I went to the brochure...it was called 'Jade Green' and 'Light Jade Green', and the interior color was called 'Jade'--a pleasant light turquoise.

I will say, the brochure makes it seem that the light jade green was on bottom and the jade green was on top, but on the cars, it was the opposite. I never liked on '82's and later, the dark colors were on top and the light colors, below--at least on Monte Carlos.

roadburner · August 2021

There's a gorgeous Can Am on BaT- of course it will bring stupid money.

stickguy · August 2021

I like the way those look. That one up to $20k day 1 so not going cheap.

sda · August 2021

Out of curiosity I researched the 78 442 for what engine came standard. I wasn't expecting much but was hoping it wasn't the 231 V6. It was the Olds 260 V8, but you could opt for the 5sp. The 305 was optional.

andre1969 · August 2021

If it's any consolation, the 305 used in the '78 442 was a 4-bbl. According to my Consumer Guide encyclopedia, which has been wrong before, it put out 165 hp, which I think might be a bit optimistic. Buick also used it, and they have it listed at 160 over there.

I guess they did this to give it a little bit of cachet, over a Malibu or Monte Carlo with a 305, which was only offered as a 2-bbl in 1978, and with 145 hp. And, you could get a 4-speed stick with the 305 in the 442.

So maybe, with the 305, 4-speed, and hopefully they offered a quicker axle ratio, a 442 might have still been kind of fun?

I guess the one to have though, was that Hurst/W30 or whatever they called it package on the formal-roof Cutlass Supreme coupe, for '79. It used an Olds 350! From what I read, Olds did some trickery with that one. Apparently in those days, if they built fewer than 2500 examples of a car/engine combo, and the engine had already been certified by the EPA in another car, it didn't have to get re-certified for the low-volume car. So, Olds simply took the 350 they used in the bigger cars, put it in the fairly light Cutlass Supreme coupe, and ran of 2499 examples.

That car came back for 1980, but I think this time it was simply called "442", so the 442 at least had somewhat of a return to glory. But with rising gas prices, fuel shortages, and recession looming over the country, it was pretty scarce.

andre1969 · August 2021

On the subject of cheaping out once revered names, didn't Pontiac do something similar with the Grand Am, when it returned for '78-80? For some reason I'm thinking they made the Buick 231 V6 standard for one or two years, although I believe the Pontiac 301 was offered in both 2- or 4-bbl setups (Chevy 305 in Cailfornia).

The previous '73-75 Grand Am wasn't necessarily a powerhouse either, unless you ordered the right engine, but at least they always started with a 400 as the base engine.

sda · August 2021

The 78 Grand Am had the 301 standard. I liked the look of it though I think the Grand Prix, with its similar interior and formal styling was more appealing to many.

uplanderguy · August 2021

You could get a 4-speed stick in a 305 2-barrel Malibu or Monte Carlo in '78 as well.

stickguy · August 2021

Flame me, but my favorite GTO is the ‘75(?) 1 year only nova based version. 350 4 speed, shaker hood.

uplanderguy · August 2021

Personally, I like the looks of that '78 Grand Am better than that year's Grand Prix. It does seem a bit superfluous in the lineup. I always thought that with the LeMans Sport Coupe of a few years earlier too. And even the '73 Grand Am seemed a bit superfluous to me, other than offering a sedan with bucket seats.

sda · August 2021

The 78 Olds Cutlass Calais was one of my favorites. It had the handling suspension, full gages, reclining front seats. I even like the color coordinated wheel disks, and no vinyl top.

andre1969 · August 2021

stickguy said:
Flame me, but my favorite GTO is the ‘75(?) 1 year only nova based version. 350 4 speed, shaker hood.

Close...'74. And while the GTO purists tend to hate that one, for the time I think it made perfect sense. The traditional musclecar was becoming a dinosaur, thanks to rising insurance costs, emissions controls that sapped horsepower, and increasing weights. Smaller, lighter cars like the Duster/Demon/Dart Sport with the 340 (and later 360) were becoming increasingly popular. And throw in the '74 oil embargo, and the Nova-based GTO was perfect timing.

