Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!
18006 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 7:44 AM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 19, 2008 11:13 am) husband and lawyer conference, we reluctantly agree, however we are asking xyz in return. 
|
|
...a TR-7, BRG, looked in great shape! A big improvement over the planter I saw a couple of months ago 
|
|
|
Some preservation A what? Fixer upper Odd little gnat Should be very reliable... Unfortunate engine choice Stepside This guy has to be related to lemko Nice lowline W111 Another one of these got preserved Fuelie Part II
|
|
|
|
|
a black Chrysler 300G survivor in pretty good shape, great actually, except for some door dings. also, a local car dealer with a small museum, the same one with the turbo trans am i posted about last week, brought an orange superbird, a sassy green challenger hemi(1 of 12), a black AAR cuda, a gold GTO judge, a GT 350 shelby, and a 65 silver corvette coupe. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Nov 21, 2008 6:46 pm) 252ci translates to 4.3 litres, which means 3/4 of a gm 350?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Nov 21, 2008 6:46 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 22, 2008 5:49 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Nov 22, 2008 2:56 pm) 252ci translates to 4.3 litres, which means 3/4 of a gm 350? Actually the 252 was a 4.1 V-6. Similarly, the Caddy 249 was a 4.1 V-8. The 4.3 V-6 that was 3/4 of a 350 was actually a 262. The 262 was/is a good engine, although I guess they're getting a bit long in the tooth by now. However, the 252 was a mess. It was a bored-out version of the 231 V-6, and from what I've heard it was very fragile. Supposedly it really wasn't meant to be bored out that much! The 252 was only produced from mid-1980 through 1984, and thankfully not too many of them ended up in the big Electras, Ninety-Eights, etc. It was fitted with a 4-bbl carburetor and had 125 hp. It has the same hp, but more torque, than the Caddy 249 V-8 of the time. So I wonder in cases where you could get the V-6 as a credit option, if it might have actually been the better performer? It's a shame that Electra's equipped with that engine. Other than that it's a nice car...nice color, too. I guess if you take care of it though, and don't abuse the engine, it might be good for many more years of leisurely cruising? |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 22, 2008 5:49 pm) There are a bunch of old "Motor's" repair manuals (big blue books) in my grandmother's garage that cover from something like 1953-1976. When I was a little kid, I used to like looking at the pictures of them. They had pictures of all the grilles of the cars, for identification. Sometimes they'd show just the grille and bumper, sometimes they'd show the headlights and more of the front-end of the car. With the '58 Pontiac, they just showed the grille. I remember thinking what a beautiful piece that '58 Pontiac grille was. It seemed kinda sleek and modern, and just very pleasing to the eye. I imagined that such a beautiful grille would have an equally beautiful car built around it. Boy was I disappointed when I finally was what a '58 Pontiac looks like!  Actually, the main area of its styling I don't like are the headlights. They just bulge out too much, and give the car sort of a dopey look. I think if they had recessed the headlights and given it a much more sloping hood, similar to a Chrysler or DeSoto, the car would have looked much better. Even if they tucked them in just a bit, say, like a '58 Chevy, it would have improved the look. I guess it made the car appear longer from certain angles though, since the jutting headlights lengthened the fenders. I imagine these cars were easily damaged, since the headlights and taillights jutted out beyond the bumpers. I still think it's more attractive than a Buick or Olds from that era, but among GM cars I think Chevy and Cadillac were by far the nicest looking. That color scheme, the two tone blue, really looks good on the car. Oh, as for 1958 cars and style, Shifty, you and I are going to disagree on the Mopars, so I won't even go there. However, I can think of one United States car that wasn't over the top in 1958. The Studebaker Scotsman. It's sort of a boring, hum-drum ilttle car, but inoffensive enough IMO. The pricier Studebakers got big fins and pretentious grilles that looked like they were swiped from a '57 Chrysler, and they also had these hideous pods tacked on up front, in order to fit quad headlights into single-headlight fenders. The Scotsman looks like it's just a carry over from 1957, though. The front-end makes me think just a bit of a '57 T-bird.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 22, 2008 5:49 pm) This is the only '58 Detroiter I can think of, not much chrome or contorted shapes.... it's got big fins but by '58 even the high dollar Euros were sporting fins.>  It's worth noting that the '58 300D was nearly identical to the '57 300C, which many consider the best-styled of the Chrysler letter cars. I myself prefer the '56 300B but then I think '56 was generally Detroit's finest year for style.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
