The Sorry State of Affairs in Automobilia in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

[nexus73]

Chrysler LeBaron, the car for the man who likes his menthols laced with asbestos and lead....quarter mile 19.8....stopping from the Federally mandated 55 MPH?....go %#*% yourself! 

Anyone else ever notice that almost every town in seems to have some old dude who holds on his pristine K-LeBaron like it is going to be the next big thing on the collectors market? 

Funny you should mention that.  In my area an old guy has a LeBaron K-car convertible in very nice shape.  I see it semi-regularly.  Never thought about each place having an old man with a K-car until you mentioned it though! 

I used to have a 1983 Dodge 400.  Gutless wonder supreme!  It is as challenging to drive a low power car as a high power one, especially when it is freeway merging time...LOL!  At least the 400's bucket seats were quite comfortable and the FWD went through snow like no one's business. 

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Hey a 400 might have been worth hanging onto, I seem to recall that there was only about 60k of them actually built?  The third generation LeBaron which was on the J-platform was actually a big step up from the earlier models.  There was some decent engine choices to be had and in all fairness that tends to be generation people tend to hang onto rather than the first on the K-platform.

[Henry]

ATS and CTS are great cars for Cadillac, but Cimarron? Not so much:

In fact, it damn near signaled the death of GM's pristine luxury brand as we knew it. That LeBaron has nothing on this dud!

[Max Rockatansky]

"If you try the new 5-speed manual times (quarter mile) drop under 19 (seconds)."   WTF 

Hey, at least the Cimarron could stop pretty well...maybe Cadillac should have used it more in the marketing.    You're right at least at minimum the LeBaron had more clear luxury appointments and looked more so the part even when it was on the K-platform.  The Cimarron just looks someone switched the Chevy badge off a Caviler.....they even look the same side-by-side:





The Wikipedia article even points out that in modern dollars the Cimarron would have cost about 31k today adjusted for inflation, that is a truly pathetic attempt of putting lipstick on a pig.

GM actually did a much better job in the 1990s with the Catera which really led into the first generation CTS.  Granted I know neither the CTS or Catera really fit in the compact slot that the Cimarron failed in but the ATS succeeds:

Its funny, the Catera really did get a lot of good press when it came out...sure is bagged on pretty hard nowadays.  That car actually had a lot of features you'd expect in something sold today.

[ColossalBlocks]

My first car was a 1980 Pontiac Firebird my dad had sitting in the barn for years upon years. The thing was fine, at least in terms of aesthetics. The engine block was full of dirt and dust, anyhoo, after a deep cleaning, the car still ran like shit. The car finally crapped out on I-57 when the catalytic converter caught fire and blew up.

[chays]

Its funny, the Catera really did get a lot of good press when it came out...sure is bagged on pretty hard nowadays.  That car actually had a lot of features you'd expect in something sold today.

The first thing I think of when I hear Catera is Cindy Crawford.  I can live with that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Its funny, the Catera really did get a lot of good press when it came out...sure is bagged on pretty hard nowadays.  That car actually had a lot of features you'd expect in something sold today.

The first thing I think of when I hear Catera is Cindy Crawford.  I can live with that.

I tried like hell to find that commercial on Youtube to no avail when you mentioned it.  No dice on even find an image on Yahoo either.

Something different for today with something interesting engineering behind it:

[Max Rockatansky]

Kind of interesting to think that a 206 inch long car could weigh well under 4,000 pounds given the huge amount of weight gains cars have had in the last quarter century:

[PHLBOS]

Kind of interesting to think that a 206 inch long car could weigh well under 4,000 pounds given the huge amount of weight gains cars have had in the last quarter century:

Much of that can be blamed on the additional standard features & safety-related equipment (example: air bags, note the plural) that have been added on cars since then.  Adding AWD to an existing 2WD vehicle doesn't help in the weight department either.

[Max Rockatansky]

Kind of interesting to think that a 206 inch long car could weigh well under 4,000 pounds given the huge amount of weight gains cars have had in the last quarter century:

Much of that can be blamed on the additional standard features & safety-related equipment (example: air bags, note the plural) that have been added on cars since then.  Adding AWD to an existing 2WD vehicle doesn't help in the weight department either.

Even the heyday of the late 1960s it was hard to find even a 4,000 plus pound car out that crowd.  They were basically big metal bodies but there wasn't anything in them like you said...like air bags which probably drive most of the weight increases alone.  The mid-1980s actually had plenty of cars to go around that weighed less than 2,500 pounds given air bag/safety requirements were nowhere near as strict as they are today.

[Henry]

Kind of interesting to think that a 206 inch long car could weigh well under 4,000 pounds given the huge amount of weight gains cars have had in the last quarter century:

I see your 98, and raise you an LHS:

[PHLBOS]

Even the heyday of the late 1960s it was hard to find even a 4,000 plus pound car out that crowd.  They were basically big metal bodies but there wasn't anything in them like you said...like air bags which probably drive most of the weight increases alone.

I wouldn't go that far.  The largest of the large vehicles (mostly luxury vehicles (Cadillacs, Buicks/Oldsmobile's C-bodies, Lincolns & Imperials) weighed over 4000 lbs. even during the early 60s.  The '59-'60 Cadillacs were even close to or over 5000 lbs. back then.

By the early 70s, most standard, full-size cars weighed over 4000 lbs.; and by the mid-70s, many of them were close to and even over 5000 lbs.

The mid-1980s actually had plenty of cars to go around that weighed less than 2,500 pounds given air bag/safety requirements were nowhere near as strict as they are today.

Very few cars in the mid-80s came w/air bags.  The driver's side air bag wasn't mandated until the early 90s.

Another reason for increased weight on today's cars is increased rim sizes.  Prior to the mid-1980s, 15-inch rims were the largest that was offered on cars.  Today, 19 or even 20-inch rims are offered as an option on many models.

As an example, when Ford's Panther (downsized full-sizes) platform first rolled out for the 1979 model year; it had 14-inch rims standard w/15-inchers being optional. 

For 1986, 15-inchers became standard again. 

From 1993-1997, the optional Handling & Performance Package was the only way one could get 16-inch rims as standard equipment on those cars. 

16-inch rims became standard across the board for all full-size Fords, Lincolns & Mercurys for the 1998 model year.

17-inch rims became first available as an option for 2003 and became standard for 2005.  Such would remain standard through 2011 (2012 for export-only models) when the long-running platform was retired.

The 2003-2004 Mercury Marauder had 18-inch rims and the latter Lincoln Town Cars had 18-inchers as well.

Those road-tested '91 Olds 98 & '93 Chrysler LHS, no doubt, only had 15-inchers.

[Max Rockatansky]

Six-year rust through warranty and galvanized steel body panels. 

Those tires look so thin on that Blazer....


Regular Cars on the history of the NYC Autoshow:

[Max Rockatansky]

Modified 2002:

What the tail end of the 1990s thought a hybrid should be.  I forgot those hyper mileage club were a thing:

[Max Rockatansky]

Turcel:

[Max Rockatansky]

French car....surprisingly quick 1/4 mile time for 1982:

[Henry]

Mike & Molly led me to these discoveries:

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

That's a lot of effort to restore a 79 Gallant.  Too bad it wasn't the 2.0 in the first video, that 1.6 looks tiny in that engine bay.



SHO:

I remember people used to think these were the coolest cars out there. 

[formulanone]

SHO:

I remember people used to think these were the coolest cars out there. 

For brief period of time (say, 1989-1990) there weren't many sedans in production that could touch those performance numbers.

The BMW M5 comes to mind, although in another league, and with only about 2000 examples produced over four years, until production ramped up later on.

[Henry]

That SHO may go down in history as the large American sedan that broke lots of rules for its time, with a manual transmission (and no automatic until the second generation debuted in 1992) and a souped-up engine that did not require the help of a turbocharger or supercharger. About the closest thing to this is the mid-90s Caprice-based Impala SS 6-speed, aka Chevy's answer to the SHO.

[Max Rockatansky]

About the only thing I didn't like on that Impala build was how low it was, hopefully that is an air suspension.  That was some nice blending modern equipment into a stock looking design on the interior.  Probably pushing 600 hp easily with a moderately boosted LS2.

I really don't know if there has been a true follow-up to the original SHO.  Don't forget that thing was a FWD performance car that really probably did have too much power torque steering the wheels for the time.  Nowadays a transverse engine car would likely be equipped with AWD in a performance application like that.  I would think the LS4 W-Bodies were probably a little in concept.

[J N Winkler]

I really don't know if there has been a true follow-up to the original SHO.  Don't forget that thing was a FWD performance car that really probably did have too much power torque steering the wheels for the time.

I see torque steering as a 1980's/early 1990's problem that resulted from the automakers trying to use axle shafts of unequal length instead of putting in a proper intermediate shaft.  My 1986 Nissan Maxima had a problem with torque steer; neither the 1994 Saturn SL2 nor the 2005 Toyota Camry show any signs of it even with rapid takeoffs.  These cars all have similar power/weight ratios.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't think we've done too many Volvos:

Good god every car in the Volvo line used to be hideous, at least you can occasional panel creases with Saab. 

[Max Rockatansky]

2CV

9C1 Police Nova:

[slorydn1]

I think JN Winkler nailed it:

My dad's 1987 Bonneville had a huge torque steer problem. That Series 3800 3.8L V-6 was quite torquey for its size anyway and that car would want to turn dead left if launched from the line.

My wife's 1999 Grand AM was a smaller, lighter car with a smaller 3.4L V-6 that was putting out similar power numbers if memory serves and it had zero torque steer. It was quite fun in the twisties, the most fun I had up in the NC mountains untill we got our Mustang GT's in this decade.