Last post on May 25, 2013 at 8:46 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#35465 of 37029 Re: Ragtop> [andre1969]
Jan 07, 2013 (4:26 pm)
Yup, it's a '72 Impala. I too have a soft spot for those big convertibles but they're just too big to mess with on today's crowded roads, and then there's the gas mileage.
#35466 of 37029 Re: Ragtop> [andys120]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Jan 07, 2013 (6:08 pm)
last week I was driving a Chrysler 300G convertible---talk about BIG---we couldn't even find a lift that it would fit on!! Parking in a 'slot'? Forget that. And those 2 big 4bbl carbs sucking gas. What a ride, though. You park that next to *anything* and the other car immediately disappears.
#35467 of 37029 Re: Ragtop> [Mr_Shiftright]
Jan 07, 2013 (6:27 pm)
The G isn't that big. Looked it up and found 219in. My 79 Continental was 233 in.
Jan 07, 2013 (6:33 pm)
I wonder if the 300G weighs more? Also, 18 years of product development between the 2 cars can certainly be felt in brakes and steering.
#35469 of 37029 Re: Ragtop> [Mr_Shiftright]
Jan 07, 2013 (6:45 pm)
From the same sources the G weighs in at 4430, the Lincoln shows a range of 4900-5500 lbs.
If you consider my "mid size " 2012 LaCrosse tips the scale at over 4000 the old boats aren't that bad.
#35470 of 37029 Re: Ragtop> [Mr_Shiftright]
Jan 08, 2013 (6:29 am)
Also, 18 years of product development between the 2 cars can certainly be felt in brakes and steering.
My guess is the biggest difference would be the tires and steering wheel. Those old cars had big steering wheels, to compensate for versions that lacked power steering. No matter how well a car handles, an oversized steering wheel just makes it feel sloppy.
As for tires, according to cokertire.com, a 300G came with 8.00-15 bias ply tires standard, and 8.20-15 optional. I'm sure that had to hurt handling, although sometimes, putting radial tires on a car originally designed for bias ply isn't always the magic bullet many people think it is. It can vary from car to car.
But, fast forward to 1979, and steering wheels were much smaller, ratios were quicker, and a '79 Lincoln was running around on 15" radials. Cokertire.com lists the original size as "LR78-15", which I don't know how to relate to modern terms. The (presumingly) original spare in my '76 LeMans says "FR78-15" on it, so I wonder how the two would relate, size-wise? You'd think a ~5,000 lb Lincoln would take a bigger tire than a ~4,000 lb LeMans. Maybe that's where the "L" versus "R" comes into play?
I'd imagine that if you were going for relatively stock tires on a '79 Lincoln, you'd probably get a 225/75/R15, or even a 235?
#35471 of 37029 Re: Mustang?> [andys120]
Jan 08, 2013 (6:31 am)
My dad had a 71...orange with a black interior...4 speed and a 1600 cc motor.
Jan 08, 2013 (7:48 am)
#35473 of 37029 Re: Hard top> [andys120]
Jan 08, 2013 (7:54 am)
Falcon... but trying to pin the year... early '60s... its like a '62 hood... but the grille.... hmmmm
#35474 of 37029 Re: Hard top> [andys120]
Jan 08, 2013 (8:24 am)
'63 Falcon Sprint...first year for a two-door hardtop and first year for a V8 Falcon.
That's a pretty big spear going down the side of the car!