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

andre1969 · September 2021

The '73 version of the Imperial is something like 235.2" long IIRC, thanks to those big rubber blocks they put on them in a quick-and-dirty way to pass the stricter bumper standards that year. I wonder if that actually set some kind of industry record for overall length? For instance, if you factor out custom cars, limousines and such, that might be about as long as a "regular" passenger car ever got?

I'm pretty sure that starting in 1974, there were plenty of cars that popped the 230" barrier, because of those bumper standards. But I don't think any of them exceeded 235".

I'd be curious to see Adam's take on the '72 Imperial, as well. I seem to recall they weren't that highly regarded at the time. Tom McCahill or something said of that generation something along the lines of "It smells like a Plymouth!" But then I seem to recall Consumer Guide testing a '73, along with a Caddy, a Lincoln, and a Benz, and liking most things about the Imperial, except for its braking.

texases · September 2021

That '73 is 10" longer than a 2021 Suburban. Wow!

ab348 · September 2021

Adam said that the '72 Imperial is one of his favorites, so we'll see.

imidazol97 · September 2021

That 72 Imperial could be a design precursor for the electric vehicles of today. A flat front and headlight units at the sides. Just eliminate the air holes permeating the front grill and you have an EV front.

fintail · September 2021

I can only describe that Imperial as "gothic" - those corner lights. What a design.

Saw a 53 Coupe DeVille on I90 today, cruising with traffic. I was in a Lyft at the time, and the driver, a very gregarious Ukrainian guy, was really impressed with it (Lyft was a MKZ).

andre1969 · September 2021

I think the '69-71 Imperial looks really nice, almost futuristic. Almost *too* tasteful. So naturally they couldn't leave that alone, and so they gave us the heavier looking '72! It's still a nice car, just bulky.

A few years ago I sat in one that was for sale at the Hershey PA car show. I think it was a '73. It was definitely a roomy, comfy car. I guess you should expect nothing less from something this size, but some of those old cars really weren't as roomy as you'd think, for their size.

sda · September 2021

I knew some brothers while I was in college whose dad bought them both a new Chrysler New Yorker coupe. The 76 was fairly plain, steel top, silver, black leather. The younger brother’s was a 78 coupe, landau top, garnet red with matching leather interior. I know the 76 had the 440 and ran poorly from a cold start. I think the 78 was a 440, maybe a 400, but ran much better. I rode in the 78 several times and was impressed by how firm it rode and didn’t lean much in corners. Those tufted soft leather seats were very comfortable. I really liked the waterfall grille and hidden lamps on those. Very classy. Didn’t Chrysler make the Imperial the New Yorker in 75 or 76?

ab348 · September 2021

sda said:
I really liked the waterfall grille and hidden lamps on those. Very classy. Didn’t Chrysler make the Imperial the New Yorker in 75 or 76?

Yes, in 1976 the Imperial nameplate went away but the interiors and waterfall grill were used on the New Yorker Brougham.

stickguy · September 2021

Treasure trove today, including 2 Alfa Montreal’s. In Watkins glen today, and they are having Grand Prix festival weekend. Cars everywhere, part of that or just hanging around. Alfa was featured marquee, over 75 of them including some very rare old ones. Tons of Lotuses.

More rarities than I can remember, plenty I never saw in person before. Including a Jowett Jupiter. And a neat MGC GT with the 6 cylinder. A real 1952 Scarab. I’ll think of more later.

explorerx4 · September 2021

On my street, a cul de sac, this morning, 2 white Subaru B9 Tribeca's.

ab348 · September 2021

In traffic today, what could have been an emigrant from Florida, a white '88-91 Grand Marquis with the faux-convertible top treatment, very fresh-looking. A rare bird in these parts nowadays.

tjc78 · September 2021

I still see box Panthers nearly daily here in South Jersey. Many are still on the road, since arguably they are tough to kill and really weren’t heavy rusters.

fintail · September 2021

I see box Panthers all the time here too, usually the final run aero facelift models.

Drove by "my" house and looked at the neglected 450SL I spotted a couple blocks down the street. It's a very early model, no later than 1973. Also saw a 67-69 Camaro down the street.

ab348 · September 2021

fintail said:
I see box Panthers all the time here too, usually the final run aero facelift models.

Drove by "my" house and looked at the neglected 450SL I spotted a couple blocks down the street. It's a very early model, no later than 1973. Also saw a 67-69 Camaro down the street.