The '74 actually outsold the larger '73 GTO, despite '74 being a recession year. I suspect though, that the '73 Grand Am had also siphoned off a lot of GTO sales. I seem to recall reading that the main reason the Nova-based GTO ended was that GM made a decision to start putting Buick 350s in the Venturas instead of Pontiac 350s to save on production costs. And by '75 there was nothing even remotely resembling performance in a Buick 350, so it probably wasn't cost-effective.

Too bad, really, because I think a GTO based on the '75 restyle could have looked pretty sharp. Too bad they didn't go the other way, using Pontiac 350s in the Apollos and Skylarks.

I tried looking in the Pontiac brochures to verify that the Buick 350 was used, but in '75-76 they were pretty sparse when it came to engine descriptions. For '77, they mention the Pontiac 301-2bbl being "the V8 option", but in CA/High-altitude areas it was a "350-4bbl". They don't say whose 350-4bbl, but by that time most likely Chevy. Pontiac and Buick V8s got banned in CA starting in '77, and I don't think they were putting Olds 350s in any X-body (even an Omega) by '77.

andre1969 · August 2021

uplanderguy said:
Personally, I like the looks of that '78 Grand Am better than that year's Grand Prix. It does seem a bit superfluous in the lineup. I always thought that with the LeMans Sport Coupe of a few years earlier too. And even the '73 Grand Am seemed a bit superfluous to me, other than offering a sedan with bucket seats.

I think the Sport Coupe would have made sense, if they really tried to make it sporty. But all the stuff we tend to think of as "sporty", like the Rally wheels, the louvered windows, bucket seats and a floor shift, were all extra cost options on it. By '76 at least, I don't know what all the Sport Coupe really added, over the base. The sales brochure, once again, doesn't say a lot. I think it gave you slightly nicer seat upholstery, and a fold down armrest up front. In the brochure, it looks like the bumper guards up front are taller than the base LeMans. And I think the Sport Coupe had the dummy reflector lights mounted on the decklid like the Grand LeMans, but didn't have the metal strip on the decklid that the Grand LeMans did.

As for pricing, a base LeMans coupe started at $3768, $3916 for the Sport Coupe, and $4330 for the Grand LeMans. Now I think the Grand LeMans is worth the price jump, because it gave you the ritzier exterior (although I prefer the grille inserts of the base model/Sport Coupe), the Grand Prix dashboard, upgraded door panels (if they're not the '75 Grand Am door panels, they're extremely close) nicer seats, and probably a few other details I'm missing. But I just don't see the value of the Sport Coupe, versus the base.

As for the Grand Am, it probably made sense when it was still on the drawing board. The Grand Prix could be personal luxury, a market that was starting to take off. The LeMans/Grand LeMans could be the mass market. And the Grand Am could be, for lack of a better word, "luxury performance" In fact, I think the name originally was supposed to imply "Grand Prix Luxury with Trans Am Performance" Maybe they figured that the Grand Am would appeal to a buyer that wanted the luxury of a Grand Prix, but in a more youthful, less conservative wrapping.

But, by the time the Colonades hit the market for '73, it seemed like the Grand Prix was where it was at. It sold 153,889 units, whereas the Grand Am only moved 34,445 coupes and 8691 sedans. The mass-market LeMans lineup was good for about 203,000 units, and that includes the 4806 GTOs built that year.

sda · August 2021

Dad bought used in 81 or so a 73 Grand Am 4dr colonade for my sisters to drive. I didn't care for the color, Mesa Tan, though I liked the saddle brown interior. As mentioned the 400 2bbl single exhaust (std engine) wasn't a power house, but it did move the car along effortlessly. It rode and handled much better that I had expected, an easy car to drive briskly. I found this to be interesting that highlights the improvements to the suspension, steering, chasis.

ab348 · August 2021

andre1969 said:

I guess the one to have though, was that Hurst/W30 or whatever they called it package on the formal-roof Cutlass Supreme coupe, for '79. It used an Olds 350! From what I read, Olds did some trickery with that one. Apparently in those days, if they built fewer than 2500 examples of a car/engine combo, and the engine had already been certified by the EPA in another car, it didn't have to get re-certified for the low-volume car. So, Olds simply took the 350 they used in the bigger cars, put it in the fairly light Cutlass Supreme coupe, and ran of 2499 examples.

That car came back for 1980, but I think this time it was simply called "442", so the 442 at least had somewhat of a return to glory. But with rising gas prices, fuel shortages, and recession looming over the country, it was pretty scarce.

Relations between Oldsmobile Division and Hurst Corp. had become pretty frosty at that point and by 1980 the Hurst name was not found on the car. Apparently Hurst would not ship the emblems to Olds because they were not using any Hurst components. So they got 4-4-2 badging and a W-30 decal on the front fenders even though there was no outside air induction like the former W-30s had. They still were done in the gold and black or gold and white Hurst colors. There are actually a couple of them locally (the white one below; the black one is just posted as a reference).

texases · August 2021

The front end on those W-30s just doesn't look right, not sporty in any way.

ab348 · August 2021

texases said:
The front end on those W-30s just doesn't look right, not sporty in any way.

I never liked the front ends of the '78-'80 Cutlasses. They improved it greatly for '81 and later.

andre1969 · August 2021

I know styling is subjective, but I think 1981 might be one of those rare instances where the looks of just about every model in the GM intermediate lineup was improved with the '81 restyle. All four personal luxury coupes were improved in my opinion. I never cared for the front of the '78-80 LeMans, but I thought the '81 was a looker. I guess the Malibu was kind of a wash. You got vertical bars on the '80 grille, horizontal on the '81. I did like the '80's taillights better. But then I prefer the more formal roof of the 4-door, that little vent window misalignment be damned

I guess the Century didn't really change. They had cleaned it up a bit for '80, when it went to the formal roof. And I guess the Cutlass sedan didn't change either, although didn't they start using the quad headlight setup on the Brougham sedans and wagons for '81, and single headlights for the cheaper sedan and wagon?

texases · August 2021

I agree - the front of that W-30 looks like a baby 88.

imidazol97 · August 2021

texases said:
The front end on those W-30s just doesn't look right, not sporty in any way.

I Agree. What kind of change would have been fitting with the sporty image? This front end looks like an Olds 98 adapted to the smaller vehicle.

fintail · August 2021

Only thing that comes to mind when I see that style of Pontiac:

sda said:
The 78 Grand Am had the 301 standard. I liked the look of it though I think the Grand Prix, with its similar interior and formal styling was more appealing to many.

benjaminh · September 2021

The AMC theater chain has had for a few years a membership called A-list, and with it for $20 a month you can see up to three movies a week. Sometimes I go with my wife, and sometimes with a friend, and sometimes by myself. To distract myself from the news and whatever else I see a lot of movies. Recently I saw the so-so horror movie called Candyman, and in it there's an early backstory scene set in 1977 on the streets of Chicago. In that scene from 1977 a 4-door hatchback 1980 Chevy Citation is clearly seen parked on the street. The movie had other flaws, but that kinda took me out of the film. I've had that happen a few other times, when I guess a movie's production designer and director say, "Oh, who is ever going to notice that this car won't be made for a few years after this scene is set." Anyway, the Citation seemed like almost a miracle when it came out in 1979—a midsize car with front-wheel-drive and good mpg. As we all know, it turned into a nightmare that was emblematic of GM's decline in the 1980s. For some reason I still kind of like the styling and design of the Citation hatchback. Good room and good visibility.

kyfdx · September 2021

I test drove a Citation in 1981, I think. I liked it, at the time.

stickguy · September 2021

Perfect size. And so light compared to current models.

stickguy · September 2021

kyfdx said:
I test drove a Citation in 1981, I think. I liked it, at the time.

Compared to a Chevette, it was a luxury car.

ab348 · September 2021

The Citation et al were OK cars but were released a year or two too soon and were badly underdeveloped. As usual for GM back then, by the time they were discontinued they had fixed pretty much everything.

andre1969 · September 2021

I hate to keep bringing up the stationary rear windows on GM's intermediates of that era, but in contrast, one thing that impressed me about the Citation and its siblings was how far the rear door windows actually rolled down. It's a rather large window, but not really that big of a door, so it doesn't look like there would be much room for it to roll down into. But, they went down slightly more than half way, as I recall.

One thing that might have helped with the range of motion was that the window was attached to the forward part of the window frame, whereas many cars of that era attached it to the back of the window frame, or the spacer between the roll down glass and the stationary. So that might have allowed it to roll down a bit further.

I also seem to recall something called a "Tape Drive" window lift mechanism. I'm not sure how exactly it worked, but I'm getting this mental image of something like heavy-duty VCR tape with slots in it, that connects to the window crank, or power window motor. I wonder if those were more compact than the typical lift mechanisms that older cars had?

Those X-bodies seemed revolutionary, almost futuristic, when they first arrived. Almost as if they were too good to be true...

As for performance, it seems to me they should have done pretty well for the time, thanks to their light weight. I'm sure a 4-cyl Citation would be quicker than a '79 Nova with the 250 inline 6. I'd think that the 2.8 would be quicker than the 305 in a Nova, if not the 350. But, Consumer Guide mentioned this, with regards to an '80 Volare they tested...

"An available 318-inch V8 provided 120 horsepower, good for a Consumer Guide-reported 14.1 second 0-60 run, a solid second slower than a V6-equipped Citation."

So that would imply that the Citation with the 2.8 did 0-60 in 13.1? Seems to me it should have been quicker than that, but I guess that just goes to show that mathematical estimations don't always play out as expected in the real world!

**Edit: Sure enough, here's Consumer Guide's 1980 Citation test: https://blog.consumerguide.com/1980-chevrolet-citation-review/

Wow, 0-60 in 13.1 seconds, and that's with a 4-speed stick and somewhat aggressive-by-1980-standards 2.84:1 gearing. It still doesn't add up, though, in my mind. That Omega that C&D tested against the 1981 Malibu had a 110 hp 3.8 and 3-speed automatic (I couldn't find mention of the axle ratio though) and they managed 11.3. Of course, C&D and those buff rags often massage quicker times out of a car than Consumer Guide/Reports/etc do, but still...

sda · September 2021

The Citation et al 'X' cars were the same size as my 76 Sunbird, but so much roomier, no comparison. As I've shared before I bought used an 82 Buick Skylark Custom in 89 to be used as my work commuter car. It was very comfortable, quiet, rode well, got decent mpg. The V6 was a bit cantankerous when cold and it also suffered from the infamous rack and pinion 'morning sickness' where the steering would be stiff for the first few minutes. I had to park in an outside gravel lot at the office. It kept the VW Cabriolet pampered in the garage.

ab348 · September 2021

The tape drive window mechanism is or at least was fairly common. It involved a slotted nylon tape to drive the window up and down. I suspect it was lighter and cheaper than the traditional metal gear mechanism. Not all that different from what power radio antennas used to go up and down.

uplanderguy · September 2021

I was very intrigued by the Citation Club Coupe when the cars were introduced, although never saw many, or at least nicely-trimmed ones like the one in the ad, above. The Citation's taillights reminded me of the '78 Malibu which I liked a good bit.

IMHO, GM often had very appealing car lines, and often seemed to be the first to try new packaging, new technology, etc., as we know sometimes with not-great long-term results. Still, what else was out there comparable to the X-cars for space utilization, choice of models and engines, etc.? Nothing I can think of.

Ford and Chrysler, I think, often benefitted from GM trying something new and seeing how it all fared a couple years before introducing their similar-concept cars...at least through the late '70's/early '80's.

RE.: "Morning sickness" in the rack-and-pinion--my '85 Celebrity, built in May, still had that issue, out of regular warranty. My dealer paid half. After that, I saw a letter in Consumer Reports where a woman said her dealer paid 100% of hers outside of warranty. I photocopied that letter and mailed it to my dealer's Service Manager, asking how I differed from that lady. I got a check in the mail for what I'd paid earlier, no letter or anything.

sda · September 2021

Ford introduced the Fox platform in 79. RWD and not as space efficient as the GM 'X' cars. Chrysler followed a similar path and introduced the K-cars in 81 which were a three box FWD design like the GMs. The 'X' bodies drove with more refinement, less vibration and were quieter than the 'K's.

roadburner · September 2021

stickguy said:

kyfdx said:
I test drove a Citation in 1981, I think. I liked it, at the time.
Compared to a Chevette, it was a luxury car.

A Cub Cadet lawn tractor was a luxury car compared to the Chevette.

roadburner · September 2021

sda said:
The Citation et al 'X' cars were the same size as my 76 Sunbird, but so much roomier, no comparison. As I've shared before I bought used an 82 Buick Skylark Custom in 89 to be used as my work commuter car. It was very comfortable, quiet, rode well, got decent mpg. The V6 was a bit cantankerous when cold and it also suffered from the infamous rack and pinion 'morning sickness' where the steering would be stiff for the first few minutes. I had to park in an outside gravel lot at the office. It kept the VW Cabriolet pampered in the garage.

My wife had a 1984 Skylark T Type when we got married. It was a nice car and handled and accelerated pretty well for what it was. I replaced the abysmal stock sealed beam headlamps with "Off Road Use Only" Cibie Z-Beam units. Aside from that-and the moronic 85 mph speedometer-it was pretty enjoyable to drive.

texases · September 2021

As bad as 85 mph speedometers were, I think the modern trend of 160 mph speedometers is worse, all the range we actually use is squashed down into the bottom 1/3-1/2 of the gauge. Make it 0-100, and provide a digital readout (which many have) for my trips down the autobahn.

stickguy · September 2021

I agree about the current ones. just silly.

at least with the 85, the part you used was big and spread out. and if you got stopped for going faster than that, you could honestly say you had no clue how fast you were going!

fintail · September 2021

I wonder who got the 160 trend rolling - many MBs started using that in the late 80s, and it goes without saying those cars aren't going to see 160 even on the Autobahn.

In the 60s, it seems the standard was 120.

texases · September 2021

My rental Ford Edge has a 160. Not gonna happen. I bet it’s tire limited at some much lower number.

stickguy · September 2021

something to be said for digital speedos. at least you know exactly how fast without having to really focus on it, and it takes up less real estate.

boomchek · September 2021

Fun fact regarding the GM x body. According to my Road & Track Volvo 850 "guide" from 1992, the Citation was used by Volvo during the 850 development for engine performance and placement as the Citation was the same size that the Volvo 850 was designed to be and with obviously same drivetrain layout.

kyfdx · September 2021

stickguy said:
something to be said for digital speedos. at least you know exactly how fast without having to really focus on it, and it takes up less real estate.

I like the combo, tach and speedo with dials, and the digital speed in the middle.

stickguy · September 2021

my daughter always kept the car with the digital speedo in the info screen. I always kept it on trip info (mpg, range, etc.).

but for some reason, our RDX does not offer speedo as one of the options you can display. Seems odd to me.

benjaminh · September 2021

andre1969 said:
....Those X-bodies seemed revolutionary, almost futuristic, when they first arrived. Almost as if they were too good to be true....

I remember reading an article in Motor Trend during the time the X-cars came out saying that GM had poured billions of dollars into their development. Iirc, the article almost had a tone of pity for Ford and Chrysler, saying that they simply lacked the resources to do this kind of thing. Even Toyota and Honda were supposed to fear the still-mighty GM at this point, because these cars were even beyond what they could do at the time. But as we all know, the X-cars probably needed perhaps another year of engineering, testing, and quality control improvements before they came out. Motor Trend, which had so hyped the X-cars back in 1979, did an interesting (if decades late) post-mortem in 2019....

https://www.motortrend.com/features/gm-x-cars-chevrolet-citation-oldsmobile-buick-pontiac-photos-history/

andre1969 · September 2021

One of my friends back in college had an '86 T-bird with a digital speedometer and trip computer. Even though it was digital, the speedometer only read up to 85 mph. However, if you went into the trip computer's settings, one of them was "average mph." If you reset it and were able to maintain a constant speed, the trip computer readout pretty much the speed you were going at the moment. I remember one time, going down to the Kings Dominion amusement park near Richmond VA, we were playing around with it, and he had gotten as high as 96 mph.

I had an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe with a digital speedometer. It had three digits to account for kph, but I can't remember if it still topped out at 85 on mph. Anyway, I do remember one time, taking Grandmom to the doctor in it, and going a bit above 60, switching it to metric, so it was reading a bit over 100. I said "hey Grandmom, look how fast we're going!" She had a fit! I think I even said something like "Doesn't feel like it, does it!" or something along the lines of what Clark Griswold might say.

