ionosphere Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 What's everyone's favorite rides? I am finally going to buy the type of car I've always wanted and can't wait to start driving in it. What's this dreamcar? A Mercury Grand Marquis. Can't beat a traditional rear-wheel drive big American sedan with front bench seat for comfort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownwho63 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 What's everyone's favorite rides? There's no definitive answer. Rides, like women and beer, are individual, personal preferences based upon whatever floats your boat. Like I have cautiously told my wife of 47 years a few times, "No more old cars or old women for me." Meanwhile, I continue to cruise with her in a '79 Vette, '77 Monte Carlo, and an '04 supercharged Monte and I still like all four of them......Bliss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Burr - hester_nec Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Can't beat a 1948-1954 Hudson for comfort and handling on them two lane roads!!!!! Now ..... if I could only afford one!!!! Hudsonly, Alex Burr HudsonTech Memphis, TN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep the Show on the Road! Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 ionosphere, First, glad to see you post...and welcome again! I ended up renting a big Lincoln Town Car a few months ago, and was really pleased with the space and comfort, and surprised at the relatively good gas mileage. I think the Mercury Grand Marquis is basically the same car. Right? Cruising along the two lanes on US20 in Eastern Oregon, and along the Old Oregon Trail was a pleasure. And I looked a lot wealthier than I am! It was tough to go back to my compact economy car But as they say about fishing, even a day in my economy car on the two lane roads beats a day in a Cadillac on the freeway...or something like that! Welcome aboard! Keep the Show on the Road! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Burr - hester_nec Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 ionosphere, First, glad to see you post...and welcome again! I ended up renting a big Lincoln Town Car a few months ago, and was really pleased with the space and comfort, and surprised at the relatively good gas mileage. I think the Mercury Grand Marquis is basically the same car. Right? Cruising along the two lanes on US20 in Eastern Oregon, and along the Old Oregon Trail was a pleasure. And I looked a lot wealthier than I am! It was tough to go back to my compact economy car But as they say about fishing, even a day in my economy car on the two lane roads beats a day in a Cadillac on the freeway...or something like that! Welcome aboard! Keep the Show on the Road! Dave For fast road trips in relative comfort and 25-27 mpg the '97 Caddy I have is a good road car, for the interstates - which it was designed for. It's a little bit much on narrower roads, such as two lane older roads, but still it's comfortable if you don't push it to fast. Hudsonly, Alex Burr Memphis, TN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobilene Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 15 years ago a friend bought an old, high-mileage, first-gen Mazda RX-7 and was hooning around in it. He let me drive it some as we explored the roads. That car would be my choice. It was nimble and fast, just a delight to drive. jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep the Show on the Road! Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Jim, I think you are on to something there! I have been a "sports car guy" most my life, with a predisposition toward convertibles. Over the years I have purchased new an MGA, a Triumph, a Fiat Spyder, and a Miata. And I considered an RX-7 seriously. The RX-7 was a nice machine. The only flaw was they were not available as convertibles in the original design. Unless one has done it, one can’t appreciate the sheer joy of driving a sports car on a winding two lane road, with the top down, sun out, and the right music on the player. I know of only one thing more enjoyable, and that takes two consenting adults. And as I note below, a sports car can help there too. I’d pay $300 cash right this minute for 30 minutes behind the wheel of a sweet running 1958 MGA. Your butt is about 7 inches off the road, and you feel every curve and rise as though you were flying just above the asphalt. Damn, the recollection actually gets me choked up. I suspect that riding a motor cycle must have some or maybe more of the same feeling. In fact I sold the MGA to a guy who was giving up his motor cycle (on his wife’s insistence), but wanted to continue to enjoy the road. I probably would have been a motorcyclist, but working in a gas station as a young man, I met too many guys with too many injuries incurred on cycles. I think the closest I ever got to ideal cars was owning a Toyota Land Cruiser and the Fiat Spyder in the 1970’s. The Land Cruiser would take you anywhere wheels could roll, and too often where they could not! And the Spyder was as close to perfect (cost/benefit) for its day as you could get on the open road. And while I was single, it was a first class babe magnet. I remember picking up a buddy to go to lunch. I was telling him that he needed a sports car to improve his love life. He laughed at me, so as we pulled up to an intersection, I said “Just sit there and watch what that woman crossing in from of us does.” Of course without either of us doing anything, as she passed in front of the Spyder, she turned and gave us the “Hi, you must be my type” smile. Enough reminiscing! But I think an RX-7 is a good choice as one of the ideal cars! Keep the Show on the Road Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobilene Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 (edited) I'm with you, Dave, that there's a lot of joy in a tight little sporty machine when it's you and the road. I wish I (a) had the money right now and ( could find some modern analog to that '83 RX-7 my friend bought used in the early '90s. It was in decent shape -- still looked great, still ran well enough. And it was such a joy on the road. I'll bet I would have enjoyed riding in your Spyder. I wouldn't mind having something more babe-magnety than my little station wagon, too. But at least I can take my two large dogs along on road trips in the wagon. Can't do that in an RX-7. I'd like to have something like that RX, a compact pickup, and my daily driver. My driveway would look like a used-car lot. Edited February 4, 2008 by mobilene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep the Show on the Road! Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Jim. I was a year younger than you when I had the Spyder, and for reasons that are mostly related to the fact that I was a single parent and going to college working on a doctorate (never finished ), I ended up buying a Pinto station wagon after the Spyder. The only thing I can say about a Pinto station wagon.......you can be confident the girls aren't dating you for your car! Keep the Show on the Road! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityboy1986 Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Out of all the cars I have been in, my favourite in terms of comfort and gas mileage is my grandmother's '04 Chevy Impala. Its gas mileage is not much less than that of my own car, a subcompact, and it has every feature for which I have a need (or want). Those factors aside, I would like something from about 1948 through 1960, when the fins started to disappear. Tracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DennyG Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Good choices all. I'll take one of each. I've intended to post to this thread since its start but I couldn't settle on a single cruising "dreamcar". Still can't. Partly, I know, because I can't settle on a single definition for "cruising". I've experienced the Grand Marquis that started the thread and agree it's a great way to gobble up miles comfortably. From my own past, my favorite "turnpike cruiser" was a full size Chevy van that was my only vehicle for several years. Comfortable with a good view and a place to sleep. But it wasn't much fun to drive on the twistys and the back of the van was usually the only place I could afford to sleep after paying for gas. During its final years, the van was spared daily driver duties by a series of cars that actually included an RX-7. Much more fun but not much better gas mileage. KtSotR's Land Cruiser and Spyder fleet may very well be the ideal setup for a wide range of road trips but I'm not sure either vehicle is a good fit for the "cruising" that ionosphere had in mind. For that, I'm thinking a nice green 7 series BMW would work. He did say dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobilene Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 I had a Pinto once. I loved that stupid car, but my girlfriend didn't, since two of the three bolts holding the passenger seat had rusted out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep the Show on the Road! Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Ah, Denny...sure, lets all dream a little. Ionosphere hasn’t come back to this dialog to redirect our musings....so I claimed the privilege to set it adrift. But as always, you bring us back to the point. I imagine there are some sweet cruisers out there in the BMW / Mercedes genre but I never owned one, nor really thought of owning one. But I did own a sweet cruiser.....on topic. It was a 1962 Buick Convertible, the Electra 225 (or Deuce-and-a-Quarter). I say “If the sun don't shine on your bean, it ain’t a mean cruisin' machine.” If the top doesn’t come off or fully retract, it is a wantabe cruiser. So let the debates begin! Let me tell you how sweet a Deuce-and-a-Quarter convertible was.. First there were no shift points, just pure sweet acceleration, and effortless cruising from a 401 cubic inch 325 HP V-8 that meant business. Granted, the gas gauge fell like a rock, but at the time, who cared. You could cruise the two lane roads of Montana at 80 or 90 with the top down and be no more tossed by the wind than if you were in your living room. The air conditioner was so powerful that it could be 95 degrees outside with the top down and you still were cool and comfortable, and could carry on a conversation without shouting. My son was a baby, and we kept him in a bassinet at my wife’s feet. I mention that not because it was safe (there were no safety seats then) but because my wife could still stretch out comfortable. You could have held a meeting of the full American Road Garage crew in that car. And the top was so well lined and insulated that you could use it all winter at 20 below. And it was so well built, I took it where only a jeep should have gone. And that Buick climbed like a mountain goat, over rocks, on the roughest of roads. It was an attention getter from the word go. It was snow white with white leather upholstery and had a black top. Back home, the local Chamber of Commerce borrowed it each 4th of July to carry the queen in the downtown parade. We cruised much of Western America in that Buick during the 60’s and early 70’s...and Beware, I probably have the movies to prove it! Keep the Show on the Road! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobilene Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Of course your Buick had no shift points -- it had a Dynaflow (aka Dynaslush) gearbox! That 401 engine had to make up for in power what the Dynaflow took away in acceleration! Sounds like this is one car you wouldn't mind having today, if it were in good nick. This links to a page with a couple photos of a blue '62. http://www.oldride.com/library/1962_buick_electra_225.html jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep the Show on the Road! Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Of course your Buick had no shift points -- it had a Dynaflow (aka Dynaslush) gearbox! That 401 engine had to make up for in power what the Dynaflow took away in acceleration! Sounds like this is one car you wouldn't mind having today, if it were in good nick. This links to a page with a couple photos of a blue '62. http://www.oldride.com/library/1962_buick_electra_225.html jim Jim, That’s the car! I could take the blue off that photo in Photoshop, and it would be my white beauty. I had almost forgotten the 1” whitewalls. Now I have to dig out some movies of her in action. Dynaflow...I couldn’t remember that name. You are right! And it was nicknamed dyna-flush or dyna-slush, just as Power-glide was power-slide or power-slush and Hydromatic was hydro-static. And Buick made cars with Dynaflow that year with engines as small as 135 HP, which must have given real meaning to the nicknames. But 325 HP with the torque behind 401 cubic inches would have moved the Queen Mary through Jello at 40 knots. The driver didn’t notice any lost energy through the Dynaflow transmission. With the pedal down, what you did feel was the smoothest transition from parked to cruising speed ever invented...at about 12 MPG. And while the divided front seats weren’t “buckets,” the take off on that Deuce-and-a-Quarter kept your butt well planted. Well, I have to thank you, Alex, Ionosphere, Denny, Tracy, et al for this little blast from the past! Keep the Show on the Road! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobilene Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Bring on the 225 movies!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownwho63 Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Jim, That’s the car! I could take the blue off that photo in Photoshop, and it would be my white beauty. I had almost forgotten the 1” whitewalls. Now I have to dig out some movies of her in action. Dynaflow...I couldn’t remember that name. You are right! And it was nicknamed dyna-flush or dyna-slush, just as Power-glide was power-slide or power-slush and Hydromatic was hydro-static. And Buick made cars with Dynaflow that year with engines as small as 135 HP, which must have given real meaning to the nicknames. But 325 HP with the torque behind 401 cubic inches would have moved the Queen Mary through Jello at 40 knots. The driver didn’t notice any lost energy through the Dynaflow transmission. With the pedal down, what you did feel was the smoothest transition from parked to cruising speed ever invented...at about 12 MPG. And while the divided front seats weren’t “buckets,” the take off on that Deuce-and-a-Quarter kept your butt well planted. I have owned one Buick during my lifetime, a new 1984 LeSabre with a 305 V8 and, I believe, a Hyra Matic tranny. That thing was huge and a major league comfortable road car. My job put me on the road full time then and I put several thousand miles on the car annually. Had 247K on the clock when I sold it and was still running well. All it ever required was normal maintenance and one air conditioner. Replaced it with an '87 Monte Carlo SS with 305 V8 and t-tops and I put 156K on the clock before selling it to a friend. I thought it was the best car I ever owned until we bought the new '04 supercharged V6 Monte, a delightful cruiser I may never part with.....Bliss Keep the Show on the Road! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DennyG Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 I don't believe I've owned a single Buick but all this reminiscing naturally reminded me of my first convertible. A white '59 Impala purchased in 1965. A 283 automatic, it was nowhere near as powerful or classy as KtSotR's "deuce 'n' a quay". But it was still a cool car and I can still conjure up the image seen in the rear view mirror with the top down. The car seemed to go on forever and those horizontal fins looked like something a small airplane could land on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep the Show on the Road! Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 I don't believe I've owned a single Buick but all this reminiscing naturally reminded me of my first convertible. A white '59 Impala purchased in 1965. A 283 automatic, it was nowhere near as powerful or classy as KtSotR's "deuce 'n' a quay". But it was still a cool car and I can still conjure up the image seen in the rear view mirror with the top down. The car seemed to go on forever and those horizontal fins looked like something a small airplane could land on. Denny, Now you are talking! Lets hear more on that beauty!. Keep the Show on the Road! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DennyG Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Lets hear more on that beauty!.I only owned the car for about a year. Actually I co-owned it with my sister. I talked her into buying it right after I graduated from high school and we happily shared it that summer. In the fall, I left for college and sis had exclusive use of the car except for my occasional weekend home. I did take the car with me for a couple of one or two week periods during the next spring including the end of the school year. Knowing I wanted a car full time for the next year, I sold out to my sister and bought a 1961 Renault 4CV (The only car I've ever started with a crank!). Sometime during that next year, one of my sister's friends drove the car through a chain link fence with a goodly amount of damage to the front end. The car was quickly sold (I never saw the damage) and details of the incident have always bit a bit of a "mystery" to me. Not a deep dark mystery just a "what really happened there, sis?" kind of mystery Except for the fancy wheels, this Wikipedia picture could be that car. I realize that we are often overly fond of a particular car only because we once owned one, but I think the '59 Chev would get my attention even without that personal history. To me, it was the last full sized Chevrolet with style. The next year, the graceful curved wings turned into dumb looking straight lines and those wonderful cats-eye tail lights turned into boring little bullets. Then it was a square box, a slightly rounded box, a pointy box, and another slightly rounded box before the sort of OK 1965 model came along. At least the '65 looked as if someone actually designed it instead of just jerking around the previous model. After that, they seemed to be set on making the car undistinguished and, as far as I can tell, they succeeded. I am not alone in thinking Chevrolet styling peeked as the fifties ended. Someone, with obvious good taste, even has a Chevy59 website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep the Show on the Road! Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Denny, Thanks for the description! Terrific car and lots of good reflections there. And the photo brought a rush. I don’t even remember the 1960 Chev, so you must be right. In my view at the time, the 55 was important, the 57 was classic, and the 59 was the peak of the generation. The 56 was OK but really was just a 55 with different tail lights, and the 58 was bulbous. All are cherished now....and my view would be much more generous if I had any one of them today...but that was how I saw them back when. Keep the Show on the Road! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobilene Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Y'all're kidding, right? The 55-57 Chevs were good looking, the 58 was an abomination, and the 59 was just freaky-looking with the gullwing fins. It wasn't until 1962 that Chev reversed their downward styling slide. I can't decide whether the 65-66 or 67-68 Impala coupe represents the pinnacle of Chevy styling! (clears throat) Just one man's opinion. jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DennyG Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 ...freaky-looking...You say that like it's a bad thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keep the Show on the Road! Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Y'all're kidding, right? The 55-57 Chevs were good looking, the 58 was an abomination, and the 59 was just freaky-looking with the gullwing fins. It wasn't until 1962 that Chev reversed their downward styling slide. I can't decide whether the 65-66 or 67-68 Impala coupe represents the pinnacle of Chevy styling! (clears throat) Just one man's opinion. jim Oh, we have awakened Indianapolis now! I stand by every word and am prepared to take it to the jury! But before it goes there, remember that I was clear that this was my view at the time. As the good politician I am, that is an unchallengeable position. De posto factum, reducto adobserdim, probono ad hoctus . I have the additional advantage that my worthy protagonist wasn’t alive "at the time", and is thus disqualified at the onset. He could have no view at the time! The judge must throw out the counter claim! Claim dismissed! Having suffered the slings and arrows of indignation, I now retreat into my lair to lick my wounds, surrounded by my reels of old movies. Keep the Show on the Road! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobilene Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Perhaps hearing Dinah Shore and some clean-cut friends sing the praises of driving the 1959 Chevy will help ease the pain of indignation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.