You guys that don't live in the salt belt don't realize how good you have it. I remember in the late '90s being in Boise ID for a conference. Looked out the window of my hotel room one morning and in the hotel parking lot saw a beat-up '49 Ford pull in. Guy got out with his painting tools to do some work inside the hotel. That was just his 50 year-old daily driver work car.

fintail · September 2021

Oh, I know how lucky I have it - I am sure the climate here is a big reason why the fintail survived at all. I was a kid in the Columbia Basin in the 80s. There was an astounding amount of 50s material still on the road then, and even occasional 40s stuff (especially trucks). 60s cars were common enough to not be remarkable, unless they were really pristine. The west side of the mountains was little different - tons of 50s and 60s stuff around. Maybe 25 years ago, it slowly started vanishing - snapped up by flippers and collectors, with the decrepit ones parted out or scrapped, and by around Y2K, a lot of old material seemed to be gone. Still a bit out there though, as any browse through CL or marketplace will show, but owners often have an optimistic sense of value.

ab348 said:

fintail said:
I see box Panthers all the time here too, usually the final run aero facelift models.

Drove by "my" house and looked at the neglected 450SL I spotted a couple blocks down the street. It's a very early model, no later than 1973. Also saw a 67-69 Camaro down the street.

You guys that don't live in the salt belt don't realize how good you have it. I remember in the late '90s being in Boise ID for a conference. Looked out the window of my hotel room one morning and in the hotel parking lot saw a beat-up '49 Ford pull in. Guy got out with his painting tools to do some work inside the hotel. That was just his 50 year-old daily driver work car.

Michaell · September 2021

ab348 said:

fintail said:
I see box Panthers all the time here too, usually the final run aero facelift models.

Drove by "my" house and looked at the neglected 450SL I spotted a couple blocks down the street. It's a very early model, no later than 1973. Also saw a 67-69 Camaro down the street.

You guys that don't live in the salt belt don't realize how good you have it. I remember in the late '90s being in Boise ID for a conference. Looked out the window of my hotel room one morning and in the hotel parking lot saw a beat-up '49 Ford pull in. Guy got out with his painting tools to do some work inside the hotel. That was just his 50 year-old daily driver work car.

I grew up in SoCal, so rust was a minor problem with the salt air.

However, I was blown away by the state of the cars I saw on my first trip to NY (1975). Even cars that were only a few years old were awful. I think my aunt and uncle had a Nova that was pretty clapped out.

explorerx4 · September 2021

If you take your car to the carwash once a month in the winter, rust is not as much of an issue.

ab348 · September 2021

explorerx4 said:
If you take your car to the carwash once a month in the winter, rust is not as much of an issue.

Well, that depends. Around here at least, automatic car washes use recycled water for the first rinse, so in winter that is salty water.

explorerx4 · September 2021

@ab348,
I'm sure it's filtered to some extent.

texases · September 2021

Filtering doesn’t take out salt.

explorerx4 · September 2021

How do you know, did you try and drink some?

All I can say is that I stopped having chassis seal problems after I started going to the car wash in the winter.

texases · September 2021

You need reverse osmosis to remove salt, I’d be very surprised if car washes had that. But I bet they add a lot of fresh water, reducing any salt issue.

ab348 · September 2021

All I know is that I’ve read that automatic washes are not good in winter. The pressure wand type are OK.

ab348 · September 2021

Now here's an optimistic seller:

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mercury/comet/2514654.html

Reminds me too much of our '74 Maverick 4-door, though ours was a LDO model so it was nicer inside than this one with the base interior. It was just an awful car overall. At least this one has minimal rust, unlike ours which rotted away in 3 or 4 years.

texases · September 2021

ab348 said:
Now here's an optimistic seller:

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mercury/comet/2514654.html

Reminds me too much of our '74 Maverick 4-door, though ours was a LDO model so it was nicer inside than this one with the base interior. It was just an awful car overall. At least this one has minimal rust, unlike ours which rotted away in 3 or 4 years.

Thank you for my morning laugh. The market for this one is the "my mom had one just like it when I was growing up" group, I guess. Think of all the neat cars one could get for that money...

fintail · September 2021

Hey, one can get low rate financing, sign me up!

I love this ad copy: "drives like a new 1974 car!!" - not quite the brag the seller thinks it is.

I've always thought the two door Maverick, especially with small bumpers, was an OK enough design, but never warmed up so much to the 4 door models.

ab348 said:
Now here's an optimistic seller:

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mercury/comet/2514654.html

Reminds me too much of our '74 Maverick 4-door, though ours was a LDO model so it was nicer inside than this one with the base interior. It was just an awful car overall. At least this one has minimal rust, unlike ours which rotted away in 3 or 4 years.

fintail · September 2021

The big MB Museum in Stuttgart has an active social media presence, and has been posting pictures from the IAA (the big annual German motor show), as it takes place in September. They posted this one from 1981, which had the introduction of the C126 (SEC), and received many comments about how the old cars look much better than the newly launched models:

I liked this image from the 1961 show, 75th anniversary year for MB, hence the old cars. The Ponton on the left is from the final run of the series, with the then-new 4 cyl fintail beside it, and the new fintail coupe and cabriolet in the background (I think I spot 190SL and 300SL roadster back there, too). I notice the whitewall width looks similar to my car:

No year stated, but clues narrow it down - no fintails, Ponton coupe and cabrio, 300SL roadster, Adenauer hardtop, must be 1957 or 1958:

explorerx4 · September 2021

Not too old, but an immaculate white Chevy SS passed me.

roadburner · September 2021

My aunt had a 1972 V8 Maverick Grabber; it was good looking. My mother's 1974 LDO was a steaming pile on its best day. The Ford products I really enjoyed driving were my 1984 Turbo Coupe(with three pedals) and my dad's 1986 Mark VII LSC.

texases · September 2021

Friend had a V8 Grabber in high school, fake hood scoops and all. It was pretty nice, he never drove it hard, which kept him from getting tickets I imagine. I drove my Mustang hard, but the 170 just kept up with traffic.

sda · September 2021

roadburner said:
My aunt had a 1972 V8 Maverick Grabber; it was good looking. My mother's 1974 LDO was a steaming pile on its best day. The Ford products I really enjoyed driving were my 1984 Turbo Coupe(with three pedals) and my dad's 1986 Mark VII LSC.

Didn’t the Turbo Coupe and Mark LSC share the same chassis?

Michaell · September 2021

I'm pretty sure my great aunt and uncle (and godparents) in NJ had a Maverick when we went to visit them in 1975. Drove it from NJ to Washington DC - 6 of us piled into the car (which, IIRC, was a 2-door).

roadburner · September 2021

sda said:

roadburner said:
My aunt had a 1972 V8 Maverick Grabber; it was good looking. My mother's 1974 LDO was a steaming pile on its best day. The Ford products I really enjoyed driving were my 1984 Turbo Coupe(with three pedals) and my dad's 1986 Mark VII LSC.
Didn’t the Turbo Coupe and Mark LSC share the same chassis?

I think that they shared the Fox platform.

uplanderguy · September 2021

At the 57th Studebaker Drivers' Club International Meet in Indianapolis this past week, this Pontiac was sitting in a 'regular' parking place; no signage or anything.

I'll defer to andre on this, but I believe it's a '74.

What is confusing me, is I thought the GT package was a low-cost stripe and wheels package for the base LeMans. This car has "Sport Coupe" badges on both front fenders, but does not have the Sport Coupe's usual louvered quarter windows (I like these big windows better than the louvers).

The seating, with the buttons, would make me think 'Luxury LeMans', as do the door panels, but I just don't know. It could be a 'mongrel' with parts from other models, who knows.

But I thought it was mildly interesting.

sda · September 2021

That is the same steering wheel that was in our 73 GrandAm. Though a tad thin, it was squishy and had a nice feel. Pre-leather steering wrapped wheels. I liked the aluminum spokes. The plastics GM used then tended to crack and crumble as it aged, especially if kept outside and blasted by the sun.

andre1969 · September 2021

Yep, that looks like a '74 to me! I don't know much about the GT option. However, with the Sport Coupe, you still had to pay extra if you wanted those louvered windows. And yeah, that looks like the Luxury LeMans door panels. IIRC, with the Sport Coupe, you still got the base coupe door panels. I think with the Sport Coupe, you even had to pay extra for the console shift and bucket seats...something that I think should be standard on something called "Sport Coupe!"