Anyway, when I showed her that it was just the metric setting, she still wasn't convinced, and kept complaining until I put it back to MPH.

Now that I think about it, didn't some cars, like in the late 90's/early 00's, simply have one set of numbers on the analogue dash, and if you switched between MPH and KPH the needle would simply jump? So if you were doing 60 mph, but then pressed the button for metric, it would jump to around 100? I'm thinking my '00 Park Avenue was like this, but I can't remember. That might actually explain though, why some speedos went up to overly optimistic numbers like 140 or 160, because the same scale had to accommodate both MPH and KPH?

sda · September 2021

benjaminh said:

andre1969 said:
....Those X-bodies seemed revolutionary, almost futuristic, when they first arrived. Almost as if they were too good to be true....
I remember reading an article in Motor Trend during the time the X-cars came out saying that GM had poured billions of dollars into their development. Iirc, the article almost had a tone of pity for Ford and Chrysler, saying that they simply lacked the resources to do this kind of thing. Even Toyota and Honda were supposed to fear the still-mighty GM at this point, because these cars were even beyond what they could do at the time. But as we all know, the X-cars probably needed perhaps another year of engineering, testing, and quality control improvements before they came out. Motor Trend, which had so hyped the X-cars back in 1979, did an interesting (if decades late) post-mortem in 2019....

https://www.motortrend.com/features/gm-x-cars-chevrolet-citation-oldsmobile-buick-pontiac-photos-history/

I think that article is a little overstated. The X cars had issues, no question, but they were pretty nice cars overall. The A bodies that followed were improved and much more reliable. The Pontiac 6000 STE was the darling of the press for several years.

texases · September 2021

The Citation X-11 really caught my attention when it came out. Some are still around:
https://jalopnik.com/for-3-950-could-this-1981-chevy-citation-x-11-prove-t-1793654075

tjc78 · September 2021

@andre1969 said:
One of my friends back in college had an '86 T-bird with a digital speedometer and trip computer. Even though it was digital, the speedometer only read up to 85 mph. However, if you went into the trip computer's settings, one of them was "average mph." If you reset it and were able to maintain a constant speed, the trip computer readout pretty much the speed you were going at the moment. I remember one time, going down to the Kings Dominion amusement park near Richmond VA, we were playing around with it, and he had gotten as high as 96 mph.

I had an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe with a digital speedometer. It had three digits to account for kph, but I can't remember if it still topped out at 85 on mph. Anyway, I do remember one time, taking Grandmom to the doctor in it, and going a bit above 60, switching it to metric, so it was reading a bit over 100. I said "hey Grandmom, look how fast we're going!" She had a fit! I think I even said something like "Doesn't feel like it, does it!" or something along the lines of what Clark Griswold might say.

Anyway, when I showed her that it was just the metric setting, she still wasn't convinced, and kept complaining until I put it back to MPH.

Now that I think about it, didn't some cars, like in the late 90's/early 00's, simply have one set of numbers on the analogue dash, and if you switched between MPH and KPH the needle would simply jump? So if you were doing 60 mph, but then pressed the button for metric, it would jump to around 100? I'm thinking my '00 Park Avenue was like this, but I can't remember. That might actually explain though, why some speedos went up to overly optimistic numbers like 140 or 160, because the same scale had to accommodate both MPH and KPH?

I did that to my wife in my Grand Marquis

Yes on the Analog speedometer. It was certainly a GM product but can’t remember which one. Maybe the Impala.

ab348 · September 2021

Dad had a car - I can't recall exactly which one - that had the gimmicky talking alert for various minor warnings. I remember I used to entertain my friends by asking "When is a door not a door?" and then letting the car answer "A door is a jar".

uplanderguy · September 2021

If you liked late '60's Chevys, here's an interesting homemade video of about three minutes, from Berger Chevrolet in Grand Rapids, MI. I'll walk through all those '68 Corvairs and pick one, although he must've gotten a good deal on the cheaper '500' models as it looks like most are those.

Nice bonus for me is the turquoise Studebaker Avanti in the video.

Boy, back when having a Chevy dealership was gold.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles