NeonLX

Yeah, I am not a fan of the high beltline school of design that plagues the 300, Magnum, Charger and now the Caliber--though the Caliber is arguably the least offensive in my book. Keep in mind I'm a Chrysler fan from way back but I've really been underwhelmed by their most recent efforts from a styling standpoint. For the most part, I like the Caliber but I don't like that high beltline. The good thing about the Caliber is that it weighs several hundred pounds less than the PT so the fuel economy is correspondingly better (kudos to the new powertrains here too). A naturally-aspirated PT with an auto tranny sucks fuel at about the same rate as my larger, heavier Caravan with a V6 engine.

Which articles? I probably read 'em! If they ever tackle the AMC Gremlin, I'm their man. I wrote an article on the history of the Gremlin that appeared in "American Motoring" magazine back in 1992 (though I'm sure Patrick Foster, one of their regular contributors, would probably do a better job than I could). Here's a web version of my Gremlin article: http://geocities.com/namastefolks/gremlin.html

292 I6 & 4-speed manual tranny w/ "granny" first gear.

The current issue of Collectible Automobile magazine features the (domestic) GM cars of 1959. I haven't seen the article yet but if it's at all like past efforts from this magazine, it should be pretty good. They frequently show photos of the prototypes as they evolve through time. The technical details are usually good too. I have almost all the issues of this magazine since its inception back in 1984. For anyone who likes old cars and trucks, this is a fine publication. I know it's available at most of the larger magazine racks like you find in Borders or Barnes & Noble book stores. On edit: I know this isn't a trivia question but I also know there are several people in this forum who are at least as geeky as I am about old cars--so this seemed like a good place to post the info.

Anyone else remember the Frank Sinatra edition of the early 1980s Imperials? They had some special trim and also a cassette tape of Ol' Blue Eye's hits. I've got a sales brochure for the 1982 (or was it '83?) model laying around somewheres.

Thanks for biting. Actually, you get half credit. The correct answer was "false", and the sporty full-sized model that offered many of the same features and styling of the Starfire (including bucket seats and the big V8) for less money was the Jetstar I, available only during 1964 and 1965. In '64, the Jetstar I came standard with the 345 HP, 394 V8 and in '65, it came with the 370 HP, 425 V8. The regular Jetstar 88 line featured Oldsmobile's new small block 330 CID V8 in '64 and '65, but the Jetstar I added bucket seats plus the Starfire's distinctive roofline and "big block" V8.

Is this one just too easy?

Darned near impossible to pick just one. I've always wanted a 1965 Jetstar I--the Starfire's cheaper brother. This model featured the very nice styling of the Starfire with its distinctive roofline and it also shared the Starfire's thumping 370 HP, 425 CID V8. It wasn't quite as well-equipped as the Starfire so it sold for less. I haven't seen a Jetstar I (produced only in 1964 and 1965) in many years. I also liked the 1956 Olds line, especially the 98s with their longer trunks. Ditto the 1959 models. I'd really like to find another limited edition 1972 Olds 98 Regency like I drove until 1978. I could go on for pages about "favorite" Oldsmobiles.

OK, I'm not trying to be a pain here, but the LS6 ratings in 1970 were "gross" horsepower, weren't they? Don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying this engine--because it definitely was a powerhouse.

Nice. But I wish the owner hadn't carved holes into the inside door panels to make way for speakers. That looks like ass, no matter how good it might sound. Was the 1965-'67 Olds 400 based on the "low block" 330 V8 or did it share the same "raised block" as the 425? I know the 1968-'69 400 was a "raised block" engine but I'm not sure about the earlier version. Edit: I did some surfing and found that both 400s were "big blocks". The earlier 400 had the same stroke length as the 425 while the later 400 shared the 455's stroke length.

True or False? The only mid-1960s, rear wheel drive, full-sized Olds "sporty" model that came standard with a console & bucket seats, as well as the largest displacement V8 made by Olds at the time, was the Starfire. If true, the exam is finished. If false, explain your disagreement with the above statement.

You win the whole enchilada! Not a bad looking model.

You're good. Bonus points: What year, and what was the CID (or horsepower) of the engine?

What was the first domestic U.S. car to be advertised as having one horsepower per cubic inch as standard equipment (make, model & year)?

Anyone remember the issue where Honda's marketing agency...er, I mean "Consumer Reports" tested beer? AHAHAHAHA! Really, they did. I think it was back around 2000. Of course, the beer brewed by Honda was rated "excellent in all respects". It was also judged to be the most reliable when it came to stimulating one's kidneys. But I really ain't kidding about them testing & rating beer a few years back.

Yup, that was the car! It was at an Olds meet in Madison, WI many years back--Maybe even back in the early '90s. I couldn't remember if it was a '69 or '70 but the three in the tree, coupled to a 455 2V, definitely sticks in my mind. Thanks for filling me in on the details!

Yup, the 2V carb sitting on top of all those cubic inches. Friend of mine had a '69 Caprice with the 396 & 2V carb. My '71 Newport had the 383 V8 & 2V. My granny's '71 Marquis Brougham had the 429 V8 & 2V (and a 10.5:1 compression ratio!). A good friend of mine had a '71 Custom Cruiser and he assumed it had a 4V carb on it--until he took the air cleaner lid off and spied that dinky little carb down in there. I still remember the look of dismay on his face to this day. I went to an Oldsmobile show a few years back and there was a '69 88 convertible with a 455 2V under the hood hooked to a 3-on-the tree-tranny. That had to be a very rare combination.

What was the main difference between the 455 V8 that came standard in the 1971 Olds 98 and the 455 V8 that came standard in the 1971 Custom Cruiser wagon?

We've got two Dodges--a Caravan and a Neon. I mostly drive the Neon while my wife generally has the Caravan. The Neon was really inexpensive and so far has been completely reliable. It gets good gas mileage too. The Caravan drives nicely for a minivan and it was surprisingly inexpensive too. As good of a deal as my Neon was, I'd prefer a Cobalt sedan. But I couldn't find one with the right equipment within $2000 of what I paid for the Neon. I'd really like a Malibu LT w/ 3500 V6 but now we're talking a lot more money.

I hope like heck that the "mule" is carrying the Dodge interior. If that's how the Chrysler interior is going to look... <<<<shudder>>>>

I remember my dad dragging my brother and I to the Phord dealership when the original Mustang was first introduced. We even got to test drive one of the "demos" they had on hand. Never mind that it had a six-banger and three speed manual tranny--my brother and I started begging the old man to buy one. Of course, we had already begged him to buy a split-window Corvette, a '63 Riviera, a Studebaker Hawk, etc. :) But we drove back home in our boring but reliable '61 Chevy wagon. I really like the current Mustangs, even if they do ape the styling of the 1969-'70 models (hey, but it's their styling to ape, right?). A high school friend of mine had a '69 Mustang fastback with a 390 and C6 auto tranny. That car was really "tits", in the vernacular of the time.

The Chrysler 3.3L/3.8L engines are really rugged. I've owned four different vehicles with them myself (all minivans) and I've never experienced any mechanical difficulties except having to replace a water pump. The basic design is very simple and sound. They will seemingly go forever. Interestingly, DC will be using the 3.8L V6 in the updated '07 Wrangler. It will take the place of the old AMC 4.0L inline six. those are mighty big shoes to fill. The old inline six is one of my very favorite engines of all time--but I've got a lot of respect for the 3.3L/3.8L V6s as well. I feel bad for the current GM minivan offerings. They have nice interiors but they are not particularly well-designed. The extra length of the schnozz, to make them look more SUV-like, is nothing but wasted space and makes them that much harder to park. They've also gained several hundred pounds over the previous generation so they are pokier and get worse fuel economy to boot.

The big slabs of molded plastic inside make me think this might be some kind of mule, with a Chrysler exterior and the Dodge interior. Dodge has really gone down the route of blocky, hard plastic interiors. I looked at a new Magnum recently and was dismayed at how uninviting the interior looks. Well, at least it's comfortable but all those square kilometers of molded plastic really turn me off. I'm hoping the Chrysler version will have nicer trim, hopefully including chrome and wood.

Yeah, I was just having some phun at Phord's expense. A friend of mine has a '91 Mustang with a heavily breathed upon 5.0L that he runs in Road America events. That car is anything but slow. The Mustang has always offered a lot of bang for the buck. But it's still a Phord. :)

Amen. I've always been a fan of the SBC, going back to my '56 Chevy 210 and its gutsy little 265 V8. One of the endearing qualities of the current Caravan/T&C for me is their rugged pushrod V6 engines. Of course, they've got the usual distributorless ignition, roller lifters and SMPI injection, but the underlying simplicy of their design shines through --and they tend to be pretty bulletproof as well (not to mention torquey).