02Pilot said:In reply to Opti :
I think there's a difference between "not up to modern standards" and "awful".
GM's 1977 A- and B-bodies and Ford's 1979 Panther platform are where they turned the corner from "awful" to "not up to modern standards." You give up maybe 10% of that cushy boulevard ride, but they turn and brake well enough to be driven in modern traffic and they got double-digit MPG, even around town.
I'm tempted by either a '77-'79 Coupe de Ville or an '80-'83 Mark VI coupe.
bluebarchetta said:02Pilot said:In reply to Opti :
I think there's a difference between "not up to modern standards" and "awful".
GM's 1977 A- and B-bodies and Ford's 1979 Panther platform are where they turned the corner from "awful" to "not up to modern standards." You give up maybe 10% of that cushy boulevard ride, but they turn and brake well enough to be driven in modern traffic and they got double-digit MPG, even around town.
I'm tempted by either a '77-'79 Coupe de Ville or an '80-'83 Mark VI coupe.
I'd go earlier. 73 Monte Carlo, Cutlass, etc are pretty darn modern, and the brakes and steering really didn't change until the late 80's.
amg_rx7 (Forum Supporter) said:They drive terribly.
They corner terribly. I love how they drive
David S. Wallens said:We owned this for a while: 1975 Pontiac Catalina Safari.
We were the second owners.
My advice: Enjoy it as is. Don't try to make it something that it's not. It's a cruiser, not a race car.
Ours offered surprisingly good steering. Ride was soft but composed once I put Konis on it. Fresh tires helped, too. Brakes never caused any puckering. I got it aligned, too.
It always started and idled smoothly. We replaced the radiator and went through the cooling system. No mechanical issues. Seats never got uncomfortable.
Ours had a TH400. It was happy at 55-65 but did get a bit wound-out at 75. Plus economy suffered.
Our a/c didn't work, and I never bothered to get it fix. With windows open, it was cool and comfortable.
It parks easier than you'd expect. Terrific outward visibility. You could daily it--as our parents did.
It got people talking everything, from local supermarket to Porsche club events.
I wanted something with three-point belts, hence why I didn't go much earlier. Plus I always dug these lines.
But, yeah, just enjoy it. Don't swap engines or cut it up. Just go cruise.
I had a clamshell, too! 1973 Impala. 454, A/C, and those were the only options. I turned the 454 into a 468 for towing and drove it cross country (L.A. to Ontario) twice. I was also second owner. Previous owner bought it when his boys went to college, then they parked it in the barn. I bought it with cracked bias-ply nylon tires and 58k on the clock. Seats and carpet had been covered with clear vinyl like the old folks liked to do. Total time capsule.
dannyp84 said:In reply to wspohn :
Any photos of using one to tow?
No photos, but I used to use my 73 Impala to tow 10k short distances, and 5k pretty regularly.
wspohn said:02Pilot said:Awful steering, awful suspension for anything but straight highways, a lot less power than you'd think, awful gas mileage...the list goes on. If you plan to swap in a more powerful engine, or build the stock one to non-malaise specs, and do a bunch of suspension work, then at least it would be decent to drive. And some do have good lines.
Exactly - what is there to love about that?
I've owned a few as tow cars but there is just no joy in ownership - once the minivans came on the scene they were the tow car of preference unless you were racing something big and heavy.
I have no issue with fuel mileage as long as you are enjoying the drive. I could get one of my V12 cars down to almost single digit mpg but I enjoyed doing it. And I actually did run one big V8 car around our local road racing track. Fun? Not so much - inadequate roll stiffness, a 455 HO engine and under specified brakes. I understand that there are people for whom the sound of a big V8 is quasi-orgasmic, but I need the all over performance package to enjoy a car. Those barges you speak of are the antithesis of driving enjoyment.
I'm old enough to have read a memorable car articles by Tom McCahill in Mechanix Illustrated and recall him writing that a particular car cornered like a charging rhinoceros on a wet clay bank. Fun?
Keep in mind that some of them never changed much over their entire production run. That 65 Bonneville that you say drives so terribly was the same basic frame and achitecture as the 96 Impala SS that won CAM class last year at the challenge.
BOP B- C- and D-bodies remained relatively unchanged in the chassis department from 1964-1997. Chevy homologized in the early 70s on their B-bodies. Many of the cast-off parts from my suspension rebuild in the 96 Impala SS made it into either my 66 Bonneville or my 73 Impala wagon.
The rest of GM's parts bin was used to make A, X, G, S, F, and other intermediate cars, so the wicked-handling 96 Camaro some might drool over shares significant DNA with the floppy 68 Nova, an S10 pickup, or a 73 LeMans.
A similar thing could be said for Ford. The same Fox body Mustang that dominates the track shares a truckload of chassis specs as a Mercury Mark VII, a Grenada, and the Continental.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:The rest of GM's parts bin was used to make A, X, G, S, F, and other intermediate cars, so the wicked-handling 96 Camaro some might drool over shares significant DNA with the floppy 68 Nova, an S10 pickup, or a 73 LeMans.
A similar thing could be said for Ford. The same Fox body Mustang that dominates the track shares a truckload of chassis specs as a Mercury Mark VII, a Grenada, and the Continental.
Actually, the 3rd gen GM F body and the Ford Fox bodies were a pretty clean break from preceding designs. In both cases, they went from unequal length control arms in the front and leaf spring rear suspensions to a strut type front end and a coil sprung rear axle (4 link in the case of Fox bodies, torque arm for F bodies).
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
All this towing talk really makes me want to stop looking at trucks for that purpose.. Also what's it take to make a 454 a 468? Just more bore?
I had an 82 olds delta 88 that I had lots of fun with. Did the challenge in 2004 with it and drove it every day from 03 to about 08 when I sold it. Swapped trans to a turbo 350 cause the one had overdrive and 2nd gear go out.
Added headers and dual exhaust for fun. Swapped the computer 4 barrel carb to a 600cfm 4 barrel. Added a rear sway bar which helped along with better springs and shocks. Swapped the bench to bucket seats from a wreaked 04 SRT-4. Which I will say they suck for trips.
I miss that ride and would love to have it back.
dannyp84 said:In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
All this towing talk really makes me want to stop looking at trucks for that purpose.. Also what's it take to make a 454 a 468? Just more bore?
Yup. 0,060" overbore (technically 467, but who's counting) I had some overseas forged flat tops I wanted to use. I don't normally hog out cylinders for displacement purposes since it kind of wastes their life, but it also afforded me 1.77" exhaust valves without shrouding the flow. Mild cam, 049 heads, 8.5:1, torque monster.
I wouldn't necessarily use it to replace a truck. I did several things to the suspension to make it better at handling the weight, but it will never be an F250. Great for short distances, but not the greatest for real manly truck work.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Video with audio of this monster would really be ideal right now..
I never had any of the giant luxobarges, but I did drive some. I ferried my bosses 74 Continental across a couple of states in the Midwest at one point.
I had a 77 Caprice Estate Wagon for a few years, but that's a midsize by comparison.
From 1986 to 2000, which encompassed my last year racing Standardbreds, ten years of school, and three years after graduation, this was my daily. From the first year of panther production, a 79 LTD Landau.
It really was a transitional year for the big Fords. The overdrive transmission wasn't used until the next year, so it had a C4 with a 2.26:1 rear end. I had the C4 built with a set of wide ratio gears to compensate.
I never swapped the rear end because we used to do a lot of road trips. This picture is me checking the load about a mile from the apartment in Gainesville, on our way to Cape Hatteras.
The final version had a 0.040 over 302, ported E7TE heads, holly four barrel, performer 289 intake, competition cams HE 260, crane roller rockers, headman shorties, with 2.25 dual exhaust and flowmasters, Accel super coil and blueprint distributor, and the built C4.
For the suspension, it got P71 sway bars and front fender braces, 15 inch steelies with the dog dish hubcaps and BF Goodrich Comp TA tires.
Finished up with Deltron paint. I put a set of cougar buckets in the front, and a certified calibration speedometer, dash mounted tach, and gauges.
Someone ran a stop sign and totaled it. Still miss it, since it never got the stroker Windsor and five speed swap that I had planned. It was a heavy car for the day, but at 3700 pounds on a certified scale, that's not so much by current standards.
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
This reminds me...My Grandma had an 88 LTD Crown Vic that was tan with dark brown interior. The seats had a billion adjustment options and were super comfy. That thing just floated down the road and the 302 never felt like it was working hard. She daily drive the car from the day it left the dealer until she couldn't drive anymore (sometime around 2009). It was always dealer maintained and in great condition. When she passed away I was supposed to get it but the family decided to give it to my cousin because he "needed a car". A few months later the car ended up in a junkyard all berkeleyed up because my cousin ruined it and left it on the road. My uncle got a call about it and went to go get it and give it to me but said the car was too far gone to bother getting it back. I'll never forgive my cousin.
Streetwiseguy said:bluebarchetta said:02Pilot said:In reply to Opti :
I think there's a difference between "not up to modern standards" and "awful".
GM's 1977 A- and B-bodies and Ford's 1979 Panther platform are where they turned the corner from "awful" to "not up to modern standards." You give up maybe 10% of that cushy boulevard ride, but they turn and brake well enough to be driven in modern traffic and they got double-digit MPG, even around town.
I'm tempted by either a '77-'79 Coupe de Ville or an '80-'83 Mark VI coupe.
I'd go earlier. 73 Monte Carlo, Cutlass, etc are pretty darn modern, and the brakes and steering really didn't change until the late 80's.
The Monte Carlo, Cutlass, etc. were A body intermediates, and 1973 was a transitional year for them. Full size B body GM cars had their big change in 1977 when they were downsized and pretty much completely redesigned.
In reply to yupididit :
That's a sad ending.
dannyp84 said:In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Video with audio of this monster would really be ideal right now..
Unfortunately, this was in the era of flip phones, so no video. The picture I took of the car above was shot with a digital camera that used a 3.5" floppy disk.
In reply to dannyp84 :
Well, my last statement wasn't exactly true. I did shoot some video with an old camera I borrowed. I put it all together in a "The Wonder Years" spoof. You'll see me driving it as we leave L.A., then you'll see it with me sitting on the back in Ontario.
Shameless (but short) road trip video. Enjoy the 480p
Found a few more photos:
By the way... the 57 Belvedere in the background of this picture, my buddy and I built it into a true pro-touring car that made it into a few magazines and an episode of My Classic Car.
The car above became the car below.
My college roommate had one of those clamshell Impala wagons. The tailgate was stuck half open, which was a problem on subzero days...
In reply to stuart in mn :
Most clamshells were power operated, but didn't manual ones exist, too? Somewhere I have a video of ours in action. So slick.
This is from the 1971 Pontiac factory brochure, at http://oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Pontiac/1971%20Pontiac/1971-Pontiac-Full-Line-Prestige-Brochure/slides/1971_Pontiac_Full_Line_Ptrestige-53.html
"What's so special about them? For one thing, our new disappearing tailgate. Flick a switch or turn a key and the window retracts into the roof. Then, either manually or through a power unit you can order, the tailgate slides into the floor."
I suspect most wagons came with the power option, but that's just a guess.
I don't remember which model but a high school friend had an early 70s Chevy wagon with 454 (some kind of tow package) and it also had a limited slip diff. He used to drag race guys in Camaros & Mustangs for like 100yds with 4-5 of us in the car. Apparently all that weight translated into traction; it never ever spun the tires it just leapt forward...................leaving the wheel spinning muscle cars behind.
When we were in Hawaii the neighbor lady would pile all of the kids into her big Pontiac wagon and take us to the beach.
So yes I found memories of big wagons.............sadly my father always bought poverty spec cars.
A couple of decades ago, while my wife was Up North on vacation with the kids, I found a '77 Delta 88. Great shape. 21K miles. 403 cid. In burnt orange. With slidey orange vinyl seats.
The seller was convinced it was a real collectible, so I insulted him with an offer that I thought was reasonable (less than half what he was asking) and left. Got a call a couple of days later to come pick it up. Whan SWMBO returned home, she expressed a serious lack of enthusiasm for the car. ("What is that THING in the driveway?")
Drove it for about 3 years and gave it to my son, who ran it up over 100K. Wasn't a bad car overall and was a great highway cruiser, but got about 13mpg no matter how or where you drove it.
In reply to jwagner (Forum Supporter) :
My wagon posted about the same figures. But these are the cars that we drove back in the day--at least my family did. In fact, that's what we called them: cars.
You'll need to log in to post.