Here's a YouTube video of a '74 LeMans GT. Looks like this one is just based on the base coupe, and not the Sport Coupe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep2uclXu9is
It just has a bench seat, and the base door panels. And the more common 3-spoke (or I always called it a "tee") steering wheel, rather than the jumbo-hub wheel that looks like it was lifted from a Grand Am.

benjaminh · September 2021

1976 Pontiac Le Mans (length 208 inches) compared to 1976 Honda Accord (163 inches).
I think the Accord was only slightly smaller than the Le Mans on the inside, and got mpg that was twice as good.

imidazol97 · September 2021

I think the CVCC required premium fuel and was slow even with a 5-speed manual trans? Maybe a 4-speed. Friend had one in Charleston after he was out of the Navy. It stalled out when driven through water standing on the streets from rains. Likely the salt in the ground and water being good conductor when splashed up onto the plugs and wires.

benjaminh · September 2021

Yeah, the Pontiac would be faster, although with the standard engine maybe not by a lot?

uplanderguy · September 2021

....but the Honda looked like, well, a Honda!

I seem to recall an issue or two with the CVCC engine, and where I lived, the Honda's top of fenders had holes in a few years. The Pontiac may have had them at the bottom, where they weren't so apparent.

uplanderguy · September 2021

I just looked at the '74 LeMans and Grand Am brochure. Like the late sixties, I'm impressed with the choices you got. You could indeed get the Sport Coupe in '74 with the big windows like the car above has. The Sport Coupe got you the Luxury LeMans seating, but in vinyl. Nice way to get the better interior with the big quarter windows, which the Luxury LeMans was NA with, and no skirts. Chevy had no such way to get around the opera windows on the Malibu Classic.

The Luxury LeMans seating was also available on the LeMans sedan, which got you the nicer seating but with no skirts outside.

The Grand Am wheel, and the luxury door panels, the car pictured has, I can't explain.

texases · September 2021

imidazol97 said:
I think the CVCC required premium fuel and was slow even with a 5-speed manual trans? Maybe a 4-speed. Friend had one in Charleston after he was out of the Navy. It stalled out when driven through water standing on the streets from rains. Likely the salt in the ground and water being good conductor when splashed up onto the plugs and wires.

According to this R&T test it took regular, did 0-60 in 15.4 seconds, so a bit slower than the Pontiac I guess. I think the Accord's looks have aged better than the Pontiac's, I've always like that style Accord.

uplanderguy · September 2021

I was never a fan of the 'rubber baby buggy bumpers' look that the Japanese seemed to invent, but everybody else, including the domestics, eventually copied.

Where I live, you never see old Hondas. I live in the industrial midwest/northeast, but I still see old B-Body GM cars every so often, and Crown Vics. No doubt sold new in higher numbers around here.

andre1969 · September 2021

Well the standard engine in a '76 LeMans was a Chevy 250-1bbl inline six with maybe 105-110 hp, so I'd be shocked if it could break 0-60 in under 20 seconds. Next step up was an Olds 260, and, well, as the old saying goes, 'nuff said.

Most of them were equipped with a Pontiac 350-2bbl with 160 hp, which was probably good for 0-60 in about 13 seconds. There was also a 350-4bbl, which I believe was for CA/high-altitude areas. I've seen it rated anywhere from 165 hp (Consumer Guide) to 175 hp (those big blue "MOTOR's" Repair Manuals). There was also a 400-4bbl, that had 180 hp and at the top of the heap was a 200 hp 455-4bbl. I read somewhere that the 455 was good for 0-60 in about 10 seconds, so performance was pretty much a thing of the past with these cars.

As for interior room, I did some digging around. The oldest interior volumes I can find that the EPA put out were in 1977. They listed an Accord hatchback at 82 cubic feet of passenger volume, 14 cubic feet of trunk space. The LeMans was rated at 99/15. However, they averaged the volumes of the coupe and sedan. They did the same for the Malibu, but the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo, available only as coupes, were listed at 94/15. So I'd presume a LeMans coupe would've been very close to one of those.

Oddly, the Century/Regal and Cutlass, which are also averaged, are only 97/15. Odd that the interiors are rated a bit smaller than a Malibu/LeMans, but I wonder if they're actually averaging the sedan, the formal roof (Cutlass Supreme/Regal/Century Custom) coupe, and the more fastback-roof (Cutlass Salon, Century) coupes. Averaging in two coupes and a sedan would sink the numbers a bit, compared to just averaging one coupe and a sedan.

Now oddly, when the Accord sedan came out for '79, it was rated at 81/10, while the hatchback was downgraded to 77/14. It's strange that the hatchback would "lose" 5 cubic feet, even though it was the same car. And I really question it having 14 cubic feet of trunk space. Maybe with the back seat folded flat? Still, that seems like an odd way to measure interior volume. The EPA doesn't do that with real wagons; they just give a measurement for the passenger volume of the front and middle seat, and then cargo volume, with the back seat up.

As for fuel economy, here's the EPA's ratings for the '76 LeMans:
250-6 manual (M): 17/25
250-6 auto (A): 17/22
260 V8 M: 16/26
260 V8 A: 16/22
350-2bbl V8 A: 14/19
350-4bbl V8 A: (oddly, not listed by the EPA)
400-2bbl V8 A: 14/19 (interesting, I thought the 400s were all 4-bbl, albeit economy-minded ones, by '76)
400-4bbl V8 A: 15/20
455-4bbl V8 A 14/20

They don't list the Accord for '76, but for '77 its ratings are as follows:
98 CID 4-cyl, 3bbl, M, 38/48
98 CID 4-cyl, 3bbl, Semi-automatic, 26/31

Meanwhile, for the '77 LeMans:
231 V6 M: 16/26
231 V6 A: 17/25
301-2bbl V8 A: 16/23
350-4bbl V8 A: 14/21
400-4bbl V8 A: 14/21

stickguy · September 2021

man, that AT in the Accord sucked MPG out of it. Speed and all the fun too.

I liked the early Accords, but yeah, in salt on the road areas, they rusted out quick, like most all of the early Japanese models.

roadburner · September 2021

My girlfriend in law school bought a new Accord Coupe in 1981 to replace her miserable Mustang II(at my recommendation). Unfortunately it was an automatic.

texases · September 2021

Small cars with ATs did stink on mpg and performance back then. I remember a small Mazda that suffered the same problems. Neighbor bought an ‘82-ish Cavalier that got 16 mpg.

ab348 · September 2021

From what I recall of my ‘77 LeMans 2-door, the interior was quite wide especially up front, and front legroom was good. Rear legroom was tight and the trunk was surprisingly small too, although reasonably wide but not generous front to back.

uplanderguy · September 2021

The LeMans those years remind me of how you could really order from a very wide menu of options and colors back then. Huge 'sigh' here now.

On that green one, what would slap me in the face is no moldings around the quarter windows. I'd surely think some place is re-popping them, with that being such a common thing on those cars 45 years later.

andre1969 · September 2021

With my '76 Grand LeMans coupe, my two biggest issues with the interior are headroom up front and the distance of the windshield from the steering wheel. When I sit in the car, my head doesn't touch the ceiling, but it just feels like it's too close. And with the steering wheel, if I turn the wheel "open palmed" rather than gripping the wheel, my fingers will hit the windshield.

However, my car has a power seat and a tilt wheel, so where I have them positioned might contribute to that. I have the seat back as far as it will go, and raised a bit. And I have the steering wheel tilted up slightly, as well. I'm impressed with the range of motion of this power seat. With just the standard non-power seat, I always found the Colonades to be a bit tight on legroom up front. Not enough to make me hate the car, but just enough that I wish the seat went back a little further. But with the power seat, it has a wide range of motion, and it go into positions far enough back that I can't even reach the pedals.

The back seat is tight, on legroom, but I was surprised at how much headroom there actually is. I've sat back there a couple times out of curiosity, and despite that low-slung roof, my head doesn't touch the ceiling. And the seat cushions are pretty thick, and well-padded. It just needs more legroom. If they had put the coupe on a 4" longer wheelbase (i.e., same as the sedan), but put those 4" in the back seat, rather than ahead of the cowl like they did on a Grand Prix or Monte Carlo, it would've been a damn comfortable back seat! But, it might have been enough to throw off the proportioning, and not make it look as attractive. And coupes tended to prioritize style over functionality.

As for the trunk, I always knew trunk space was tight on these cars, but the first time I opened the trunk in my '76, it was actually roomier than what I was expecting! The fore-aft dimension isn't so great, and the full size spare cuts into that room. But it's deeper (vertical height) than it seems like what it would be, based on the exterior. Because of the slope though, the deepest part is toward the front of the trunk, just before the axle hump, and the spare tire takes up some of that. A compact temporary spare would definitely free up some useable space. And I've wondered if simply relocating the full-sized spare one side of the trunk or another, rather than all the way forward and toward the driver's side, would have made it more useable by freeing up some more of the taller area?

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles