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

andre1969 · March 2023

This morning I watched a bad movie, "Konga" that I had DVR'ed last night when it was showcased on Svengoolie. I was a bit surprised to see this 1960 Ford wagon in it...

A pretty common car at the time. But, this movie was made in England!

It looks silver with a white roof in this IMCDB screen capture, but on my tv the car looked like it was a really pale lavender/lilac, with a white roof.

ab348 · March 2023

For GM engines the end came after the 1970 model year as they mandated low compression ratios that could run on unleaded regular for '71 and beyond. The one outlier I can think of in later years was the Pontiac 455SD engine which still seemed pretty stout through 1974. Maybe they pulled something out of the '64 GTO bag of tricks and somehow slipped higher compression pistons into it.

I think Ford and Chrysler kept their high-comp engines for a year or two longer before emission killed them all off.

roadburner · March 2023

uplanderguy said:
I was never a fan of C3 styling, although maybe in the past few years if I see one that looks original I'll actually walk over to look at it, LOL.

A friend from work had a '77, a chamois-like color. Two things I mostly remember are how the bucket seats were very flat and thin, and the view from inside the car, out over the hood....those huge front fenders blocked most of the view.

My favorite C3 was the 1973 coupe- a smooth nose with the split bumper rear. Another car I'd love to upgrade with a hot crate motor.

fintail · March 2023

Not sure I have ever seen a silver 60 Ford, but I do recall seeing a lilac car, maybe a Starliner or Sunliner. A 60 Ford must have been barrels of fun on narrow British roads.

Thinking of malaise performance, attainable cars like a Z28 or Mustang GT were regaining some horsepower by 83-84, right? Corvette would eventually get there too. And there were fun things like the GLH and Escort GT coming out around then too. Seems to be a big difference between the cars of 1983 and the cars of 1985 anyway.

andre1969 said:
This morning I watched a bad movie, "Konga" that I had DVR'ed last night when it was showcased on Svengoolie. I was a bit surprised to see this 1960 Ford wagon in it...
A pretty common car at the time. But, this movie was made in England!

It looks silver with a white roof in this IMCDB screen capture, but on my tv the car looked like it was a really pale lavender/lilac, with a white roof.

fintail · March 2023

"The Star", the MBCA publication, has changed its appearance, and for the first issue of the new design, a fintail is on the cover (this is a W110 230, a short run lower line I6 car):

Went to the store this morning, and saw this disco throwback in the lot. A 20 footer, it looked decent from a distance, but the paint was tired (in looking at it, I would wager original paint). Probably a mildly optioned car, and on aggressive looking studded tires - someone is using this as a winter driver in 2023:

tjc78 · March 2023

Must be somewhat loved… the headlight covers stay down. Most people don’t fix that.

… edit: I assume they are vacuum operated like the Lincoln’s of the era.

imidazol97 · March 2023

Saw a Fiero that looked to be in prime condition.

andre1969 · March 2023

That T-bird looks like it might have had the door repaired or replaced at some point, as its paint looks to be in better shape. I wonder if the rest of the car is still good enough that a thorough rubbing/polishing compound might bring it back to life?

texases · March 2023

Regarding performance over time, here's a plot I did of 0-60 times. The worst seems to be in the mid-70s:

explorerx4 · March 2023

I wonder what that top dot was in 1968?

stickguy · March 2023

beetle?

Michaell · March 2023

stickguy said:
beetle?

That was my first thought, too. Or a Type 2.

texases · March 2023

Nope, a Fiat 850 with the 'Idromatic' transmission. A real rocket!

Here's the R&T test that gave the numbers:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-rt-road-test-1968-fiat-850-idromatic-bet-you-never-saw-one-of-these/

andre1969 · March 2023

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, maybe a VW Bug?

One thing I find interesting, is that while I tend to think of 1979-82 as a worse era than, say, '74-76, that plot doesn't bear that out. Of course, this plot is also affected by the cars that were tested in any given year. Actually, considering there aren't very many plots above the 15 second mark, that's probably an indication that they tended to test more higher performance cars, and not necessarily what that masses bought.

I have an old Motortrend, or something like that, from 1955, that tested a DeSoto Fireflite, a Mercury, but can't remember the model, and I believe an Olds Ninety Eight. The DeSoto was the dog of the bunch, with its relatively small 291 Hemi with 200 gross hp managing 0-60 in about 12.9 seconds. I seem to recall the Olds was in the 11 range ,and I think the Mercury squeezed by in like 9.8.

Fast forward to 1980, and I have a feeling that the majority of Mercurys, Mopars, and Oldsmobiles that were sold would have had trouble matching the 0-60 times of their 1955 counterparts. With Mercury, I imagine it would only be the few Zephyrs and Capris that got the turbo. At Mopar, it would probably be limited to the handful of Mirada/Cordobas that got the 185 hp 360, a police car, or some of those Mitsubishi-badged cars with the 2.6. At Olds, I guess the 442 which had a 350 that year, would have been the top performer. A regular Cutlass with a 305 might have been pretty decent. And maybe a Delta 88 with a 350?

texases · March 2023

Yeah, the trend is clearly headed downwards by 1980. Cats, fuel injection, and computers did a lot to improve performance. To double check I went to zeroto60times.com and downloaded their 1970s times. Same peak around 1973-1977:

andre1969 · March 2023

One wakeup call for me was an old Popular Science comparison test of 1976 midsized coupes Most of them were personal luxury, but for some reason they used a Pontiac LeMans, rather than a Grand Prix. Here's the data sheet:

A few things jumped out at me.
First, I never realized how much heavier the Charger and the Elite were, compared to the GM Colonades! Now, a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix might have leveled the playing field a bit there, but we're talking 500+ lb for the Charger S/E over the LeMans/Cutlass Supreme, and then another ~200 lb for the Elite!

Second, I'd always heard those Elites, Cougars, Torinos, and Montegos were horrible handlers. But, it does the lane change test as well as the LeMans and Charger, and is tied with the Charger for second best. Actually, it seems odd to me that the Cutlass does best in the lane change test, but worst in the slalom. I figured whatever car did best in one would also do best in the other? It says "Not listed" for the Cutlass's rear stabilizer bar though, so I wonder if that means it doesn't have one, and that could be the difference?

Third, the Elite doesn't seem that bad in relation to the others when it comes to acceleration, either, coming in second fastest, just a hair behind the Cutlass. Of course, it had a bigger engine with a lot more torque, but it also had an extra 717 lb to lug around. That weight is about what GM's big and midsized cars shed when they downsized! Overall though, these acceleration times are horrible, especially considering the Pontiac, Olds, and Ford look like they have optional ratios. I'm pretty sure my '76 Grand LeMans only has a 2.41:1. I just looked up the Charger, and that 2.71:1 axle is standard, but a 2.45:1 was optional. I can't imagine an Elite having that aggressive of an axle ratio as standard, either.

I guess one possibility for these horrible acceleration times is that it was Popular Science that tested them, whereas MT, C&D, R&T etc would have probably coaxed some faster times.

Still, before reading this article, if you were to tell me that my Mom's old 1980 Malibu 229 was probably about as fast, if not faster, than her '75 LeMans 350-2bbl, I never would have believed it. Heck, I have a feeling a 1986 T-bird with just the 232 or Monte Carlo with the 4.3 were probably in range of the best of these '76 cars. And Consumer Guide tested an '85 Regal with just the 110 hp 231, and got 0-60, in their words, "In about 13 seconds."

uplanderguy · March 2023

Seen on FB this morning. Could well be Lordstown, as they built both Firebirds and full-size Chevys then. Odd to see one on the line right behind the other.
May be an image of 3 people

andre1969 · March 2023

That is kinda wild, that they'd put a BOF and unitized car on the same assembly line. But even moreso, one being a Chevy and the other being a Pontiac.

uplanderguy · March 2023

I do remember seeing all the various J-cars coming down the line at Lordstown one after another, but that's a lot more understandable than the above pic!

imidazol97 · March 2023

I had a 1973 Torino. Poor handling. Poor acceleration with 351W engine. Poor. Poor. Poor.

IIRC, the Elite models and the Mercury Montego had strengthening in the front chassis that kept the suspension parts from flexing during handling. That kept the alignment correct and reduced the wallowing or lack of response feeling when steering. I assume that extra strength in the front came from additional metal and additional weight. Still my Torino was a heavy pig. Glad to get rid of it.

Went into a 1977 Cutlass Supreme Brougham, which was like a sports car with its 350 4-barrel and apparently lighter weight. But it didn't really ride like a lighter car; very smooth and balanced.

sda · March 2023

I think our 76 Cutlass Supreme wagon had the 2.73 rear axle, 350 4bbl. It ran well but wasn't overly quick. It wouldn't even chirp the tires from a stand still. It had tall gears. The 1-2 shift under full throttle was around 52 mph!

fintail · March 2023

andre1969 said:
That T-bird looks like it might have had the door repaired or replaced at some point, as its paint looks to be in better shape. I wonder if the rest of the car is still good enough that a thorough rubbing/polishing compound might bring it back to life?

I was thinking maybe someone tried to revive the paint, and just tested that panel before giving up? Either way, at least they kept the pinstripe for class!

fintail · March 2023

andre1969 said:
One wakeup call for me was an old Popular Science comparison test of 1976 midsized coupes Most of them were personal luxury, but for some reason they used a Pontiac LeMans, rather than a Grand Prix. Here's the data sheet:

A few things jumped out at me.
First, I never realized how much heavier the Charger and the Elite were, compared to the GM Colonades! Now, a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix might have leveled the playing field a bit there, but we're talking 500+ lb for the Charger S/E over the LeMans/Cutlass Supreme, and then another ~200 lb for the Elite!

Second, I'd always heard those Elites, Cougars, Torinos, and Montegos were horrible handlers. But, it does the lane change test as well as the LeMans and Charger, and is tied with the Charger for second best. Actually, it seems odd to me that the Cutlass does best in the lane change test, but worst in the slalom. I figured whatever car did best in one would also do best in the other? It says "Not listed" for the Cutlass's rear stabilizer bar though, so I wonder if that means it doesn't have one, and that could be the difference?

Third, the Elite doesn't seem that bad in relation to the others when it comes to acceleration, either, coming in second fastest, just a hair behind the Cutlass. Of course, it had a bigger engine with a lot more torque, but it also had an extra 717 lb to lug around. That weight is about what GM's big and midsized cars shed when they downsized! Overall though, these acceleration times are horrible, especially considering the Pontiac, Olds, and Ford look like they have optional ratios. I'm pretty sure my '76 Grand LeMans only has a 2.41:1. I just looked up the Charger, and that 2.71:1 axle is standard, but a 2.45:1 was optional. I can't imagine an Elite having that aggressive of an axle ratio as standard, either.

I guess one possibility for these horrible acceleration times is that it was Popular Science that tested them, whereas MT, C&D, R&T etc would have probably coaxed some faster times.

Still, before reading this article, if you were to tell me that my Mom's old 1980 Malibu 229 was probably about as fast, if not faster, than her '75 LeMans 350-2bbl, I never would have believed it. Heck, I have a feeling a 1986 T-bird with just the 232 or Monte Carlo with the 4.3 were probably in range of the best of these '76 cars. And Consumer Guide tested an '85 Regal with just the 110 hp 231, and got 0-60, in their words, "In about 13 seconds."

I generally like Fords, but the Elite seems cheesy to me - out of that list the Cutlass seems most appealing, and maybe the Dodge and Pontiac tied. Corny name, claimed T-Bird link that seemed sketchy to me even when I was younger, and a friend's dad had one (brown on brown of course) that by 1987 or so had decayed significantly, and my friend was very embarrassed by it.

uplanderguy · March 2023

The Elite always seemed cheesy to me too--even the name.

And they added extra trim with a trowel it seems....those big wheel opening moldings, the wide side moldings about the whole length of the car, all the taillight trim....plus those opera windows.

andre1969 · March 2023

One minor saving grace for the Elite, is that it looks to me like they used the Montego/Cougar sheetmetal, which was a bit smoother than the Torino's. Had they used the Torino's instead, it might have made for an even more outlandish car!

My biggest beef with the Elite is that front end. I'll admit I still fall for that old "4 headlights = more upscale car" trope, so in that respect, going from a quad headlight Torino to a single-headlight Elite just seems at odds. While GM's Colonades were single-headlight as well, at least for them, in '73-75, they all were, from the cheapest models on up to the top personal luxury coupes.

For some reason though, cars like the '70-72 Monte Carlo vs the '70 Chevelle, or the '71-72 Grand Prix vs the LeMans, don't bother me. However, in those cases, the cars seem better differentiated. At a quick glance, I don't think a Grand Prix or Monte Carlo from that generation even looks like a LeMans or Chevelle. Even with the single headlights, the cars still look more upscale.

In contrast, with Ford, it just looks like they just threw everything they could at a Torino and went with whatever stuck. Plus, I find the Torino of that era to be attractive...even with those big bumpers, so the Elite just seems like a step down to me, style-wise.

Another thing about the Elite, is that inside, it just doesn't seem like a step up from a Gran Torino Brougham to me. Perhaps if you got it with leather it might, but the way most of them were probably equipped, I just don't see the step up. In contrast, I do see a step up from a Malibu Classic to a Monte Carlo, even a basic one. Now going from a Grand LeMans to a Grand Prix, maybe not so much, but by that time Pontiac was getting desperate to do anything they could to improve LeMans sales in general, so they were trying to plush up the Grand LeMans. Still, even here, the Grand Prix had those unique door panels with the long armrest, that swooped upward toward the front. GM also went through a lot more effort to make the Grand Prix/Monte Carlo look different from the Chevelle/LeMans. Perhaps not quite as much in the Colonade era vs the previous generation, but still, certainly more effort than what Ford put into the Elite.

kyfdx · March 2023

When I was barely an adult, my friend had an Elite. I never got why you'd want one. But, he did have these awesome Jensen 6X9 coax speakers in the rear deck, with a big amp. Foghat!!

ab348 · March 2023

The mid-70s to early-80s were the final days of the Gene Bordinat era at Ford design, so all of the cars styled under his leadership had many of the same design cues. Lots of those wide bodyside moldings, vinyl appliques, the fat-hipped look around the rear wheels, and the big blocky dashboards. It reached its nadir with cars like the Granada, the Elite, and the T-bird up through the '82 disaster. Ford also had the worst design for the chrome battering-ram bumpers. He was apparently chummy with HFII who liked some of those design themes and supposedly spent a lot of afternoons over at the bar of the Dearborn Inn.

explorerx4 · March 2023

That Elite was a porker compared to those other cars but it did have a lot wider interior.

andre1969 · March 2023

explorerx4 said:
That Elite was a porker compared to those other cars but it did have a lot wider interior.

It does look that way, from those hip room measurements, but I think those can be deceiving. I always thought of hip room as the measurement between the armrests, so it should be less than shoulder room., which I think of as door panel to door panel. But, I think the reason the Elite looks so much roomier up front is because it has fairly small, bolt-on armrests that stop short of the seat, whereas the other three cars have more full-length armrests that go all the way back.

In the back seat, the Elite has these tiny little bolt-on armrests as well...

I have a feeling they're taking that measurement behind the armrest.

With the Mopar, they actually recess the armrest, so there's no intrusion...

On the Colonades, they had a pretty substantial, full-length armrest in back.

The down side is that the seat cushions were not full-width, and those big armrests did cut into hip room. It's subtle in this picture, but the Colonades also had a bit of contouring in the back seat, where the edges of the backrest curved forward toward the base.

From a few road tests I've read in the past, I seem to recall reviewers usually said the Colonades had the most comfortable seats for four passengers, but if you really needed 3-across seating, the Mopars were best.

Off the top of my head, I think GM's Colonades had 59.6" of shoulder room, up front at least. I don't remember what the Ford/Mopar cars were, but I think it was a bit less, but probably no more than an inch. In back, I think the GM and Fords were a bit narrower, but the Mopar might have been wider, again because of that recessed area.

andre1969 · March 2023

One thing I just thought of, looking at those three pics above, is that when it comes to ashtray placement, at least, GM actually put some thought into it. You can't see them in the pic, but the ashtrays are actually in the back of the long armrests on the doors.

On that Cordoba, the ashtray is nice and out of the way, which is good if you never use them. But, if you actually smoked back there, it just seems like it would be really awkward to reach them, tucked down like that.

On the Elite, I don't see them, but I have a feeling they put them in the seat back, and probably right about where your knee would go!

Another thoughtful touch on the GM Colonades, is that the door cut back far enough that it overlapped the seat cushion. The Cordoba looks like it might have a bit of overlap, but not as generous as GM. And I don't think the Torino/Elite had any overlap at all. I'd think that having more of the seat exposed when you open the door would aid in entry/exit. Of course, GM negated that a bit, by making the rear pillar swoop forward. Also, I don't know if the doors on a Colonade were actually longer than the doors on the other two cars, but a longer door will make entry/exit more difficult in tight spaces.

uplanderguy · March 2023

I see the De Soto sold for $35K. Not bad.

Purely a guess, but I bet the Colonnade coupe doors are longer and heavier than the others. Those doors are known to sag with age. My friend’s mom, a petite lady, had trouble closing the driver’s door of their ‘74 Monte Carlo.

uplanderguy · March 2023

Speaking of Colonnades, here's my favorite Chevelle Colonnade, if not Chevy Colonnade, or maybe even Colonnade...period. Bone-stock '73 Laguna. '73 is the only year a Chevy Colonnade with a good trim level could be had with the triangular quarter window. I always liked the Chevelle's wide rocker trim. I like the '73's round taillights.

I never liked the name "Laguna". I think it's the 'goon' sound in the middle of it. This '73 should've been called a Malibu Classic.

1973 Chevrolet Automobile (CC-1429586) for sale in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia

stickguy · March 2023

how about an S3 with swivel buckets!

uplanderguy · March 2023

Yeah, the '74 is probably the one to get, for looks, among the S-3's. I want to like the sloped-front ones, but I really don't. I sure never saw many of them at the hometown dealer I about lived at.

roadburner · March 2023

As I understand it, the S-3 got the high caster front suspension from the Monte Carlo.

ab348 · March 2023

I’ve been watching YouTube videos from a British guy named Jonny Smith who used to be on Fifth Gear among other things and is a devoted gearhead. He has his moments but seems a good guy. For over 20 years he has been having a ‘64 Impala converted into a low rider because he has long had a thing for them. To each his own. He previously had another ‘64 Impala 4-door HT years and years ago that he used as his daily driver for several years. The low rider is a LHD 2-door HT.

The point of all this is that in the video where he is showing where the low rider currently stands in terms of building it, he showed some pics of the 4-door he used to have. It was a RHD car so it was probably built by GM Canada for export to the UK. I was fascinated to see that it had a ‘63/‘64 Pontiac RHD dashboard with Chevy emblems and steering wheel. Why they did that, I don’t know. Something else I didn’t know but which sort of makes sense is that the gear lever was on the left side of the steering column for the RHD version.

His YT channel is called The Late Brake Show if you want to check it out.

fintail · March 2023

On the road today (nice warm day that will fool people into believing pleasant weather is here to stay): Mark III Continental, late 70s Volvo sedan, immaculate 1st gen Taurus.

uplanderguy · March 2023

My Dad always really liked the '71 and '72 Chevelle Malibu Sport Coupes, but he never bought one.

I liked them at the time, and this is a clean specimen, but bid to $20,050 now...for a six-cylinder?! And reserve not met?!

Odd that the build sheet doesn't show the vinyl top option. Also shows whitewalls and full wheel covers, which I would have expected. The Rally Wheels on the car now are correct options but were not on the car when built.

I'm apparently falling out-of-touch with some old-car pricing for sure.
Picture 1 of 23

https://www.ebay.com/itm/256015809961?hash=item3b9bbb3da9:g:EuAAAOSw0QZkF4hn&amdata=enc:AQAHAAAAwLL5wrs27trHXpYehfA3BH+B7td7RN7Q40dVMQ98d6WJACGZKO5maTcxMBAAU0q5QKjifrHMHNYnf7cfzw0wBtZBR8WyknPMd2L2lVOiIGs8TkYZ/JGd+CZUkSozyh+guYxKT6ALsHFQguOQQDCrMLT0f6wVL+BryAupDtOGb0a1jbke313/kCPowTZOjAiSKyu9Bc3QdaUZdWfQSXGLlQBE1l8OQCHpAC4lKZ7Qz/lG3Vp7LRoKynqUBcJu06ZOVA==|tkp:Bk9SR7Kk47fhYQ

andre1969 · March 2023

I wonder how much that '72 Chevelle cost when it was new? $20K adjusted backwards for inflation is around $2779. My auto encyclopedia shows a base '72 Chevelle Malibu hardtop coupe 6-cyl at $2833. But, throw on a bit for power steering/brakes, automatic transmission, and a few other odds and ends, and maybe that got it to around $3300 or so?

