Last post on Dec 12, 2013 at 3:16 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
#29991 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [andre1969]
Jul 23, 2013 (10:35 pm)
A trip back in time for her would be a well maintained '70s Duster with a 340. Whoops, there are only 5 or 6 remaining in N. America, and they would cost many multiples of $2,000.
#29992 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [andre1969]
Jul 24, 2013 (2:13 am)
How about a 2005-2012 Avalon or a similar vintage Lucerne/DTS. Both are very large inside. There are still awesome deals on the last 2011 Crown Vics that were all fleet cars. The only problem is they weren't as well equipped as earlier models.
#29993 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [andre1969]
Jul 24, 2013 (5:43 am)
You could probably find a mint late-model Panther that was owned by some ancient geezer who never drove it much. See if you can find a Grand Marquis "De Sade" edition...
On the new-car side, I recently was in a co-workers 2013 Accord and was impressed with the room and the visibility. It doesn't have the wonderfully low cowl and sill line that the early '90s Accords had, but it impressed me very much.
#29994 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [andre1969]
Jul 24, 2013 (5:51 am)
My grandmother has one of those facelift Taurus - an 03 that she hasn't driven more than 30K miles. It hasn't had any real issues, but to be fair, hasn't been driven very hard.
#29995 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [ab348]
Jul 24, 2013 (5:57 am)
I'll probably just end up with a Charger, and force myself to get used to it! I had to go through a similar thing years ago when I bought my 2000 Intrepid, a car with very poor visibility for the time. It had thick pillars, including a deceptively thick C-pillar area that was exacerbated by the filled-in area at the trailing edge of the rear doors. I also couldn't see the hood or the decklid. by today's standards though, it still had larger windows, a lower sill, and smaller headrests. But, I was going from an '89 Gran Fury copcar, where I could practically see all four corners of the car. And that thing had huge windows and fairly small pillars. The stand-up hood ornament was also great for aiming it!
If I ever seriously go new-car shopping, I'll have to re-evaluate the Accord. I sat in a 2013 at the auto show, and wasn't that impressed. The seat didn't seem to go back all that far initially, but I was able to play around with the power adjustments and get it to where it was decent. However, the seats did seem a bit small, and thin, like they put compact car seats in a midsize to give it more interior space. But, that was just a quick sit.
As for the outgoing Avalon, I liked them when they first came out. Not exactly exciting, but a very nice, comfy, roomy ride. I always thought that if they could've taken the looks of my Park Avenue, but given it the quality and interior of that Avalon, you'd have, to quote Eugene Levy, a "Damn fine automobile".
#29996 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [andre1969]
Jul 24, 2013 (7:53 am)
Hey at least a Charger has the correct pair of wheels driving it. IMO a large car like a Lincoln, a DTS or a Taurus with FWD is an abomination.
#29997 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [andys120]
Jul 24, 2013 (8:41 am)
"IMO a large car like a Lincoln, a DTS or a Taurus with FWD is an abomination. "
Why? Better wet weather traction, some additional interior room for fwd.
#29998 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [texases]
Jul 24, 2013 (9:45 am)
The torque steer can be a pain in the butt, though. I know they like to say that it's been minimized these days but, trust me, when you're used to RWD cars, it hasn't! Even my old Intrepid, which had a longitudinally-mounted engine, still had torque steer.
Some FWD cars also compromise ride quality. My 2000 Park Ave, for instance, tends to hit the bumps hard with the front axle, probably because it's so nose-heavy, but then the ass-end is too bouncy, probably because it's too light.
My Intrepid was better with regards to ride control. Not as smooth overall, but it handled the bumps better.
As for traction, FWD might let you take off a bit better, but when it comes to braking, stuff like tire quality, ABS, etc is probably more important. Plus, most RWD vehicles today have ABS, traction control, etc, so they're not so bad in slick weather. This past winter, I actually tried to get my 2012 Ram to spin out, but couldn't. So much for doing donuts in the high school parking lot when it snows, like back in the day in my '80 Malibu!
IMO though, cars like the DTS, Taurus, Charger, Impala aren't really *that* big. So, something in that size class does benefit from not having a transmission and driveshaft hump. The big hump pretty much reduces the Charger/300 to a 4-seater, although I don't think there's been a car with truly first-class 3-across seating since perhaps the 1978 Newport, or 1979 Continental. In that first wave of downsizing, the cars were more space efficient, given their external dimensions. But they tended to lose shoulder room. They also gained larger driveshaft and transmission humps, got thinner seats, and often had some wheel well inrusion, all of which would rob interior room, but not affect published figures such as legroom, shoulder room, headroom, or interior volume, which is actually an index of those measurements, rather than a "true" measurement of how much interior volume there really is.
#29999 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [andre1969]
Jul 24, 2013 (4:27 pm)
Even a 79 Continental had a fairly large hump to deal with. Like you said there aren't many large cars today. The previous Avalon and Lucerne/DTS probably had the most interior room except for maybe a Town Car "L" or 750Li. The latter is pretty darn spacious.
My Grand Marquis has decent head/width/shoulder room, but I'd say my LaCrosse has more leg room front and rear with terrible rear headroom.
#30000 of 30871 Re: first iPhone pic... [tjc78]
Jul 24, 2013 (8:48 pm)
I didn't realize the old, pre-downsized Continentals had a big hump, too. I guess my buddy's Mark V probably does as well, but I never notice it because it has bucket seats and a console.
The hump in the '79 New Yorker is actually pretty small. And there's not much wheel well intrusion in the back seat area, either. I guess that's one advantage of simply using the old '78 intermediates as a starting point, rather than a ground-up redesign like the '77 GM B/C bodies, or the Ford Panthers. To make the R-body, Chrysler essentially took the '78 Monaco/Fury sedan, stretched out the wheelbase an inch, and gave it a crisper, more modern looking body.
Even in my '76 LeMans, the transmission/driveshaft hump isn't too bad. It's pretty small in my '67 Catalina as well. And in the DeSoto, the driveshaft hump is so small that I've seen FWD cars with a bigger hump down the middle!