whirlcool
Well-known member
Anyone here remember the "Engines Supplied by Various GM Divisions" fiasco?
1970 Buick Electra 225 Limited
- Thread starter a440
- Start date
Help Support :
Oh dang.......
I had a memory......
While unloading the dishwasher. Amazing how this happens at times?!
The car's that we took all of the driving test during this time were the "New" smaller Ford LTD's. Early 1980's. Remember them?
The school was kind enough to let us take the driving test through the driving course in the "CAR" that would be our main driver. So I showed up with my dear mother with her 1976 Town Car, and I would say this was 1982. If I remember correct the instructor turned white. It all turned out good though.
My mom's Lincoln was traded for a Caddy Fleetwood with the V-8-6-4 Engine. They had so many problems with this car! It was beautiful, but the engine never ran correct. Seems like they by-passed the computer and it was a V-8 for most of it's life until they traded it.
Great memories!
Brent
I had a memory......
While unloading the dishwasher. Amazing how this happens at times?!
The car's that we took all of the driving test during this time were the "New" smaller Ford LTD's. Early 1980's. Remember them?
The school was kind enough to let us take the driving test through the driving course in the "CAR" that would be our main driver. So I showed up with my dear mother with her 1976 Town Car, and I would say this was 1982. If I remember correct the instructor turned white. It all turned out good though.
My mom's Lincoln was traded for a Caddy Fleetwood with the V-8-6-4 Engine. They had so many problems with this car! It was beautiful, but the engine never ran correct. Seems like they by-passed the computer and it was a V-8 for most of it's life until they traded it.
Great memories!
Brent
Yup, I remember when my best friend at university was annoyed that his new '79 Regal came with a Chevy small block. Never mind that the Chevy was a better engine than the Pontiac V8 Buick also used that year in the Regal . . .
Brent------
The Cadillac was a 1970 Coupe de Ville with a 472 V-8. At idle that engine made the most "classic" sound to me of all the old Cadillacs. No other Cadillac engine has ever seemed to sound right to me. So many years of use in commercial vehicles and I spent so much time driving them. The '68 with the same engine, was my favorite. Beautiful stying that year, IMO.
The 1968 Lincoln Continental had the 460 V-8, an option that year and the first year it was offered. That car also had a "Town Car" interior option, which was also something unique to that car. Built as a group of a dozen identical Lincolns, as a car pool, for use by Senators in Washington,D.C. the dealership did not deliver the 12th car which was the one I ended up with. All black (vinyl-top delete) with natural leather interior. Every option available for that year.
(I will post a photo for you soon.)
Hydralique-----YES, I forgot all about the "Twin-Six"! Packard also built large engines for Tanks during the war and aircraft engines. Funny how easily I forget about them. Dad had a number of them before they quit making them. I can remember an old grey commercial chassis we used to use as a "truck" and I think it must have been a '54. It was a tank, for sure!
I just saw a late-thirties convertible under restoration a few weeks ago. Packard really did build some great old cars. It was beautiful even with nothing but jacks where the wheels were supposed to be. Huge car.
Its too bad they went out. If only they had been able to keep up the competition with Cadillac. Oh well.
I remember back in high-school, driving a friends '62 Tempest. I believe it had the aluminum engine. It was a standard shift on the floor and I remember it was quick and noisy. Lots of noise from that gearbox! It also had that wonderful smell the old GM cars had, and just thinking about it I remember the smell of the interior.
The Cadillac was a 1970 Coupe de Ville with a 472 V-8. At idle that engine made the most "classic" sound to me of all the old Cadillacs. No other Cadillac engine has ever seemed to sound right to me. So many years of use in commercial vehicles and I spent so much time driving them. The '68 with the same engine, was my favorite. Beautiful stying that year, IMO.
The 1968 Lincoln Continental had the 460 V-8, an option that year and the first year it was offered. That car also had a "Town Car" interior option, which was also something unique to that car. Built as a group of a dozen identical Lincolns, as a car pool, for use by Senators in Washington,D.C. the dealership did not deliver the 12th car which was the one I ended up with. All black (vinyl-top delete) with natural leather interior. Every option available for that year.
(I will post a photo for you soon.)
Hydralique-----YES, I forgot all about the "Twin-Six"! Packard also built large engines for Tanks during the war and aircraft engines. Funny how easily I forget about them. Dad had a number of them before they quit making them. I can remember an old grey commercial chassis we used to use as a "truck" and I think it must have been a '54. It was a tank, for sure!
I just saw a late-thirties convertible under restoration a few weeks ago. Packard really did build some great old cars. It was beautiful even with nothing but jacks where the wheels were supposed to be. Huge car.
Its too bad they went out. If only they had been able to keep up the competition with Cadillac. Oh well.
I remember back in high-school, driving a friends '62 Tempest. I believe it had the aluminum engine. It was a standard shift on the floor and I remember it was quick and noisy. Lots of noise from that gearbox! It also had that wonderful smell the old GM cars had, and just thinking about it I remember the smell of the interior.
passatdoc
Well-known member
the San Diego DMV on Normal Street...
...was where you went to take the test if you were a "man". It was well known that the inspectors there were Nazis, plus the hilly topography made it almost a given that you'd be asked to parallel park on a steep hill. The failure rate was fairly high and it was no badge of dishonor to come back empty-handed (failed) on the first try.
Legally, one may take the written examination (to obtain a learner's permit) and the behind-the-wheel test (for the license) at any DMV location in the state. There is no requirement to use the office closest to one's home.
In those days, there were three DMV offices serving Metro San Diego: the Normal St. (main) office, and two in the then-sleepy suburbs of El Cajon (east) and Chula Vista (south). There may have been an office in north San Diego County but I don't know where it was and never heard it mentioned by anyone.
That said, it was not uncommon for people to take their behind-the-wheel test at the Chula Vista or El Cajon offices, for several reasons:
1. Flat topography
2. Might lighter traffic and no six lane roads where they would mark you down for remaining in the middle lane....
3. Somewhat nicer/less burned-out inspectors.
4. Lower failure rate
However, anyone who did their tests at La Mesa or El Cajon were usually branded as wimps who couldn't cut it at Normal Street. The general assumption was that many who tested at the two easier locations would never have made the grade at Normal Street.
I opted to test at Normal Street. I was very competitive and had a contest going with a close friend who was played center on the football team (6-2 and maybe 250 lbs---which was about as large as high school players ran in the early 70s). We had birthdays within a month of each other and therefore would be taking our licensing exams within a few months of each other. Whoever wound up with the lowest score (test was graded on a scale of 100 points) had to pay for a lunch at Shakey's Pizza. I wound up with a 90 and he got an 89!
My deductions were for not turning my head 180 degrees to the rear when driving in reverse (4 points off) and for not taking my foot off the accelerator and not coasting towards a red light a full block away (6 points off---inspector said never have your foot on the gas with a red light in view no matter how far away. whatever....). There was no deduction for re-doing the parallel parking because it was legal--though less than safe--the first time. (had it not been legal the first time, there was no re-do and it would have been more points off). I think you needed 80 to pass.
Shakey's in those days had all you can eat lunches which was good for my friend but not good for Shakey's---when all was said and done he'd finished off the equivalent of an extra-large pizza.
The photo below shows the Normal St. DMV. One side of it faces Normal St which is a six lane divided road. The immediate area is flat, but there are lots of steep hills only a few blocks away.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...&ei=wtuLS664LoeENMuo3KUB&sa=X&oi=local_group&
...was where you went to take the test if you were a "man". It was well known that the inspectors there were Nazis, plus the hilly topography made it almost a given that you'd be asked to parallel park on a steep hill. The failure rate was fairly high and it was no badge of dishonor to come back empty-handed (failed) on the first try.
Legally, one may take the written examination (to obtain a learner's permit) and the behind-the-wheel test (for the license) at any DMV location in the state. There is no requirement to use the office closest to one's home.
In those days, there were three DMV offices serving Metro San Diego: the Normal St. (main) office, and two in the then-sleepy suburbs of El Cajon (east) and Chula Vista (south). There may have been an office in north San Diego County but I don't know where it was and never heard it mentioned by anyone.
That said, it was not uncommon for people to take their behind-the-wheel test at the Chula Vista or El Cajon offices, for several reasons:
1. Flat topography
2. Might lighter traffic and no six lane roads where they would mark you down for remaining in the middle lane....
3. Somewhat nicer/less burned-out inspectors.
4. Lower failure rate
However, anyone who did their tests at La Mesa or El Cajon were usually branded as wimps who couldn't cut it at Normal Street. The general assumption was that many who tested at the two easier locations would never have made the grade at Normal Street.
I opted to test at Normal Street. I was very competitive and had a contest going with a close friend who was played center on the football team (6-2 and maybe 250 lbs---which was about as large as high school players ran in the early 70s). We had birthdays within a month of each other and therefore would be taking our licensing exams within a few months of each other. Whoever wound up with the lowest score (test was graded on a scale of 100 points) had to pay for a lunch at Shakey's Pizza. I wound up with a 90 and he got an 89!
My deductions were for not turning my head 180 degrees to the rear when driving in reverse (4 points off) and for not taking my foot off the accelerator and not coasting towards a red light a full block away (6 points off---inspector said never have your foot on the gas with a red light in view no matter how far away. whatever....). There was no deduction for re-doing the parallel parking because it was legal--though less than safe--the first time. (had it not been legal the first time, there was no re-do and it would have been more points off). I think you needed 80 to pass.
Shakey's in those days had all you can eat lunches which was good for my friend but not good for Shakey's---when all was said and done he'd finished off the equivalent of an extra-large pizza.
The photo below shows the Normal St. DMV. One side of it faces Normal St which is a six lane divided road. The immediate area is flat, but there are lots of steep hills only a few blocks away.
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...&ei=wtuLS664LoeENMuo3KUB&sa=X&oi=local_group&
Gyrafoam . . .
By "commercial chassis" are you meaning hearses? I'd usually call them professional cars, just can't think of any '60s applications for the Cadillac commercial chassis other than professionals or ambulances. I've seen lots of beautiful professionals, mostly Cadillacs but also the occasional Olds or even Pontiac (there's a '65 or '66 Pontiac I've seen a few times, very handsome conversion). I've hardly ever seen a Buick professional, don't know why.
Regarding the 460 cubic inch engine in the '68 Lincoln, that was the year Ford began phasing out the old Lincoln 462. The 462 came out in '58 as a 430, then the largest mass produced car engine in the world, mostly because the all-new '58 Lincolns overshot their weight target by hundreds of pounds and so needed some serious torque. It was also offered as a rare option in the Thunderbird for a few years, and made it into some TOL Mercurys also. By the mid '60s it had been punched out to 462 and was exclusively for Lincoln. It didn't share any bits with other FoMoCo engines and was therefore expensive to build. When Ford designed a new big-block V8 to replace the old FE engine (this being the 332/352/390/406/410/427/428 engine family), one of the requirements was to make it large enough to replace the 462 as well and get rid of Lincoln exclusive engines. Initially in '68 it was a 429 for Ford and Mercury, and 460 for Lincoln only, but eventually the 460 made it into some Fords and Mercurys too. The old 428 hung around through '70 for the Mustang and Cougar, as the new 429 didn't fit in the old Falcon based chassis (excepting the ultra-rare and very expensive Boss 429, but that was largely hand built). This means that in the '67 and '68 model years Ford was building three different unrelated big block engines in 390, 427, 428, 429, 460, and 462 cubic inch capacities, making for some confusion!
The smell of the Tempest interior must have been the bouquet of Pontiac's famous "Morrokide" upholstery. Lots of Morros (whatever they are) must have given up their lives to upholster that Tempest.
BTW, I think those '67 and '68 Caddies are quite pretty too, especially the Fleetwood sedan; the '65-'66 and '69-'70 Caddies seem boring by comparison.
By "commercial chassis" are you meaning hearses? I'd usually call them professional cars, just can't think of any '60s applications for the Cadillac commercial chassis other than professionals or ambulances. I've seen lots of beautiful professionals, mostly Cadillacs but also the occasional Olds or even Pontiac (there's a '65 or '66 Pontiac I've seen a few times, very handsome conversion). I've hardly ever seen a Buick professional, don't know why.
Regarding the 460 cubic inch engine in the '68 Lincoln, that was the year Ford began phasing out the old Lincoln 462. The 462 came out in '58 as a 430, then the largest mass produced car engine in the world, mostly because the all-new '58 Lincolns overshot their weight target by hundreds of pounds and so needed some serious torque. It was also offered as a rare option in the Thunderbird for a few years, and made it into some TOL Mercurys also. By the mid '60s it had been punched out to 462 and was exclusively for Lincoln. It didn't share any bits with other FoMoCo engines and was therefore expensive to build. When Ford designed a new big-block V8 to replace the old FE engine (this being the 332/352/390/406/410/427/428 engine family), one of the requirements was to make it large enough to replace the 462 as well and get rid of Lincoln exclusive engines. Initially in '68 it was a 429 for Ford and Mercury, and 460 for Lincoln only, but eventually the 460 made it into some Fords and Mercurys too. The old 428 hung around through '70 for the Mustang and Cougar, as the new 429 didn't fit in the old Falcon based chassis (excepting the ultra-rare and very expensive Boss 429, but that was largely hand built). This means that in the '67 and '68 model years Ford was building three different unrelated big block engines in 390, 427, 428, 429, 460, and 462 cubic inch capacities, making for some confusion!
The smell of the Tempest interior must have been the bouquet of Pontiac's famous "Morrokide" upholstery. Lots of Morros (whatever they are) must have given up their lives to upholster that Tempest.
BTW, I think those '67 and '68 Caddies are quite pretty too, especially the Fleetwood sedan; the '65-'66 and '69-'70 Caddies seem boring by comparison.
We had the wagon version of this car...
We were always a Chevrolet family and I think the 1970 looked better than the later models. I would have preferred the sedan.
Rapunzel, was the Custom Cruiser like the Vista Cruiser on That 70's Show?
Also, I wonder if the large sedans back then still have better mileage than the Hummers and Suburbans SUVs of today. It seems like the fact they were 2WD rather than 4WD would have helped because there was less machinery to carry around, even though there was a lot of bulk.
Oh, and do look at The Truth About Cars it is very informative.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/cu...st-big-car-of-its-time-1970-chevrolet-impala/
We were always a Chevrolet family and I think the 1970 looked better than the later models. I would have preferred the sedan.
Rapunzel, was the Custom Cruiser like the Vista Cruiser on That 70's Show?
Also, I wonder if the large sedans back then still have better mileage than the Hummers and Suburbans SUVs of today. It seems like the fact they were 2WD rather than 4WD would have helped because there was less machinery to carry around, even though there was a lot of bulk.
Oh, and do look at The Truth About Cars it is very informative.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/cu...st-big-car-of-its-time-1970-chevrolet-impala/
Rapunzel, was the Custom Cruiser like the Vista Cruiser on T
No, the Vista Cruiser was more compact, I think. The Custom Cruiser was a huge, square barge.
When we moved to the States we needed a practical, reasonably priced vehicle with good utility. My father transported stuff for work and he got the Custom Cruiser from an acquaintance at an attractive price. It wasn't fancy, had been used as a working vehicle - front bench seats, lots of vynil and plastic and my mother had to sit on cushions to see over the steering wheel (she's 5 foot nothing).
The coolest thing about this car was the clamshell tailgate, when it worked. It used to freeze shut in winter if left out of the garage.
Driving this car was like sitting on a big, unpredictable sponge. When going around corners you'd never know where exactly you'd end up. Fully loaded with people and stuff it used to sit really low at the back, high at the front and we used to keep an anchor in the front passenger seat to throw out the window whilst turning corners ;o).
Got my license in that car, which, apart from its sluggish cornering abilities, was surprisingly easy to drive and park. I actually miss the bounce. Modern cars are too tight. My sister's '88 Toyota Camry station wagon came close tho.
I've found a picture on the net of a '73 Olds Custom Cruiser, which, from my poor memory, was what we had. The car in the picture looks identical.
http://pic16.picturetrail.com/VOL663/3278484/8308956/332946126.jpg
No, the Vista Cruiser was more compact, I think. The Custom Cruiser was a huge, square barge.
When we moved to the States we needed a practical, reasonably priced vehicle with good utility. My father transported stuff for work and he got the Custom Cruiser from an acquaintance at an attractive price. It wasn't fancy, had been used as a working vehicle - front bench seats, lots of vynil and plastic and my mother had to sit on cushions to see over the steering wheel (she's 5 foot nothing).
The coolest thing about this car was the clamshell tailgate, when it worked. It used to freeze shut in winter if left out of the garage.
Driving this car was like sitting on a big, unpredictable sponge. When going around corners you'd never know where exactly you'd end up. Fully loaded with people and stuff it used to sit really low at the back, high at the front and we used to keep an anchor in the front passenger seat to throw out the window whilst turning corners ;o).
Got my license in that car, which, apart from its sluggish cornering abilities, was surprisingly easy to drive and park. I actually miss the bounce. Modern cars are too tight. My sister's '88 Toyota Camry station wagon came close tho.
I've found a picture on the net of a '73 Olds Custom Cruiser, which, from my poor memory, was what we had. The car in the picture looks identical.
http://pic16.picturetrail.com/VOL663/3278484/8308956/332946126.jpg
The Custom Cruiser was indeed larger than the Vista Cruiser, which itself was no small item. Both the Vista Cruiser and companion Buick Sport Wagon were based on the mid-sized Cutlass and Special, respectively. The Custom Cruiser and Buick Estate Wagon were part of the full-sized lineup, which is to say gargantuan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Olds and Buick offered full sized wagons through much of the '60s, with GM relying on Chevy and Pontiac to fulfill that duty.
That clamshell tailgate was a totally cool piece of ridiculous design and engineering. During the late sixties, Ford proudly boasted of being the "wagonmaster" because they pretty much always out-sold GM in that category. That was no mean feat as Chevy almost always out-sold Ford on total units, if only by a small amount. Part of the appeal to the Ford wagons was the two-way tailgate they introduced in '66. This allowed one to either use the gate in the conventional manner by first lowering the rear window into the tailgate and then dropping the gate, or one could alternatively use the right hand handle and open the whole tailgate and glass assembly like an ordinary door hinged on the left. It really simplified putting groceries or children in the rear of the car, especially in bad weather when nobody wanted to go through the window up and down routine. Ford bragged a lot about this trick tailgate, which sure rankled GM.
Their answer, introduced on the '71 full size wagons was the clamshell tailgate. These cars had rather sloped rear windows, which looked sleek but really cut the usefulness of the rear of the load bay. That slope was enough to allow the slightly flexible rear window to wind up into the roof rather than the tailgate. This allowed the tailgate to be thinner and lighter so that it could be retracted downward to rest below the load bay floor. All the rear windows were electric, as were most of the tailgates. GM proudly advertised this system with photos of a wagon pulled up flush against a loading dock, which was about the only benefit of an otherwise heavy and costly design that stole roof space and under floor storage space. It did look cool, but once GM redesigned their full-sized cars for '77 they abandoned it and copied the Ford two-way tailgate.
That clamshell tailgate was a totally cool piece of ridiculous design and engineering. During the late sixties, Ford proudly boasted of being the "wagonmaster" because they pretty much always out-sold GM in that category. That was no mean feat as Chevy almost always out-sold Ford on total units, if only by a small amount. Part of the appeal to the Ford wagons was the two-way tailgate they introduced in '66. This allowed one to either use the gate in the conventional manner by first lowering the rear window into the tailgate and then dropping the gate, or one could alternatively use the right hand handle and open the whole tailgate and glass assembly like an ordinary door hinged on the left. It really simplified putting groceries or children in the rear of the car, especially in bad weather when nobody wanted to go through the window up and down routine. Ford bragged a lot about this trick tailgate, which sure rankled GM.
Their answer, introduced on the '71 full size wagons was the clamshell tailgate. These cars had rather sloped rear windows, which looked sleek but really cut the usefulness of the rear of the load bay. That slope was enough to allow the slightly flexible rear window to wind up into the roof rather than the tailgate. This allowed the tailgate to be thinner and lighter so that it could be retracted downward to rest below the load bay floor. All the rear windows were electric, as were most of the tailgates. GM proudly advertised this system with photos of a wagon pulled up flush against a loading dock, which was about the only benefit of an otherwise heavy and costly design that stole roof space and under floor storage space. It did look cool, but once GM redesigned their full-sized cars for '77 they abandoned it and copied the Ford two-way tailgate.
passatdoc
Well-known member
I think you are correct: Buick and Olds offered nothing larger than the Sport Wagon and Vista Cruiser during the 1960s.
1969 Lincoln
Hydralique, speaking of those 1969 Lincolns, I found a photo of my last one. I've had two of them. In a phrase, what a nightmare! Pretty car, but nothing was right with it. Very much a love/hate relationship. I loved it, it loved my wallet, but hated me!
Going by the VIN, found it was built on December 27, 1968. A Friday, the week of Christmas. I'm surprised it had wheels on it. The 69s were unique that there is very little that will interchange with earlier years. Motor mounts only work in the mid-year change with the 1968s. Other parts like the neutral safety switch changed during the model year, which is why I had to figure out its birthday. She did have the optional auto headlight dimmer, that little "War of the Worlds" thing on the left fender. The prior years had that concealed above the left front turn signal.
The posts on Drivers Ed made me recall our high school cars. Both 1972 Oldsmobiles, a Delta 88 and a Cutlass Vista Cruiser wagon. Not too bad to drive. That was when my Dad had the 1969 LTD. 390 with a 2 barrel carb. When we took that car from Phoenix to Detroit in 1973, it didn't do that great on gas mileage, around 15 mpg with the A/C on and going regular freeway speeds.
Hydralique, speaking of those 1969 Lincolns, I found a photo of my last one. I've had two of them. In a phrase, what a nightmare! Pretty car, but nothing was right with it. Very much a love/hate relationship. I loved it, it loved my wallet, but hated me!
Going by the VIN, found it was built on December 27, 1968. A Friday, the week of Christmas. I'm surprised it had wheels on it. The 69s were unique that there is very little that will interchange with earlier years. Motor mounts only work in the mid-year change with the 1968s. Other parts like the neutral safety switch changed during the model year, which is why I had to figure out its birthday. She did have the optional auto headlight dimmer, that little "War of the Worlds" thing on the left fender. The prior years had that concealed above the left front turn signal.
The posts on Drivers Ed made me recall our high school cars. Both 1972 Oldsmobiles, a Delta 88 and a Cutlass Vista Cruiser wagon. Not too bad to drive. That was when my Dad had the 1969 LTD. 390 with a 2 barrel carb. When we took that car from Phoenix to Detroit in 1973, it didn't do that great on gas mileage, around 15 mpg with the A/C on and going regular freeway speeds.
Michael----
That is a beautiful '69. The last year of that body-style and the center-opening doors.
My '68 had the little periscopic-eye for headlight dimming as well, located in the same place as your '69.
I just adored my '68, however it was without a doubt the worst fuel-guzzler I ever owned and I've owned some BIG guzzlers! Unlike the GM Climate-Control that had an "Economy" setting, the Lincoln's had no such provision and when it was "on" so was the compressor, cooling or heating. It was also the most over-built car I ever owned. The damned power-steering was driven off of the drive shaft of the engine by a flexible shaft. Infinite speed controls on the wipers via hydraulics?
It was so powerful and had so much torque I believe you could wrap a heavy chain on the back bumper and pull a house down with it! I LOVED it! Especially at traffic lights, smokin-out little punky-boys with noisy little Asian-built econo-boxes. (Now I'd LOVE to have one of those econo-boxes!)Any wonder I burned some fuel?!
Here's a gem of a '69 I've been drooling over for months. I think it is over-priced for a Coupe and is why it has not sold yet. The center-opening doors of the sedan are (IMO) more desirable and are considered a "trade-mark" of this vintage Continental. Nonetheless, if I had the money I would snatch it up! A beautiful car, and more roomy than a Mark III.
http://www.orlandoclassiccars.com/s...28&PHPSESSID=b24bfb4516f68ff466ff46adfeb10fe7
That is a beautiful '69. The last year of that body-style and the center-opening doors.
My '68 had the little periscopic-eye for headlight dimming as well, located in the same place as your '69.
I just adored my '68, however it was without a doubt the worst fuel-guzzler I ever owned and I've owned some BIG guzzlers! Unlike the GM Climate-Control that had an "Economy" setting, the Lincoln's had no such provision and when it was "on" so was the compressor, cooling or heating. It was also the most over-built car I ever owned. The damned power-steering was driven off of the drive shaft of the engine by a flexible shaft. Infinite speed controls on the wipers via hydraulics?
It was so powerful and had so much torque I believe you could wrap a heavy chain on the back bumper and pull a house down with it! I LOVED it! Especially at traffic lights, smokin-out little punky-boys with noisy little Asian-built econo-boxes. (Now I'd LOVE to have one of those econo-boxes!)Any wonder I burned some fuel?!
Here's a gem of a '69 I've been drooling over for months. I think it is over-priced for a Coupe and is why it has not sold yet. The center-opening doors of the sedan are (IMO) more desirable and are considered a "trade-mark" of this vintage Continental. Nonetheless, if I had the money I would snatch it up! A beautiful car, and more roomy than a Mark III.
http://www.orlandoclassiccars.com/s...28&PHPSESSID=b24bfb4516f68ff466ff46adfeb10fe7
air-waycharlie
Well-known member
Here is my
husband's and mine 1976 Electra 225 Limited Coupe with 31,000 miles.
We love it. (And she is good at winning awards and trophies!)
Charlie
husband's and mine 1976 Electra 225 Limited Coupe with 31,000 miles.
We love it. (And she is good at winning awards and trophies!)
Charlie
Nice Coupe
Actually both of those last postings. The Lincoln is stunning and even with that price, considering what you pay for a new one I'd take the 1969. It reminds me of a friend's 1965 (I had one of those as well) that was in a color called Madison Gray. It would appear to change color between blue, gray and a purple depending on the light. It was similar to Thunderbird's Silver Mink of 1963.
Yes, post some pics of the Buick's interior. Love the wheels on it.
Growing up, one of my friend's Dad used to buy 2 year old luxury cars. He had a 1968 Lincoln, was a medium green, with green leather. The car road like a cloud. During my many years of having old cars, I've owned a 1965 Cadillac convertible, 1965 Imperial Crown and a 1965 Lincoln. The Lincoln had the best ride, but you had to replace the door handles if you went around a corner too fast. The Imperial, with its torsion bar suspension was the best handling, though rode like a truck and the Cadillac was in the middle of the three.
Ah hydraulic wipers! I spent around $500.00 having mine replumbed with new hoses. I was always concerned that if I blew a hose, would the pump seize and take the front of the engine off with it? For the A/C I would disconnect the compressor lead during the winter to save a bit on gas.
Actually both of those last postings. The Lincoln is stunning and even with that price, considering what you pay for a new one I'd take the 1969. It reminds me of a friend's 1965 (I had one of those as well) that was in a color called Madison Gray. It would appear to change color between blue, gray and a purple depending on the light. It was similar to Thunderbird's Silver Mink of 1963.
Yes, post some pics of the Buick's interior. Love the wheels on it.
Growing up, one of my friend's Dad used to buy 2 year old luxury cars. He had a 1968 Lincoln, was a medium green, with green leather. The car road like a cloud. During my many years of having old cars, I've owned a 1965 Cadillac convertible, 1965 Imperial Crown and a 1965 Lincoln. The Lincoln had the best ride, but you had to replace the door handles if you went around a corner too fast. The Imperial, with its torsion bar suspension was the best handling, though rode like a truck and the Cadillac was in the middle of the three.
Ah hydraulic wipers! I spent around $500.00 having mine replumbed with new hoses. I was always concerned that if I blew a hose, would the pump seize and take the front of the engine off with it? For the A/C I would disconnect the compressor lead during the winter to save a bit on gas.
Hey Charlie----
Gorgeous Deuce Coupe! I had one like that in white/cranberry.
While standing in line to buy some brownies at Hutto's Corner one day (near Woodlawn) a man convinced me to sell it to him.
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted!
Ironrite---
Seems like everybody offered LOTS of beautiful colors to choose from, back in the day. Lincoln's were some of the best. I just adored the combination of a creamy Pastel Green with a Dark Green interior. I had a medium Blue/White '67 Crown Imp. Same thing. Handled o.k. and it was fun to drive, but rode "hard" like a truck. As for Lincoln's climate control system, I thought of doing the same thing you did in the winter, however I have to say it was nice never having to clear moisture build-up on the inside of the windows if rainy and cold outside, or hauling a car full of hot people.
Gorgeous Deuce Coupe! I had one like that in white/cranberry.
While standing in line to buy some brownies at Hutto's Corner one day (near Woodlawn) a man convinced me to sell it to him.
Oh well. It was fun while it lasted!
Ironrite---
Seems like everybody offered LOTS of beautiful colors to choose from, back in the day. Lincoln's were some of the best. I just adored the combination of a creamy Pastel Green with a Dark Green interior. I had a medium Blue/White '67 Crown Imp. Same thing. Handled o.k. and it was fun to drive, but rode "hard" like a truck. As for Lincoln's climate control system, I thought of doing the same thing you did in the winter, however I have to say it was nice never having to clear moisture build-up on the inside of the windows if rainy and cold outside, or hauling a car full of hot people.
PeteK
Nice to see your Deuce treasure. Yours had wire wheels, Charlie's has those classic mags, and mine had more traditional wheel discs with the black centers and Buick crest in the middle.
Just like how they used to offer so many different paint colors, wheel covers, and interior choices, it seems like they used to offer so many different options as well. I guess, most of those options are now "standard" so there is nothing left.
Just for the sake of being argumentative, the lengtht of those Electra's was 233.4 inches, and Cadillac's Sedan de Ville was at 231 inches (a more direct comparison.) However to veer off of the beaten path, the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was 234 inches, and the Seventy-Five Series Limo (Which was still America's only factory-built Limo.) was 253 Inches. Ach, they were a bear to park, but, in those days most parking spaces were designed for large cars. Not so today!
I am amused to look at the different brochures I get in the mail from the people at BMW or Lexus, for instance, and they only offer a half-dozen paint colors and sometimes maybe only three or four interiors. It's almost as though they want everybody to look alike!
Nice to see your Deuce treasure. Yours had wire wheels, Charlie's has those classic mags, and mine had more traditional wheel discs with the black centers and Buick crest in the middle.
Just like how they used to offer so many different paint colors, wheel covers, and interior choices, it seems like they used to offer so many different options as well. I guess, most of those options are now "standard" so there is nothing left.
Just for the sake of being argumentative, the lengtht of those Electra's was 233.4 inches, and Cadillac's Sedan de Ville was at 231 inches (a more direct comparison.) However to veer off of the beaten path, the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was 234 inches, and the Seventy-Five Series Limo (Which was still America's only factory-built Limo.) was 253 Inches. Ach, they were a bear to park, but, in those days most parking spaces were designed for large cars. Not so today!
I am amused to look at the different brochures I get in the mail from the people at BMW or Lexus, for instance, and they only offer a half-dozen paint colors and sometimes maybe only three or four interiors. It's almost as though they want everybody to look alike!
Todays interiors, what choice do you get but black or gray. I see very very few cars with anything but. I bought my 07 Mazda 3 almost on the strength of its very nice tan interior with a matching two tone tan/black dashboard. Surprising how many people comment on how nice it looks when they first get in. Now they don't offer it anymore and the only Mazda 3 you can get with other than a dark interior is if you order the red car. From what I can see on their website. I don't want another car with a gray or black interior. My 99 MB had a coal bin black interior which at the time was sort of stylish but it got gloomy awfully fast and it shows dust and dirt as bad or worse than most.
passatdoc
Well-known member
Thinking back on it, doing Driver Training at the university was a great decision. Transportation was an issue, because it was a half hour away from home. But it was only once a week for eight weeks (last two weeks optional). Not surprisingly, most of the kids in the program were from a nearby high school, I was the only one who came from a longer distance to take the course.
The two key features were:
1. learning to drive in the dark. It was March-April, Daylight Time didn't start until late April, and the course didn't start until 7 pm, so all but the last two (manual transmission) sessions started in the dark or at dusk, and were two hours long. I was allowed to take the written test for a Learner's Permit after having started the behind-the-wheel course, and driving in daylight away from the DMV with my new permit, and Dad in the front seat, was so ridiculously easy, it was a joke (until then, all my time behind the wheel had been in the dark).
2. learning to drive an oversized Electra 225 made any smaller car, including our family station wagon, seem simple to handle.
The other niceties were having a young teacher who was in training to be a Driver's Ed teacher, and the concentrated class time: one hour behind the wheel each week. The other kid in my car missed one week (illness) and the instructor and I simply drove for two full hours just to get more training (we used the entire 7-9 pm time slot). I also remember toward the end that our instructor would let us turn on the radio while driving!! Yeah baby.
The icing on the cake was learning the manual transmission in the optional two extra sessions (which I opted to take). Yay. The other kid in my car, who missed two hours due to being ill one week, signed on for the extra two sessions, which allowed him to make up the hour he was missing. Very course courses included manual transmission training, and I assume most who drive manuals learned from relatives or friends after licensure.
The certificate of completion was issued to me after completing the six required hours, even though I was continuing for two more weeks for the manual lessons, and by then I had accumulated the required number of hours practicing with my parents (might have been 20-25 hours in those days, now it's 50 hours). Today, a teen in California would have a six month waiting period between issuance of the learner's permit and eligibility to take the licensing test.
But in those days, you were eligible to take the driving test as long as you had completed Driver Training (check) and the required 20-25 hours practice time with parents (check). There was no minimum wait time of six months in permit status before taking/passing the behind-the-wheel exam, as long as one was 16 years old, so I took and passed the exam while still in the final two weeks of Driver Training (but having passed the core six hour course).
The two key features were:
1. learning to drive in the dark. It was March-April, Daylight Time didn't start until late April, and the course didn't start until 7 pm, so all but the last two (manual transmission) sessions started in the dark or at dusk, and were two hours long. I was allowed to take the written test for a Learner's Permit after having started the behind-the-wheel course, and driving in daylight away from the DMV with my new permit, and Dad in the front seat, was so ridiculously easy, it was a joke (until then, all my time behind the wheel had been in the dark).
2. learning to drive an oversized Electra 225 made any smaller car, including our family station wagon, seem simple to handle.
The other niceties were having a young teacher who was in training to be a Driver's Ed teacher, and the concentrated class time: one hour behind the wheel each week. The other kid in my car missed one week (illness) and the instructor and I simply drove for two full hours just to get more training (we used the entire 7-9 pm time slot). I also remember toward the end that our instructor would let us turn on the radio while driving!! Yeah baby.
The icing on the cake was learning the manual transmission in the optional two extra sessions (which I opted to take). Yay. The other kid in my car, who missed two hours due to being ill one week, signed on for the extra two sessions, which allowed him to make up the hour he was missing. Very course courses included manual transmission training, and I assume most who drive manuals learned from relatives or friends after licensure.
The certificate of completion was issued to me after completing the six required hours, even though I was continuing for two more weeks for the manual lessons, and by then I had accumulated the required number of hours practicing with my parents (might have been 20-25 hours in those days, now it's 50 hours). Today, a teen in California would have a six month waiting period between issuance of the learner's permit and eligibility to take the licensing test.
But in those days, you were eligible to take the driving test as long as you had completed Driver Training (check) and the required 20-25 hours practice time with parents (check). There was no minimum wait time of six months in permit status before taking/passing the behind-the-wheel exam, as long as one was 16 years old, so I took and passed the exam while still in the final two weeks of Driver Training (but having passed the core six hour course).