On one hand, I do admire it, for being mostly left alone, and not turned into some big-block clone. But, for $20K+, I'd expect that sucker to be pristine. This one looks good at a quick glance, but in the closeup I see a bit of rust in the quarter panels, around the trunk opening, ahead of the rear bumper, and in the trunk floor itself.

But, I'm out of touch, myself with prices.

uplanderguy · March 2023

The typical '72 Malibu Sport Coupe--with 350 2-barrel, THM, PS, PB, whitewalls, full wheel covers, vinyl top, was in the $3,600 range. I can actually remember my first grade teacher trading in her '64 Chevelle 300 two-door sedan on a blue with white painted top '72 Malibu Sport Coupe six-cylinder. The sticker was $3,300-odd, so your estimate is spot-on. (I can remember seeing the car at the dealer with a sold tag that said "Helen Wallace" on it, LOL).

On this particular car for sale, I'm reminded that most of these cars I remember seeing new were 350's so had a somewhat-large, slanted "350" block emblem directly next to the front-fender "Malibu" nameplate. Without that, the nameplate looks too-far-forward on the fender to me, although that is completely accurate for this car.

We've talked about this before, but I like the four headlights of the '70, and the interior had color-keyed steering wheel and column, unlike the '71 and '72, and the Malibu seating in '70 also had a longish chrome button on the seat back in the four seating positions, which looked nicer IMHO. But I like the '71-72 full wheel covers, round taillights, and wheel opening moldings (lacking on the '70) better.

I remember the first '72 Chevelle I saw out back of the dealer's. I couldn't believe the grille and corner parking lights were the only, very minor difference from the '71. The '72 grille was not as good as the '71 to my eyes.

GM went full-blown earth tones for '71 and '72, unfortunately. Chevy had no maroons or red interiors then. The beautiful "Black Cherry" exterior color in '70, and a metallic light turquoise whose name escapes me, in '70, were gone, sigh.

uplanderguy · March 2023

It's now $22,100 with five days to go and reserve not met. I'm beginning to smell shell bids, I dunno.

On a different subject, boy, the stupidity on Facebook car pages. Someone posted that after Studebaker shut their South Bend plant in Dec. '63, all Canadian production had GM engines. Not true for the '64 model year--the South Bend engine plant remained operational to provide Canada production with Studebaker-built engines. It's long-known, been written by Studebaker historians since day one, and a guy there is still saying "Nuh-uh. I don't care if it's been written about a million times--that's a fallacy of numbers". What a dolt. My former Canadian-built '64 was built in June '64 and the Studebaker engine number decodes to March '64.

Nothing wrong with not knowing, but is it that hard to write or say, "I'm not sure about this, or 'I think'"? Man, nothing worse than someone who is demonstrably wrong/false and just....can't...admit it.

On a Pontiac page, someone posted their '66 Bonneville wagon with bucket seats and console. Pontiac sales brochures, year in, year out, never, and I mean never, showed buckets being available in a Bonneville on anything but a coupe or convertible. That said, this guy did provide the dealer invoice for his car that showed bucket seats as an option that cost more than Turbo-Hydramatic did. That makes me think this was a one-off, COPO-kind of thing. Just for fun I searched the town the dealer was in and there was a GM plant there at the time. The owner says the bucket backs fold as if from a two-door--another thing that tells me that's not a regular-production thing but I believe was probably done as a favor to someone who knew someone. But, I give him credit for presenting the paperwork instead of just bloviating.

uplanderguy · March 2023

Someone else on the Pontiac page just the other day posted a pic of a '75 "Grand Am" with opera window and bench seat. "Special order" of course. No paperwork to show. My guess is a LeMans Sport with a Grand Am front clip done in the past 48 years.

andre1969 · March 2023

Uplander, could you post a link to that '75 "Grand Am"? I'm kinda curious to see it. Did they show interior pictures?

roadburner · March 2023

A bench seat in a Grand Am defeats the purpose of the car.

andre1969 · March 2023

roadburner said:
A bench seat in a Grand Am defeats the purpose of the car.

One rationale I've heard for having a bench seat in a muscle car, is that a single bench is slightly lighter in weight than two buckets. At least, I remember a Mopar enthusiast magazine making that excuse for the reason some of the budget musclecars, like the RoadRunner, had a bench standard. But, this was also like a '69 or so RoadRunner, which was more of a "real" musclecar. They also used weight as the excuse for no hubcaps, not even a dog dish, but then using chrome lugnuts to dress it up.

I can't believe the 15 or 20 (just a guess?) pounds or whatever you'd save with a bench versus buckets is going to make a difference to most drivers, although with actual race/drag strip type cars, where every fraction of a second makes a difference, they would shed every pound they could.

But, the Grand Am was a car that was supposed to combine luxury, sportiness, handling, and performance. I doubt too many people were taking them to the drag strip with aspirations of dominating the competition.

roadburner · March 2023

andre1969 said:

roadburner said:
A bench seat in a Grand Am defeats the purpose of the car.
One rationale I've heard for having a bench seat in a muscle car, is that a single bench is slightly lighter in weight than two buckets. At least, I remember a Mopar enthusiast magazine making that excuse for the reason some of the budget musclecars, like the RoadRunner, had a bench standard. But, this was also like a '69 or so RoadRunner, which was more of a "real" musclecar. They also used weight as the excuse for no hubcaps, not even a dog dish, but then using chrome lugnuts to dress it up.

I can't believe the 15 or 20 (just a guess?) pounds or whatever you'd save with a bench versus buckets is going to make a difference to most drivers, although with actual race/drag strip type cars, where every fraction of a second makes a difference, they would shed every pound they could.

But, the Grand Am was a car that was supposed to combine luxury, sportiness, handling, and performance. I doubt too many people were taking them to the drag strip with aspirations of dominating the competition.

I think I mentioned this before, but back in the early '90s I had a chance to buy a 1968 Road Runner; four speed, bench seat, and factory A/C. It was wearing Magnum 500 wheels but the OEM painted steelies and dog dish hubcaps in the trunk. I've never seen another Road Runner equipped the same way.

uplanderguy · March 2023

Here's the only pic posted.

IMHO only, GM is GM....a huge corporation with lines that are moving constantly. Are they going to have one bench seat made special for one customer? Some will say "the brochure doesn't show everything", but I reply with, "Why wouldn't it?".

Someone posted under my comment on that pic, "It wasn't unusual to see Grand Ams in '75 with opera windows". My reply was "I've been looking at these cars for 48 years and I've never seen one".

LeMans Sport Coupes, yes.

uplanderguy · March 2023

Well, guess what... I have to eat my words!

I looked at the '75 brochure and it does indeed show a bench seat available, and opera windows.

Guess I wasn't looking at Grand Am brochures by then! I know I read a lot about them in '73.

I'd want a Grand Am with the triangular windows! Those are not shown in the brochure.

I know I've never seen a Grand Am with bench seats OR an opera window.

I did post on the Pontiac site on FB that I was wrong.

andre1969 · March 2023

Too bad they don't show any interior pictures. While that wouldn't prove it is, or isn't, a Grand Am, it would at least show how far they went to make the interior look like a Grand Am.

For instance, the Grand Am would have the Grand Prix dashboard. So would the Grand LeMans, but the Sport Coupe and base LeMans still used the regular LeMans dash. The Grand Am had different door panels compared to the LeMans/Sport Coupe and Grand LeMans, but that's stuff that can be swapped. In '76, with the Grand Am gone, the Grand LeMans got the Grand Am door panels. At least, the upper, padded portion.

From what little I can see of the back seat, it looks like the Grand Am pattern to me. But again, a back seat isn't that hard to swap. I'd love to see the front seat of this sucker, to see what pattern it is.

uplanderguy · March 2023

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles