Sign In Join 



Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"

19414 messages,  Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 6:11 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright

What is this discussion about? Classic Cars


Messages Page 1624 of 1942
1
...
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
...
1942
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#16231 of 19414
Re: Great! [lemko] by uplanderguy
Dec 27, 2008 (12:01 pm)
Reply

Replying to: lemko (Dec 27, 2008 11:14 am)

The Custom Coupe (not an Impala trim level, just the formal top with concave back window) looked great; but in '71 and later, the Sport Coupe (fastback) to me didn't look nearly as good as the Custom Coupe.
 
I like the front end of the '72 Chevrolet for the same reason you like the '71, but I like the '71's wide rocker moldings versus no rocker moldings on '72 Impalas.
 
A friend when I was a teen, had both '70 and '71 Impalas in their driveway. Although the '71 looked more Cadillac-like, I do remember him saying that the '70 was so much more solid. I know the '70's interiors were way nicer; no flat black plastic, black steering wheels, and hard plastic lower interior door panels like the '71.
 
Bill
#16232 of 19414
Re: I don't know (lokki) by hpmctorque
Dec 27, 2008 (9:05 pm)
Reply
I'm guessing that your K-car was an early pre-fuel injected one (81-'84?). Those carburated ones were awful, in terms of driveability. Fuel injection fixed the stalling and related problems, but I agree that the GM X-cars drove, rode and steered better than the Chrysler K-Cars.
 
As long as we're talking about Detroit disasters, we shouldn't forget the Ford twins, Tempo and Topaz. These were introduced in the '84 model year, so ford had some time to do a better job than GM and Chrysler, but I'm not sure where these ranked compared with their GM and Chrysler counterparts. Does anyone have an opinion on this?
#16233 of 19414
Re: I don't know (lokki) [hpmctorque] by texases
Dec 27, 2008 (10:48 pm)
Reply

Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 27, 2008 9:05 pm)

Well, the Tempo/Topaz were not terrible...my FIL had one for a few years, nothing special, but not outrageously bad. Kind of like a big Escort.
#16234 of 19414
K Cars and Tempos by lokki
Dec 28, 2008 (7:12 am)
Reply
You're right that the K car was an early one... and yes, I suppose the later ones were better. But oh my goodness.... that was a bad car. When I was a kid the family owned a 68 Plymouth Valiant with the 225 slant six.... It wasn't any paragon of advanced engineering but it was a solid little tugboat that ran forever without a problem. The K car seemed an insult to that memory.
 
An aging accountant I knew owned a Tempo. It wasn't a bad car to drive, although it was truely an accountant's car. Boring and bland and plain to look at. It was a good thing that she bought the extended warranty.... I think that Ford ultimately lost money on that whole deal by the time they finished repairing everything that broke. I don't recall the details of the problems, but there were plenty of them, I believe.
By that time I was on my second Acura Integra... which seemed light-years better than any of the American competition.
#16235 of 19414
K Cars and Tempos (lokki) by hpmctorque
Dec 28, 2008 (8:07 am)
Reply
Yeah, the K-cars didn't hold a candle to the earlier Slant Six powered compacts. Although my family owned a Valiant, which exhibited the attributes you mentioned, we missed the bullet on the K-cars. My acquaintance with the K-car is from a family friend, who owned three of them, a carburated '81 or '82, which was really bad, in large part because of the carburater; a '85, which was much better than the first one; an '88 "Spirit-of-America", which was a little better than the '85.
 
Our family friend, whose previous car was - you guessed it - a Slant Six equipped Dart, managed to get 100,000 miles from his first K-car, then the tranny went. The '85 and '88 each went >150,000 miles, so they must have been decent for cheap wheels.
 
Of course, no K-car could even come close to the Integra, in terms of quality, engineering, reliability, durability, ride and handling, and so on. One redeeming attribute of the K-car was price. Our friend paid less than $10,000 for his '88, and less for the earlier ones.
#16236 of 19414
Re: Great! [uplanderguy] by andre1969
Dec 28, 2008 (8:13 am)
Reply

Replying to: uplanderguy (Dec 27, 2008 12:01 pm)

I like both rooflines for the Impala coupe. The faster roofline was shared with the Catalina/Bonneville, LeSabre, and Delta 88, and I find it attractive. But somehow, that more formal roofline, with the concave rear window and larger side windows, just seemed so perfect on the Impala. IIRC, the Caprice hardtop coupe also used that same roof.
 
The '72 Impala is my favorite, of the '71-76 generation. I may just be biased, because my grandparents had a forest green hardtop sedan when I was a kid, that I absolutely loved, but overall I think it's just a clean, smooth, nicely styled car. I like the front-end with the low grille, that gives it a sporty look for such a big car. The '71 was good looking too, but I just like the '72 grille better.
 
IIRC, for 1974, they changed the roofline of the Impala hardtop coupe. It still had a formal C-pillar, but just seemed a bit awkward. Plus, the rear window was no longer concave. The Caprice coupe that year went to stationary rear windows that were a bit narrow, and gave the car a mis-matched beltline. I can't remember if the Impala also got that style in '74, but for '75-76 I think the hardtop coupe was retired entirely from the Impala/Caprice line.
 
As for build quality, the '65-70 models were definitely more substantial than the '71-76! I agree about the interiors, too. I really didn't like it when they went to the door panels where the lower parts were plastic. It wasn't too bad in the more upscale models, where they'd glue carpeting on there (it wouldn't always stay glued on, though)
#16237 of 19414
Tempo/Topaz... by andre1969
Dec 28, 2008 (8:34 am)
Reply
my stepdad had a 1984 Tempo 2-door. It always seemed like a cheap piece of crap, but it did manage to make it to around 160,000 miles on the original drivetrain...mostly highway driving. I know it had some problems along the way, but can't remember now what all it needed. I think the two biggest problems with the car were performance and fuel economy. This thing was dog-slow. I drove it once. My 1980 Malibu coupe, not exactly a powerhouse with its 115 hp 229 V-6, felt like a musclecar in comparison! I have a 1985 Consumer Guide that timed a Topaz from 0-60 in 15.9 seconds. For comparison, they had a Plymouth Reliant that managed it in about 13.5, a Toyota Camry that did it in about 13.4, and a Honda Accord that was around 11.6...all of them automatics. They didn't show a 0-60 time for the Cavalier they tested, but rated it a "3", which would have put it similar to the Camry and Reliant, most likely. The Accord had been rated a "4", and the Topaz got a "2" in that category.
 
As for fuel economy, I think my stepdad could get around 20 mpg around town in that Tempo, but on the highway it would only do around 25-27 or so. It would take an act of God to have gotten 30 mpg out of that car! Now part of the problem was that it only had a 3-speed automatic, rather than a 4-speed. And the 4-cyl they used was basically an old Falcon inline-6 with two cylinders removed, so it was probably heavy and inefficient compared to more modern 4-cyls. And I think it had a 2-bbl carb, instead of fuel injection. I'm sure the later Tempos were better once they got fuel injected. And I'd imagine that eventually, a 4-speed automatic found its way onto the option list.
 
I think the Tempo and especially the Topaz sedans looked kind of attractive around 1988, when they got a refreshening. The coupes never looked good, IMO though.
#16238 of 19414
Re: Great! [andre1969] by uplanderguy
Dec 28, 2008 (9:29 am)
Reply

Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 28, 2008 8:13 am)

Overall, I probably like the '72 Impala the best of the '71-76 years, too, but wish they'd have put a rocker molding on it. The Biscayne and BelAir had them, but the Impala and Caprice did not. Duh!
 
In '74, the Sport Coupe got a squared-off quarter window and a flat rear window. We had one. My Dad wanted four windows that rolled down, and the Custom Coupe (and Caprice Coupe) had that roofline with the enormous, thick B pillar and quarter windows that did not roll down. They still had the concave rear window however.
 
The '75 was the last year for the Impala Sport Coupe. I've often thought it would have been nice to have ordered one of these fully-loaded, with the brown herringbone 50/50 seats, power windows and the like. I prefer the '74 and '75 Sport Coupe roofline to the '71-'73.
 
I also did not like at all, the '74-76 LeSabre, Catalina, and Delta 88 two-door rooflines....a door window, a small roll-down quarter window, and a goofy third window near the rear window!
 
Bill
#16239 of 19414
Tempo/Topaz... (andre1969) by hpmctorque
Dec 28, 2008 (9:31 am)
Reply
"... I'd imagine that eventually, a 4-speed automatic found its way onto the option list."
  
The Tempo/Topaz stayed with the 3-speed automatic as the only automatic until they were retired.
 
Circling back to our family friend's '85 and '88 K-cars, I now recall that one of them blew a head gasket at ~145,000. He repaired it himself, for not much money but a lot of labor, and drove it at least another 10,000 miles. Then he sold it for a few hundred dollars. The A/C went out on the other one at around 150,000, but the drivetrain lasted until ~170,000, at which point he sold the car, for next to nothing.
 
These K-cars delivered low cost-per-mile transportation, but our friend is very handy with a wrench.
#16240 of 19414
Re: I don't know (lokki) [hpmctorque] by fintail
Dec 28, 2008 (10:34 am)
Reply

Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 27, 2008 9:05 pm)

A Tempo/Topaz was probably no worse than the comparable Cadavalier clone or K-car. My parents bought an 85 Tempo new as a commuter as both had increasing travel distances for work etc, bought as a third car as not to destroy the other cars (a Ciera and a POS S-10 Blazer...why'd they care?). Anyway, this Tempo was a GLX model, pretty much every option, plush interior, even power seat/tach/wheels etc along with windows, trunk release, tape player. It got a huge amount of miles racked up in its first few years, then was used as a spare car, then used for kids. My mom finally got rid of it about 10 years ago, it had something around 190K on it at that time, and the powertrain had never been touched. It had some electrical glitches and it would puke up a primitive engine computer now and then, but it wasn't unreliable, it just got a little eccentric as it aged. The paint and interior held up very well - no dead paint, no cracking or tearing of the interior etc. I drove it pretty hard, and I am sure my sister and my cousin weren't easy on it either - but it kept on going. It had the painfully slow 2.3 HSC 4, I am sure my fintail could walk away from it. I remember I would drive it like a manual just to coax a little more speed out of it, as the slushbox was defiant and illogical. When the car was about 10 years old the exhaust system rotted out, and I drove it a few times like that - it didn't sound too bad, reminded me of a crappy rally car. I remember my mom sold it to a guy who worked for a tire shop...he updated some worn suspension bits, put some modern wheels on it, and gave it to his kid as their first car. She got $600 for it, which seemed good for a 190K mile Tempo. I saw it a few years ago.

Messages Page 1624 of 1942
1
...
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
...
1942
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement