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

fintail · September 4

Yep I have seen that. I think some of those tests are on the MB test track, which I don't think exists in its entirety anymore. This is a second generation fintail which was new in 1965, the 230 replacing the 220 in the range. Fun seeing the car at its limits, I don't drive it quite like that most of the time, although I've had that "up on two wheels" feeling. Some of the street scenes are interesting too, with other fintails in the background.

explorerx4 · September 5

Saw this for sale when bringing back the loaner. Not a great pic.

benjaminh · September 5

I know a Ford Escort Wagon isn't a classic, but I actually admired these value-packed wagons back in the 1990s, which were based on a Mazda design. For a couple of years in the 1990s Ford was running a "one price" promotion, where you could get the 2-door Escort, a sedan, or a wagon all for the same price of something like $10,990 + destination. The wagon got the biggest discount from this deal, and these wagons had luggage racks, incredible visibility by today's standards, and I think they even had pretty good handling. Although these were still often seen on the road even 15 years ago, now they are almost all gone. But a month ago I saw one on a street in Seattle while taking a walk, and I thought it still looked pretty good. It's certainly not like anything you can find for sale new today. Looked up some of the figures on it and the mpg wasn't as impressive as I thought it would be. Even though my wife's 2024 Outback weighs a thousand pounds more, has awd, and is quite a bit larger, it gets slightly better mpg than an Escort wagon from c. 1998.

uplanderguy · September 5

I can see the appeal, and have. Low-buck and utilitarian! Decent styling and doesn't look like they just slapped a roof section on the decklid of a sedan. I always like a roof rack on a wagon, any wagon, even if I never used it.

Similar in concept, I wanted to gently nudge my wife into a new '90 Cavalier wagon, but she wanted no part of a wagon. Got her a new Corsica 4 cyl. 5-speed instead, about the same price. I'm thinking you could get the V6 in the Cavalier wagon by then, not that I would've, but nice to think. They were built 34 miles down the road from me, no bad in that. And, there were four dealers within ten miles of me in any direction.

Our next new car after that was a '93 Caprice Classic with F41 suspension (we had the '90 Corsica for 108K miles and 6 1/2 years). We were 35 and 28 and no doubt about the youngest Caprice buyers out there, LOL. They were only slightly more than a Lumina and had airbag and ABS standard. We drove it for six years and almost 100K miles and sold it to the one of the companies that constantly sent me postcards about buying the car. They shipped them to Saudi.

uplanderguy · September 5

That screaming yellow is horrible IMHO, but I've always loved second-gen Corvairs. I like them in the same way I like Cosworth Vegas--not raw power like other cars, but somewhat sophisticated engineering for a compact domestic.

Second-gen Corvair is the only Chevy I'd have considered for a hobby car.

But...getting them worked on I believe would have been harder than getting a Studebaker worked on.

Here is a 21-mile '69 Corvair Monza Sport Coupe sold at Mecum auction a couple years back. What a sweetheart to my eyes, although I'd prefer the 140 hp, 4-bbl. engine.

https://www.mecum.com/lots/550170/1969-chevrolet-corvair-monza/

tjc78 · September 5

The 90s personified in vehicle form.

https://www.facebook.com/share/16akcqEo49/?mibextid=wwXIfr

fintail · September 5

I remember the "one price" Escort ads too. Wagon was definitely the value of the bunch, and could be a durable car if given normal maintenance.

The color combo of the 90s in vehicle form couldn't be more appropriate.

andre1969 · September 5

I can definitely see the charm of those old Escort wagons...both the Ford versions and the later Mazda-based versions. I'm sure a nice one would probably have some sentimental value, to someone.

Today, out running errands, I spotted a couple of relics. First, an '87+ Celebrity wagon. Then about 2 minutes later, an '82-87 El Camino, light gray (or possibly faded silver) with a dark gray hood/roof/upper, and dark gray lower body contrast.

I also saw something else kind of old, on the way home, but now I forget what it was! Oh, I also saw a PT Cruiser. Haven't seen one of those, outside of the Carlisle PA Mopar show, in ages.

I also had a brief moment of panic coming out of the liquor store. Couldn't find my truck anywhere! Then I remembered, I drove the Charger. D'oh!

stickguy · September 5

A lot of
Interesting stuff around
Manchester. Much of which I forgot. But do remember a very early gen K car convertible. Driving around top down.

fintail · September 5

I saw a PT Cruiser convertible yesterday, top down in the smoky hot haze, older woman driving it. Plenty of PTs still around here, daily sight as rust takes a long time here.

tjc78 · September 5

I’d take the K-car vert over the PT anytime!

roadburner · September 5

tjc78 said:
I’d take the K-car vert over the PT anytime!

That's like saying you'd take contracting cholera over a case of ebola.

andre1969 · September 5

I actually wouldn't mind a K-car convertible. With those aero LeBarons though, I prefer the earlier model with the hidden headlights. Heck, I could probably even tolerate one of the older K-cars, as well. I'd probably go for a Dodge 400/600, just to be different, as most of them were sold as LeBarons.

Although, I say that from a moment of nostalgia. Actually having to deal with one after all these years, it might be more a case of "You think you hate it now, wait til you drive it!" How does dysentery compare to cholera? 🤣

fintail · September 5

On the K convertible note, Ryan Reynolds and Colin Hanks pulled up to the Toronto International Film Festival in a Gran Detroit Farm and Country Turbo for a John Candy tribute:

I have that "what would it feel like now" when I have the thought that if I found a pristine Tempo absolutely identical to the one we had, would I buy it? What would I think about the driving experience?

andre1969 · September 5

I only got to drive my stepdad's '84 Tempo once, and I HATED it! It was horribly slow, and I seem to recall that it handled "bigger" than it really was, if that makes sense.

It was fairly reliable, though. They traded it in 1991 for a new Stanza. It had about 160,000 miles on it, and they got a whopping $600 in trade. As much as I hated that car though, I do remember thinking damn, I wish they had offered it to me for $600, as it might have been a decent cheap car to just knock around in. But, I was only 21 at the time, so having insurance on two cars would have been kind of expensive. My daily driver back then was a '69 Dart GT hardtop with the 225 slant six. I did have the DeSoto back then, but Grandmom let me put it in her name so the insurance would be cheaper.

I think my insurance on that Dart was around $800 in 1991. I remember it dropped to $703 in 1992. It would have dropped to around $650 for 1993, but the insurance company pulled my driving record and I had a few points by then, so it shot up to around $1,000. I was still in college, so that was kind of a lot of money.

stickguy · September 5

only tempo I drove was a rental in Orlando. It was so bad, we got just outside of the garage, it was scaring me, so I turned around and made them give me something different. Might have smelled like smoke too.

explorerx4 · September 5

One time I got a Tempo as a loaner for a few days.
It was bright red so I named it The Atomic Tomato.
Decided to prank my kids. It was warm out but I didn't put on the AC.
They complained it was warm in the car.
I told them to put the windows down.
They had never been in a car with crank windows so they couldn't figure out how to lower them.
A mean dad moment but only for a moment.

fintail · September 5

Ours, an 85, made it to around 190K when my mom let it go after the kids had their own cars and had used it a bit. It took some abuse, and had some quirks, but I think we got one of the good ones, as I know others didn't last as long.

I drove the Tempo mostly as a teen so my standards were pretty low, but thinking back it didn't seem any faster or handled any better than the fintail, and certainly the Taurus that replaced it as my mom's DD performed a couple light years ahead. The car was sold for $600 I think, in 1999, and I saw it in town a few years later looking decent enough. I seriously doubt it is still around. I also doubt the imagined pristine twin car exists, but it would be something to see. I suspect my mom and siblings might get 5 seconds of nostalgia out of it, I would be the one reacting more as I think I liked it the most in the family when it was a newer car (good colors, looked modern).

andre1969 · September 6

I remember having one of those "You can't go home again" moments, when my Mom gave me (well, sold me at a good price), Granddad's '85 C-10 Silverado. I remember sitting in it, and thinking how cramped it was, legroom-wise. It was sort of like an old 40's car, high seat, but not much fore/aft. And the steering wheel was close, by modern standards. Yet, when I was a teen and in my early 20's, I used to drive this truck all the time, and never had any complaints.

I also remember asking Mom, "why did you have to get the steering wheel replaced?" And she said, what are you talking about. I said, "Well, it's BLACK, for one thing!" The truck's interior was a combination of red and burgundy, so it really clashed. But, that's how it always was. I just didn't pay attention to it back in the day, because I saw it all the time.

And then, driving it. I was thinking, what's the 0-60 time on this thing?! Like 20 seconds? But, I took a stopwatch to it one day, and it managed about 12. About what it did when it was new. It's just that when it was newer, it felt faster because it was one of the faster vehicles I was used to. But by 2002, I had gotten used to faster cars.

Funny thing though, that truck hadn't really been out of my life for THAT long. I used it when I moved into my condo in 1994. Although oddly, when I had to move back in with my grandmom in 1996, in the wake of a bad, and expensive divorce, I'm drawing a blank on what truck I used, to move back. It might have been the '85, but it could also have been my uncle's '96 GMC. Grandmom gave the truck to my Mom, sometime around 1995-96, so there's a little overlap there. So my Mom only had that truck for maybe 7 years. Weird, that I'd sort of forget about it, over that time. And I was only 32, when she sold it to me.

I did get reaccustomed to it over time, though, once I got it back. Even though legroom was tight, it was fairly comfortable. The seat was high enough that I still had some thigh support. And even though the back cushion was flat and thin, it provided some back support. I remember my 2000 Intrepid had no lower back support at all, and I would go into sort of a slumping position.

I'll admit, sometimes I miss my Grandmom's '85 LeSabre. And I'll see one every once in awhile, in a Facebook car group, or for sale or whatever. I'll get a bit nostalgic. But, not enough to really want one again. Plus, I figure if I really want to get nostalgic for that general era, I can just go sit in my '79 5th Ave!

uplanderguy · September 6

I can't say I ever remember driving a Tempo or Topaz, but as often as I was renting cars then, I'm sure I had to have.

The first ones, and all the coupes, looked chubby to me and seemed to have smallish wheel openings. When they redid the sedan styling, it was an improvement. The worst was the original Topaz four-door, without the extra quarter window.

At some point, around here, dealers were advertising the Tempo coupes at a surprisingly low price--enough that a lifelong GM friend of mine considered buying one for a second car, but didn't.

roadburner · September 6

My mother had a Topaz. Slow as molasses. Its worst flaw was the automatic; it was programmed to shift into top gear at very low speeds- causing the engine to lug. Miserable. At least it would cruise at 70-75.

andre1969 · September 6

I just opened up my 1985 Consumer Guide for a nostalgia trip. Their '85 Topaz did 0-60 in a blazing 15.9 seconds! For overall score, they gave it a 61, out of a possible 100. However, it would have been impossible to score a 100 on their tests. They had 20 different categories, each with a rating of 1-5. However, no car that got a "5" for acceleration was going to get a "5" for fuel economy. Not too many would get a "5" for handling, yet also get a "5" for ride comfort.

I think the highest rated car in that issue was a tie, at 78, for the Camry and Cressida. The Volvo GL came in close, at 77. Most cars scored in the high 60s/low 70's range, so there really weren't too many extreme outliers. Consumer Guide did not take long term reliability into account though, like Consumer Reports does. The closest they came to the subject was a broad category called "workmanship" where they broke it down into "Body", "Paint/Exterior", and "Interior." So that was 15% of the score right there.

One oddity is that they give the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis a "4" for interior room. They also give the Camry a "4". But a GM B-body (even the LeSabre coupe they tested) were rated "5". Their biggest complaint for the Panthers was that there was a noticeable lack of legroom for the front seat of the passenger, because the floorboard was closer than on the driver's side. It's been ages since I've been in one, but I don't remember that. I know on GM cars it was common to have that slight hump on the passenger side, to account for the catalytic converter...I wonder if that's what they're talking about? That's not going to affect legroom though, I wouldn't think. I guess I'm picturing something more along the lines of my old intrepid, where the part of the floor that angled upward, to the cowl, was too close for comfort. It was about level with the "dead pedal" on the driver's side, which was at an uncomfortable position for me.

I guess I could sort of see the rationale for giving the Camry and a Panther the same rating for interior room, though. I remember those Camrys as actually being a very comfy 4-seater. A bit too narrow for 3-across seating, but good head and legroom. But with the Panthers, I remember the transmission and driveshaft humps being kind of large. The center position is rarely comfortable, especially up front on a RWD car, but it seemed a bit extra bad with the Panthers. And in back, it also looks like the outer edges of the seats curve in a lot because of wheel well intrusion, a common occurrence with downsizing. So for 2 in back it's fine, but with 3 across, the outer passengers really twist and tip inward. GM's B-bodies did this too, but I don't think the effect was quite as bad.

Oddly, as space-inefficient as they are, GM's Colonades actually did this same trick with the back seat. However, rather than using it to increase interior room, I think they just did it so they could move the body back, and make the hoods even longer!

Michaell · September 6

When I met my (now) wife in 1996, she was driving a 10 year old Tempo. Gold with tan interior, GL trim, but a 5-speed stick. It was pushing 90K miles at the time, and was on its last legs. Not long after we got together, she took a new job that required a 20 mile commute, one way.

As a diehard Ford girl, she leased herself a '97 Escort LX, also with a stick shift. Similar color inside and out, and a huge upgrade over the Tempo. Got a couple of good years of use out of it before she decided she wanted to hop onto the SUV craze, and the Escort was traded in for an Expedition.

tjc78 · September 6

I don’t know what they are talking about with the Panthers. The front seat foot well on both sides is huge and there was always plenty of leg room. If anything rear seats were a bit shy with the front seats all the way back.

kyfdx · September 6

Tempo was the favorite car for every Dad to recommend to his early '20s daughter in the '80s.

Michaell · September 6

kyfdx said:
Tempo was the favorite car for every Dad to recommend to his early '20s daughter in the '80s.

And it was the car bought for the Ione Skye character in the movie "Say Anything" - and, a stick, to boot!

fintail · September 6

15.9 0-60, fintail can beat that, no wonder the old car felt fine when I first test drove it (I clearly remember driving up in the Tempo to drive the fintail for the first time - the owner let 18 year old me take it out by myself). IIRC the first gen Tempo anyway is on 13" wheels which might explain the small wheel openings, and I recall they are 4 lug which always caught my eye, along with the polycast wheel material which appeared to be semi-porous. Maybe it seemed faster back in the day as I would shift manually to wring out some speed, and I won't say neutral drops didn't happen. I wouldn't risk that today. For as common as they were, the first gen cars are almost extinct today.

If one was car shopping in 1985, a Cressida would have been an excellent choice, I can imagine that scored well.

ab348 · September 6

When I saw the first Tempos and Topazes, I had a severe allergic reaction to the design. I know they were trying to emulate the original Taurus, but they really dropped the ball. That design language just didn’t translate well to a shorter, smaller car for some of the reasons already mentioned. I remember seeing one and being totally unimpressed with the plastic wheel covers/wheels and how tiny they were, but the entire car just looked awful to my eye. Add to that the wheezy 4-banger and 3-speed automatic and it was a dismal offering. I’m surprised they sold as many as they did.

andre1969 · September 6

tjc78 said:
I don’t know what they are talking about with the Panthers. The front seat foot well on both sides is huge and there was always plenty of leg room. If anything rear seats were a bit shy with the front seats all the way back.

Yeah, I was really wondering that, too. Most of my experience now is with the more recent Aero Panthers. My memory of the older '79-91 is fading. But I seem to remember they actually felt bigger inside than the '92+ It seemed like the front seats were thicker, and sat up higher. Definitely no complaints from me! And even though the '92+ didn't seem quite as comfortable to me, it was still plenty good enough.

In contrast, I can still remember one of my grandmother's old lady friends, who had a '75 Monte Carlo, complain that she didn't like the passenger seat in Grandmom's LeSabre, that it was way too low for her. I always thought, who cares if it's too low, as long as you have enough room. But, I guess the older you get, it's harder to get in and out of a lower seat. Oddly, in later years, I can also remember Grandmom griping about the seats in her old lady friends' newer Panther cars! I forget what the actual complaint was, just that it "wasn't comfortable." I used to think it was amusing though, that an old lady would find a car that remained popular, mainly because of the Red Hat Society, to be "uncomfortable!"

sda · September 6

I think around 87 Ford came out with a Sport model Tempo. It had better wheels, trim, nice bucket seats, leather wrapped wheel, full instrumentation. It was only available as a 2 door. The 2 door styling looked awkward to me. Otherwise the Sport was fairly attractive and priced well. I don’t remember if there was a bump in power, or any suspension upgrades, but a 5 speed was available.

explorerx4 · September 6

The Tempo /Topaz shared the front radiator support with the Escort which lead to narrow headlight placement.
The Sport model got the Vulcan 3.0 V6 which was a pretty good power bump over the 4 cyl.

benjaminh · September 6

andre1969 said:
I just opened up my 1985 Consumer Guide for a nostalgia trip. Their '85 Topaz did 0-60 in a blazing 15.9 seconds!...

I used to get those Consumer Guide car books too for several years lol. But after a few years I usually let the old ones go. Now I wish I had them to look through, but much of the information is online.

We've talked about this before, but 1985 was about as small as things got in terms of the downsizing trend that started with the the gas crisis and the passage of CAFE a decade earlier. The 1985 Camry was somehow considered a midsize car then, but its dimensions were rather small...

1985 Camry length 173.2 inches, width 66.5, height 54.9, weight c. 2400 lbs

2025 Camry length 193.5 inches, width 72.4, height 56.9, weight c. 3600 lbs

And yet with what probably was something like a hundred billion dollars of R & D by Toyota over the last forty years the current Camry gets twice the mpg of its smaller ancestor from 1985.

I wonder what the tire size was for a 1985 Camry...

tjc78 · September 6

@explorerx4 said:
The Tempo /Topaz shared the front radiator support with the Escort which lead to narrow headlight placement.
The Sport model got the Vulcan 3.0 V6 which was a pretty good power bump over the 4 cyl.

Vulcans run forever… the problem was the transmission.

andre1969 · September 6

The '85 Camry that Consumer Guide tested had 185/70/R14 tires. They also mentioned that the lavishly equipped car was $14,058. I don't know if it had a sunroof or not though...that would've added a considerable amount to the price tag back then. Anyway, adjusting for inflation, that would be around $42,206 today. I imagine that would get you an awful lot of Camry nowadays, though!

A few other details: 0-60 took 13.5 seconds, with the 4-cyl/4-speed automatic. It had a 2.0/122 CID engine that put out 122 hp. The axle ratio was a 3.40:1. The EPA city estimate was 27/32, 29 average mpg, but they got 22.8 in their testing, which would admittedly be a bit more spirited than an EPA test.

laurasdada · September 6

Y2K-ish!
In our guest lot, a Toyota MR2 Spyder (Boxster clone)! British Racing Green, tan (p)leather interior (Connoly hides?!) and 5 on the floor. Excellent shape. I was tempted to throw it in my pocket and run away with it!

stickguy · September 6

outside a local repair shop, not one, but 2, red early-80s Celicas (the wedge version, my favorite)

Michaell · September 6

@andre1969 said:
The '85 Camry that Consumer Guide tested had 185/70/R14 tires. They also mentioned that the lavishly equipped car was $14,058. I don't know if it had a sunroof or not though...that would've added a considerable amount to the price tag back then. Anyway, adjusting for inflation, that would be around $42,206 today. I imagine that would get you an awful lot of Camry nowadays, though!

A few other details: 0-60 took 13.5 seconds, with the 4-cyl/4-speed automatic. It had a 2.0/122 CID engine that put out 122 hp. The axle ratio was a 3.40:1. The EPA city estimate was 27/32, 29 average mpg, but they got 22.8 in their testing, which would admittedly be a bit more spirited than an EPA test.

A fully loaded 2025 Camry XSE stickers for about $41k, so pretty close.

stickguy · September 6

and at a house at the end of my driveway, a very clean looking Toyota Previa. Time warp machine.

stickguy · September 6

Michaell said:

@andre1969 said:

The '85 Camry that Consumer Guide tested had 185/70/R14 tires. They also mentioned that the lavishly equipped car was $14,058. I don't know if it had a sunroof or not though...that would've added a considerable amount to the price tag back then. Anyway, adjusting for inflation, that would be around $42,206 today. I imagine that would get you an awful lot of Camry nowadays, though!

A few other details: 0-60 took 13.5 seconds, with the 4-cyl/4-speed automatic. It had a 2.0/122 CID engine that put out 122 hp. The axle ratio was a 3.40:1. The EPA city estimate was 27/32, 29 average mpg, but they got 22.8 in their testing, which would admittedly be a bit more spirited than an EPA test.

A fully loaded 2025 Camry XSE stickers for about $41k, so pretty close.

a lot of people tend to complain that cars used to be so much more affordable, but really when factoring in inflation and equipment/performance you get way more bang for your inflated buck! Maybe not pickups, those went up more probably.

fintail · September 6

The OG Tempo was stylistically related to the Euro Ford Sierra, and was probably seen as a way along with the aero Bird to warm people up to the Taurus (which it predated by 2 model years). I remember the toy car maker Majorette sold their Sierra model in North America as a Tempo. Taurus had more comfortable proportions - something always seemed a little weird to me about the Tempo coupe. I am sure this is a repeat story, I recall looking at a loaded Tempo or Topaz coupe around 1985 with my dad, him commenting that it was just like a "smaller T-Bird". I don't know if he was trying to convince me or himself of that, but my mom ended up in a Tempo (sedan), so there we go. I recall that coupe had a checked pattern velour which I think I have seen in a Topaz. Tempo gained FI for the 1985 model year (which ours was), and I am sure this makes a big difference in drivability. I don't recall our car having any issues regarding cold starts etc, but it did go through 2 or 3 ECU type units at maybe 130K miles - the car would hiccup and lurch at very specific speeds, like 28 mph or 36 mph, but be fine otherwise. Eventually the problem was solved, I don't recall the part being terribly expensive.

There was a "sport" Tempo in the 85-87 model years, differentiated by its 7 spoke wheels similar to a period Escort GT and blackout trim replacing chrome, this carried on for the 1988 update. These may be different from a special sport model coupe. These weren't insanely rare in their day, I remember seeing them around, but are unicorns now. There was also an AWD Tempo/Topaz offered from maybe 87-91, these are also very rare now. I think around 1992 the vulcan V6 became available, and I think could even be ordered with a 5-speed - I bet the torque steer was something. I recall seeing several V6 apparent rental/fleet returns at a used car lot when not too old, they are rare today as well. I still see an updated Tempo/Topaz around now and then but the early cars are hen's teeth.

benjaminh · September 6

andre1969 said:
The '85 Camry that Consumer Guide tested had 185/70/R14 tires. They also mentioned that the lavishly equipped car was $14,058. I don't know if it had a sunroof or not though...that would've added a considerable amount to the price tag back then. Anyway, adjusting for inflation, that would be around $42,206 today. I imagine that would get you an awful lot of Camry nowadays, though!

A few other details: 0-60 took 13.5 seconds, with the 4-cyl/4-speed automatic. It had a 2.0/122 CID engine that put out 122 hp. The axle ratio was a 3.40:1. The EPA city estimate was 27/32, 29 average mpg, but they got 22.8 in their testing, which would admittedly be a bit more spirited than an EPA test.

The tire size for a 2025 Toyota Camry LE is P205/65R16.

Wow, by today's standards the 1985 Camry was slow...although faster than the base Ford Tempo by two full seconds.

The 2025 Camry has a 0-60 time of about 7 seconds. Price with destination for the LE is $30k, and so $12k less than a Camry from forty years ago. For 2026 the Camry's price has only gone up by $300. It's one of the greatest deals in cars at the moment from my pov.

stickguy · September 6

A Camry (like most imports) back then was way quicker if you were smart and got it with a 5 speed manual. A 3 speed slushbox killed a car like that.

ab348 · September 6

fintail said:
The OG Tempo was stylistically related to the Euro Ford Sierra, and was probably seen as a way along with the aero Bird to warm people up to the Taurus (which it predated by 2 model years).

My mistake! I forgot it preceded the Taurus. I wonder how well it sold in ‘84 and ‘85?

fintail · September 6

ab348 said:

fintail said:
The OG Tempo was stylistically related to the Euro Ford Sierra, and was probably seen as a way along with the aero Bird to warm people up to the Taurus (which it predated by 2 model years).
My mistake! I forgot it preceded the Taurus. I wonder how well it sold in ‘84 and ‘85?

Per wiki over 700K units for 84-85 model years combined. Wiki claims 531K Tempo-Topaz combined for 84. Pretty wild.

andre1969 · September 7

ab348 said:

fintail said:
The OG Tempo was stylistically related to the Euro Ford Sierra, and was probably seen as a way along with the aero Bird to warm people up to the Taurus (which it predated by 2 model years).
My mistake! I forgot it preceded the Taurus. I wonder how well it sold in ‘84 and ‘85?

I can't remember the exact order, but Ford had two of the top ten selling cars in the US in 1985. Those were the Escort and the Tempo. GM had seven. In no particular order, Cavalier, Celebrity Caprice(included Impala), Cutlass Ciera, Cutlass Supreme (included the sedan and personal luxury coupe), Delta 88, and Century. The one import was a Nissan, but I'm forgetting now if it was a Stanza or a Sentra.

GM really was a powerhouse back then, although that was about to change quickly. To be fair though, I think the Japanese imports were still sticking to their voluntary quota restraint or whatever, so their cars would have sold better, if they wanted them to.

andre1969 · September 7

stickguy said:
A Camry (like most imports) back then was way quicker if you were smart and got it with a 5 speed manual. A 3 speed slushbox killed a car like that.

I don't know if it would have made much of a difference, but this Camry had a 4-speed automatic. If they just tacked on an overdrive gear to an existing transmission, like GM did with their THM200-R4, it wouldn't have been any quicker than the 3-speed. But, if, in addition to giving it overdrive, they also made 1st and 2nd a bit quicker (I think 3rd was still usually 1.00:1), it would have been improved. Although still not as quick as a 5-speed.

This Consumer Guide also tested two Accords. One was an LX with a 4-speed automatic, and the other was an SE-i or something like that, with a 5-speed. It also had more horsepower...102 I think, vs around 88 for the LX. The SE-i was, naturally faster, but the LX still did pretty well...10.2 seconds vs 11.3.

They also tested a Maxima with a 5-speed. Surprisingly, it was only good for 0-60 in 10.1 seconds. The Stanza they tested had a 5-speed as well. They didn't list a 0-60 time but did give it a rating of "4.", which I would estimate would be somewhere between 9.5-12.5 seconds. This book doesn't list their exact thresholds. But on the quick end, a Lancer or LeBaron GTS with the 2.2 turbo did 9.4 and got a "5", while the Cressida managed 9.6, and got a "4". And on the slower end, a few cars got in the low 12's and still got a "4". But anything 13 and up was a "3".

I think the quickest car in this issue was an IROC-Z with an automatic. They didn't list a 0-60 time, but in the text said "About seven seconds".

andre1969 · September 7

ab348 said:

fintail said:
The OG Tempo was stylistically related to the Euro Ford Sierra, and was probably seen as a way along with the aero Bird to warm people up to the Taurus (which it predated by 2 model years).
My mistake! I forgot it preceded the Taurus. I wonder how well it sold in ‘84 and ‘85?

I remember at a teen, seeing the teaser photos of the new Taurus. I didn't like it at all, because it made me think too much of my stepdad's Tempo!

fintail · September 7

I still remember seeing my first Taurus wagon, no doubt in 86. The wagons always seemed much more futuristic to me, the rear view looked like nothing else on the road, when they were new having a spaceship quality. The sedans became normal to me faster, maybe via the Tempo and my uncle having an early sedan. Probably via having read about it, I remarked about the wagon something like "that's the future" - and 40 years later it has aged amazingly well.

I recall my uncle's sedan also seemed somewhat special back in the day - the glow of the clock was unique, and it had a low cut cloth upholstery that seemed unlike anything I was used to. It was a basic L (V6, manual windows, no AC IIRC but that was still not uncommon as he lived in western WA) with the aero disc wheelcovers which also seemed modern to my eyes.

andre1969 · September 7

Once the Taurus was actually out on the streets, and I could get a good reference on its size, I did like them better. At the time though, I preferred GM's concept of aerodynamics...more angular/wedgy, so I still wasn't a huge fan. But, when my grandparents bought an '89 LX, instead of "you think you hate it now, wait til you drive it!" it was more like "this is a damn fine automobile!"

It actually got wrecked, not too long after they got it. Grandmom was driving Granddad to the foot doctor, and a woman in a '74 Catalina came over the line, sideswiping them, and pushing them into a telephone pole. Not dead-on into the telephone pole, but more of a slight offset. As a result, the whole passenger side of the car was taken out, but that's still better than hitting the pole dead-on!

Anyway, between the Catalina on one side, and the telephone pole on the other, the only un-touched sheetmetal on that car was the roof and the trunk lid, from what I was told. I never did get to see the car, but they had an '89 Century as a loaner, for about a month. I rode in that Century a few times, and remember thinking man, this is like going back to the dark ages!

sda · September 7

My parents had a 87 Taurus LX with sunroof, cornering lights, upgraded stereo. Later when dad’s 85 Grand Marquis was having issues, he traded for a new 95 Cutlass Ciera SL II. The Taurus drove much better than the Ciera. The Ciera was comfortable and quiet but handling was not its forte. The Taurus felt nimble in comparison and had a well controlled supple ride. Repair wise, they were both good cars.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy