I really miss the true Full sized cars

[Scdevon]

Some family cars I have fond memories of from that era that I grew up driving in Pennsylvania:

1965 Olds Dynamic 88 (2 door !!!)_with a 425 under the hood. The thing wouldn't just spin the right rear tire, it would vaporize the tire for as long as you held the pedal down. Smooth and comfortable on the highway.

1968 Ford LTD with a 390. Just as fun as the Oldsmobile to drive. Gobs of torque way down low and seats so big and comfortable you had to sit in them to believe it. This car would suck up asphalt ahead of it and spit it out behind it all day long in total comfort.
Factory A/C, too!!

 

[Traction]

Everyone complains about how rough the roads are all the time. It isn't so much the roads, which are actually much better than in the past, but more about how cars are designed not to ride the way they use to. Smooth suspension, with high profile tires actually handle better on rough roads, than what we are stuck with now. High center of gravity, stiff springs, and low profile tires, or really low, very stiff springs, and really low profile tires. If every road was smooth as glass, that would help, but will never happen. The old big cars could hit a pothole, and it would feel like a little bump. Now, everything either bends a wheel, and/or ruins the tire too. Except, trucks, but they are the modern rough riding version of a full size car.

 

[SS1970chrysler]

No worries. I still keep the land yachts alive and well here. The family has tried twice to get me into other things and so far failed twice. First was 2008 Dodge Avenger and I could hardly walk for days after driving it an hour. Next attempt was 2012 Nissan Altima. I drove that 2 miles and felt like I had been punched in the kidney for two days after.
I think I will stick to the big ones as long as I can.

 

[Gasbuggy]

If you like driving a two door land yacht go test drive a new challenger.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: whip
To those lamenting the demise of full size cars, are you excited about the Lincoln Continental? Will you buy one?


Not if you gave it to me.

That's the problem. Everybody claims they want them, but nobody will buy them.

Originally Posted By: SS1970chrysler
First was 2008 Dodge Avenger and I could hardly walk for days after driving it an hour.

That must have been an incredibly uncomfortable car.

 

[Joel_MD]

My late paternal grandfather was born in 1914 and post-WWII he drove nothing but full size Buicks. When I was little kid, I remember in 1976 he was concerned because it was the last year that Buick was going to put the big 455 V-8 in the Electra. He bought one and drove it until he died in 1982. I wonder what he would think of today's cars?

 

[WANG]

The cars of today are AWESOME! It's one thing to fondly recall cars from one's past, even with the old "rose tinted glasses" in full effect, but to declare those cars as superior in function to their counterparts today is silly. Seriously.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: WANG
The cars of today are AWESOME! It's one thing to fondly recall cars from one's past, even with the old "rose tinted glasses" in full effect, but to declare those cars as superior in function to their counterparts today is silly. Seriously.


I think many older cars were quieter, and rode more smoothly. Lower profile tires on strut suspension are not the best solution for reducing NVH. Struts are cheap to make and assemble, and don't take up much space, but not easy to keep quiet.
20 psi in 90 series 15" bias ply tires may not handle well, but its quiet and smooth!

I suspect some old cars had less dash and interior rattles as well, as it was all fastened together instead of popped with plastic clips..

The other thing I miss is the real ventilation systems of old cars. Straight vents from the base of the windshield to under the dash, moves 10 times as much air as the whiney electric blowers on full in todays cars... So even with the windows closed, you had decent air flow and AC wasn't as necessary like todays cars.

For 55mph country road touring, I don't think you'd miss too much about new cars. Its only when you fill up, or have to do 5 times less maintenance, or get in an accident that a new car shines over the old iron.

 

[RoadRaceJosh]

Originally Posted By: SS1970chrysler
No worries. I still keep the land yachts alive and well here. The family has tried twice to get me into other things and so far failed twice. First was 2008 Dodge Avenger and I could hardly walk for days after driving it an hour. Next attempt was 2012 Nissan Altima. I drove that 2 miles and felt like I had been punched in the kidney for two days after.
I think I will stick to the big ones as long as I can.


Have you ever talked to your Doctor about this?

 

[aquariuscsm]

My favorite full sized cars are the late 60s-mid 70s Lincoln Mark series and Town Cars. The Mercury twins of those were just as beautiful too. Some of the most beautiful cars ever made.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: whip
To those lamenting the demise of full size cars, are you excited about the Lincoln Continental? Will you buy one?


Not if you gave it to me.

That's the problem. Everybody claims they want them, but nobody will buy them.


A probably-$60,000 luxury car? Not on a bet. Is it even RWD? Is it even full-sized? It is hideous...it is neon-pink Aztek with yellow polka dots and mauve stripes hideous. (Note: there is almost no hard information about what it actually IS.)

 

[d00df00d]

Maybe I'm not the one to ask because it's not remotely my kind of car, but I think the new Continental concept is drop-dead gorgeous.

From what I've read, it'll probably be built on a FWD platform, with AWD as an option. Disappointing, yes. But let's get real -- almost no one who drives the car will even notice, let alone care.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I detest wrong-wheel drive cars and would rather have a neon-pink Pacer with orange polka dots, lavender interior, and lime green seats than that abortion.

 

[SteveSRT8]

A full size car with a turbo 4 banger?

Not in my garage...

 

[HerrStig]

I have always thought that the mid sized GM cars of the late 60's were a good size.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: WANG
The cars of today are AWESOME! It's one thing to fondly recall cars from one's past, even with the old "rose tinted glasses" in full effect, but to declare those cars as superior in function to their counterparts today is silly. Seriously.


I think many older cars were quieter, and rode more smoothly. Lower profile tires on strut suspension are not the best solution for reducing NVH. Struts are cheap to make and assemble, and don't take up much space, but not easy to keep quiet.
20 psi in 90 series 15" bias ply tires may not handle well, but its quiet and smooth!

I suspect some old cars had less dash and interior rattles as well, as it was all fastened together instead of popped with plastic clips..

The other thing I miss is the real ventilation systems of old cars. Straight vents from the base of the windshield to under the dash, moves 10 times as much air as the whiney electric blowers on full in todays cars... So even with the windows closed, you had decent air flow and AC wasn't as necessary like todays cars.

For 55mph country road touring, I don't think you'd miss too much about new cars. Its only when you fill up, or have to do 5 times less maintenance, or get in an accident that a new car shines over the old iron.
Pretty hard suspension choice between rear struts and ox cart leaf springs.

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
The only car I had that fitted into this category was the '65 Mercury Park Lane, with the rear power window (the "Breezeway" option) so that, if you opened all the windows, including the triangular vent windows, you could cruise on a warm day without the A/C. But it had good air, a 300 hp Thunderbird engine, and was easy to work on -- and got about 15 mpg on the highway in a time of $1.10/gal. gas.

No, it wasn't as reliable or safe as modern cars. But a fun ride nevertheless.

Before the 1972 models, almost no vehicle had the rated HP, that 300 Hp 390 T-Bird engine may have had 225, and that's on a good day(I had same in a '64 Galaxie, two in fact)... The 455 Buick GS did make approx their rating of 360, left the 454 Chevy boys wondering how a heavier vehicle with less HP was mopping up on their 450Hp LS6 at the drag strips(Chevy was lying)..

Starting 1972 Fed says HP will be rated as installed in vehicle, cork screw exhaust and all... Along with reducing compression and smog tuning, that's why most of the '70s models appear to have such dismal HP ratings, but in the real world the '72 may have had 10% less HP than the earlier vehicles... With headers(mfgr always rated with headers or at least open exhaust), a re-curve of distributor and carb rejet, there was 300Hp in those T-Bird 390, it just couldn't get out...

Another example is the 302 in my '72 Comet... the '71 was rated 210Hp, '72 plummeted to 140Hp, again mostly because of the soda straw exhaust system that was same both years...

 

[HangFire]

On top of bogus OEM HP claims, Car and Driver admitted to bogus 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Theirs were always a hair faster than Road & Track. There was a lot of delusion going on.

 

[Benzadmiral]

Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
The only car I had that fitted into this category was the '65 Mercury Park Lane, with the rear power window (the "Breezeway" option) so that, if you opened all the windows, including the triangular vent windows, you could cruise on a warm day without the A/C. But it had good air, a 300 hp Thunderbird engine, and was easy to work on -- and got about 15 mpg on the highway in a time of $1.10/gal. gas.

No, it wasn't as reliable or safe as modern cars. But a fun ride nevertheless.

Before the 1972 models, almost no vehicle had the rated HP, that 300 Hp 390 T-Bird engine may have had 225, and that's on a good day(I had same in a '64 Galaxie, two in fact)... The 455 Buick GS did make approx their rating of 360, left the 454 Chevy boys wondering how a heavier vehicle with less HP was mopping up on their 450Hp LS6 at the drag strips(Chevy was lying)..

Starting 1972 Fed says HP will be rated as installed in vehicle, cork screw exhaust and all... Along with reducing compression and smog tuning, that's why most of the '70s models appear to have such dismal HP ratings, but in the real world the '72 may have had 10% less HP than the earlier vehicles... With headers(mfgr always rated with headers or at least open exhaust), a re-curve of distributor and carb rejet, there was 300Hp in those T-Bird 390, it just couldn't get out...

Another example is the 302 in my '72 Comet... the '71 was rated 210Hp, '72 plummeted to 140Hp, again mostly because of the soda straw exhaust system that was same both years...

You're no doubt correct. Long after I sold the car, I read in various places that 300 was the output of that engine. I never had it tested or asked more of it than blasting up onto the Interstate.

 

[JohnnyMerrill]

Originally Posted By: tbm3fan
LOL. I was 14 when this car was built and it was considered a grandfather's car. I was more into Mustangs but many years later it didn't mean I couldn't appreciate it. Is it reliable? Very much so. Is it efficient? Very much no but wasn't made to be when gas was 0.23/gallon. My Focus and 626 triple the mileage of this car. Can it handle like my Focus? Not on your life and I love the Focus. Yet, I love the smooth effortless ride and strong torque of the 410 on the highway.




If you like the low-end torque, you'll love turbos. Especially turbo diesels (yes, in a car).

It's a shame that nobody builds a 3.0 V8 turbodiesel. A well-build one should match the torque of a 427 yet get 35+ MPG.