FWIW, the 1961 Chrysler 300G was given a full-page ad that called it "The car that delights in the 600-mile day."
(As I typed that, I thought, "My God, that's fifty years ago!" Uh, nope.)
FWIW, the 1961 Chrysler 300G was given a full-page ad that called it "The car that delights in the 600-mile day."
(As I typed that, I thought, "My God, that's fifty years ago!" Uh, nope.)
02Pilot said:- Comments on 50s/60s American stuff have largely confirmed my suspicions. Are there any cars of that era that stand out as particularly well-suited, or is it basically just all the same underneath?
There are a few exceptions, but most of your American cars from this era will follow a similar formula: Pushrod engine with an iron block and heads, front engine rear wheel drive, recirculating ball type steering, double wishbone front suspension (with coil springs or torsion bars), and a live axle rear suspension (either four link or leaf sprung). The main differences would be unibody vs body on frame construction, disc or drum brakes, and transmissions. Most of the arguments you'll see are over who had the best implementation of this basic formula.
There are some that didn't follow this formula - the Corvair is the best known. Packards fit the basic design but often had self leveling suspension. Oldsmobile and Cadillac experimented with front wheel drive on large V8 cars. And you'll sometimes find unusual add on options. But mostly, it's just a matter of finding the car and engine size you want.
About test driving old stuff... How about checking Turo?
My road-trip car (intended for a cross-country and back, but so far haven't gone farther than about 500 miles from home as I built up confidence in it), is a 88 Porsche 924S.
I do have a late-model GTI which would drive across the country and back a dozen times with no drama, but that would be no fun.
Why the Porsche?
1. It gets about 30mpg
2. It has a CAVERNOUS hatchback. Like, I could probably sleep back there in a pinch. In any case, it has more than enough space to take whatever gear, spares, tools, etc. I want to, and still do it in a small car. Note that this car dimensionally is about the same as a MIata, but has a TON more practical/usable space for road tripping (photo isn't mine, but I've also done this)
3. It's a great high-speed cruiser. Relatively comfortable on most roads on plus-one size 911 wheels. Even comfier on the stock ones. Also no wind buffeting, even with the windows down at 80mph. i.e. good aero.
4. Reliability - ok, obviously the weak spot of most older cars, which is why I've been building up to longer and longer trips and making sure everything works as intentded. It also has working A/C and heat
5. I've removed the rear "seat" (the one for people with no legs) and replaced it with a custom-built (by me) storage box that is lockable and holds my tools, spare parts, and other stuff I want out of sight, with the top set up to hold a cooler and two duffels of whatever.
All in all, I love taking this car on long drives for those reasons.
The way I read this is that you want a GT car that's reliable and special. It needs to be comfortable on the highway, but engaging when you want it to be.
off hand for me, that sounds like a Frisbee is probably out. And, I reckon the most recent Supra is over budget, even used. Ditto Stingers (barely)... but which, being a Kia, fail the 'special something' thing. Which probably dings the really odd-ball Lexus CT200h.
so, I'd probably be looking at a 2008-2013 Lexus IS coupe.
(250, 300, 350... whatever).
or, similarly, an Infiniti G37 coupe
Finally, since you've got a Saab, so you don't completely turn up your nose at Fwd:
2008-2012 Honda Accord Coupe V6 6spd,
with mild "traccord" tweaks. $10k used, with $5k for fixing deferred maintenance, and $5k for "mods". Unfortunately, sleepywife won't drive stick... so that pipe dream is out for me.
There's a pretty good chance all of these fail the 'something special' pseudo-requirement. But, since you were asking for suggestions to ignore... 
with all of the above said... sleepyDad's favorite car ever was the '64 P1800 he bought new, and drove DD for 10 years in the UP and Chicagoland. Another 8 years, and two kids later, he couldn't justify keeping it on the road. He's always kept an eye out for replacing it eventually... especially after DD'ing a water-cooled Vanagon for 15 years around DC. Since then, he's edge closer and closer to the P1800 idea with a gen1 Focus, and a 2012 GTI. He's also gotten to 'keep the tires round' on my '05 TL for the last 2.5years, and thinks it's a great car.
sleepymom had a hankering for a 2002 back when she was a poor college student, and she finally 'Got her BMW' in 2011, with a 535i 6spd special ordered.
all of that said, I was surprised about a month ago when said FatherBuffalo sent an email titled "Time to have some FUN", with this picture attached:
I've gotten about an email a week since, saying how much he enjoys the thing. So, consider this sleepydad's glowing endorsement of the "ND2 option"
I rambled NA for a couple of years in a 1990 Miata and loved it. Another option might be one of the twins BRZ or Toyota 86
The difference between an adventure and an ordeal is a state of mind...
The person who you should be asking is the one that is going to go along with you. Unless they are of the ilk who are comfortable broken down along the way and just consider it part of the adventure, go with the more modern option.
jharry3 said:The most comfortable car I ever took on a long road trip was a 1986 Honda CRX Si. For whatever reason it just worked out to be comfortable. And my wife could lean the seat back and take naps with no problem. This was before kids of course.
Plus I could cruise all day at 75+ mph and still get 38 mpg.
Agree. Honda's of that era are wonderful. I'd go for a mid '90's though (not necessarily CRX). Mid '90's to early '00's seems to be a sweet spot. Love those old Preludes.
Uncle David (Forum Supporter) said:Four years ago, I took a bunch of Scouts from Baltimore-ish to northern Minnesota. I did most of the driving. We had one of these:
This thing was absolutely flawless on flat, straight, mid-western super-slabs. Quiet, comfortable, plenty of space, good visibility, and tracked beautifully. It was kind of annoying around town, but we're talking highway cruiser, right?
Shut your mouth. YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH. I do not want that secret getting out. These are cheap because nobody knows that secret. :-)
SOB's will flat move too when the 3.6 VVT gets into the 4K and up range.
Thankfully, the one thing I'm not worried about is my GF. We've been together a long time, driven a lot of places in cars old and new, broken down and dealt with it. Neither of us wants to be fixing the car every 20 miles, but she's fine with accepting the risks of traveling in an older car in reasonably good shape.
A 401 CJ said:Uncle David (Forum Supporter) said:Four years ago, I took a bunch of Scouts from Baltimore-ish to northern Minnesota. I did most of the driving. We had one of these:
This thing was absolutely flawless on flat, straight, mid-western super-slabs. Quiet, comfortable, plenty of space, good visibility, and tracked beautifully. It was kind of annoying around town, but we're talking highway cruiser, right?
Shut your mouth. YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH. I do not want that secret getting out. These are cheap because nobody knows that secret. :-)
SOB's will flat move too when the 3.6 VVT gets into the 4K and up range.
I've taken my brothers' T&C from Kentucky to Boston and back and Kentucky to Denver and back. I don't know if it's the load (2 adults and 4 teenagers) or what but I HAAATE the transmission in these wretched things. On anything like an uphill slope with the cruise control on it hunts between 5th and 6th. The "manual override" selector on the gearshift doesn't seem to actually do anything either. And it doesn't hunt smoothly either, it slams down to 5th, revs the nuts off it for a couple hundred yards and slides back to 6th for a couple hundred yards until it realizes it doesn't like the torque and repeats the cycle. Not nearly as relaxing on highway slogs as I'd like.
My Passat went for a 1,000 mile day last fall (went to Missouri to look at a car with the son unit) and it was phenomenal. Just ate up the miles and left us as clear and fresh at the end of the day as I could wish. But I get that it's missing that something "special" for a transcontinental trek.
The antique car appeal I think would get old pretty fast, I'd want "special modern" if I was heading out for such a journey. Is there a 911 in your budget?
One thing to "discuss" is what can go wrong....
Engine- why would one not run?
The easy problem would be fuel system and ignition system- so carbs and points, or weird carbs and new electronic points, early EFI with electronic ignition, good OBDI systems, and OBDII. To me, modern advancements in things like MS makes the early EFI controls a lot less mysterious.
But the question would be- how comfortable are you dealing with those problems?
The hard problems- oiling. Those systems have had advances over time, but as long as they are in good shape, and the bearing areas are not worn out- most GT driving should be ok. But the older the engine, the more likely the bearing surfaces are worn.... Gaskets and leaks have made a lot of progress over the last 50 years, though- something to keep in mind. And then the other oil user is valve gaskets....
Electronics- wires do age, and get brittle- so the older the more likely there's a break you may not see. By the #1 problem, by far, is bad grounds due to corrosion. The older the worse. One other thing to "consider" is the complexity of the electronics relative to the technology- like we had a cool LCD display on an Alfa 164, but it was made so badly that there's an aftermarket system out there to rebuild them.
Brakes- these have gotten better over time from simple drum set ups to disk with ABS. Again, I'd personally avoid drum brakes just because of mountains. But for sure, I'd avoid a single brake circuit- even though those systems are super reliable- just a safety thing. And I know early ABS systems were early technology- so some can be problematic.
Suspension- age and mileage is the "killer"- but ball joints should be as new as possible so that you don't become "that" driver who abandons your car with the wheel hub separate from the rest of the car.
To me, those are the big things that can leave you stranded. All of them can be worked on to minimized them, and depending on the car, it's almsot not even a problem at all.
I really enjoyed my ND but I wouldnt consider it a good road trip car. It was just too small.
The Impala SS or something old, like a Mercury Monterey Breezeway, are my favorite suggestions.
The other part about long cruises is what can make the experience miserable or even dangerous.
Miserable if you don't fit. If you get a bad back within an hour, and 8 our drive is terrible.
Miserable if the sound and vibration is so bad that you start going numb.
Miserable if the conditions make you too hot or too cold.
Dangerous if the vehicle emissions are bad and get into the driver's compartment.
All of those should be considered, too.
The car I've road tripped in the most is my 1986 BMW M535i. Comfortable, big trunk, good mileage, cruise control, a/c, good radio. On the other hand, the one that was probably the most fun was my 1961 Pontiac Bonneville convertible. Also comfortable and with a HUGE trunk, but no other real amenities - that's the problem with older cars. I also used to have a 1966 Pontiac Grand Prix that was great on the highway as well.
I think cruise control in particular is an important feature for long days on the road, but it wasn't very common on cars from the 1970s or earlier.
I've got a soft spot for the mid '90's Roadmaster Wagon. With just a little rake and some unpolished Torque Thrust Ds they look really sick too.
Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think all the Impala SS stuff and cop stuff should swap over too.
Gen II small block should be plenty but I suppose about anything could be swapped in fairly easily.
sleepyhead the buffalo said:The way I read this is that you want a GT car that's reliable and special. It needs to be comfortable on the highway, but engaging when you want it to be.
I'm getting that vibe, too, but in a very general sense. That is to say, not a GT in terms of Berlinetta or 2+2 Italian/British kind of way. I think he's looking for GT meaning Great at Touring as opposed to a traditional GT-definition car.
02Pilot said:
- Comments on 50s/60s American stuff have largely confirmed my suspicions. Are there any cars of that era that stand out as particularly well-suited, or is it basically just all the same underneath?
On the topic of 50s/60s stuff. I'll be totally honest - with a few exceptions, any of the 50s cars I've driven were either in completely wasted form (dragged out of the woods and a battery put in it after 40 years) or after our shop had completely resto-modded it with custom front and rear suspension, a modern steering box, brakes, etc. I've only ever driven a handful of survivor or restored 50s cars that are unmolested. There are some from the era that stand out - usually the ones that were designed for luxury and driving experience; Olds, Lincoln, Cadillac, that seem to drive pretty well. Dodge through the 50s kept their eye on durability and cost. Ford had some crossover with Lincoln, but they were more work/utility. But, even if you take the finest-driving 1955 car there ever was, painstakingly restore every suspension and steering bit, you still have a car that was engineered in 1955. It might have been the pinnacle of driving experience in 1955, but (depending on the car) it gets old really fast. You either have no power steering with a wheel that has a ratio of about 25:1, or power steering with a ratio of 22:1, manual drum brakes with a single master cylinder, lap belts (and possibly nowhere to attach shoulder belts), a steering wheel that is about 10" from your chest and face (that was a 1950s supplemental restraint system), and no real amenities. Now, if you wanted to buy a complete resto mod (or do one yourself) that is a bit different story. Suffice it to say, if the allure of driving a 54 Buick cross country outweighs the chore-like nature of its driving dynamic, go for it. Don't get a 58 Chrysler because it's a good road trip vehicle. It's not. Get it only if you want to road trip in a 58 chrysler and you're willing to put up with how it drives if that makes sense. I full understand both dynamics. I will be spending a bundle on making my 67 LeMans into a capable, fun road trip ride, but it's going to have a complete aftermarket performance frame, R&P steering, Corvette brakes, LS, T56. I did take several road trips in it's as-is form and it was fun, but 4 wheel drums gets old fast. Knowing that if I had to panic stop, it wouldn't, was not a comfy feeling.
It wasn't really until the mid-late 60s that you start to see some driving dynamics that would make road trips nice. They'll still need some upgrades, like maybe brakes or converting to R134, and ditching the AM radio, but at least you're usually into parts-bin territory. The dual master cylinder came around in the late 60s, as did front discs as options. Power accessories were more common. By the 70s, things started having a lot in common with cars through the late 90s in many cases. My 66 Bonneville got some of the suspension cast-offs from my 96 Impala SS, and then later the 73 Impala got some of the SS's calipers and discs.
These are my personal thoughts from a few different eras:
60s: 60s Caddys were fantastic machines, but most of the pre 67 or 68 have engines and transmissions that are not heavily supported. Parts are certainly available, but if you are in East Podunk on a road trip and need a fuel pump or a radiator hose, it's not like they're available at Pep Boys. Any of the late 60s GM/Mopar/Ford offerings have pretty universal parts that can be acquired at Auto Zone either in-stock or next day. My go-to's would be something huge from about 68, like an Impala, Galaxie, Continental, or Newport, but feel free to downsize if you're not into the whole hootus-compensation thing. Mustang, Nova, Camaro, Monte Carlo, Challenger.
70s: Here is where you start getting parts that are a dime a dozen. The reason is, most of the manufacturers settled in for the long haul. GM used one of three basic alternators on 95% of their cars for 40 years. It's easy for a parts store to keep an alternator in stock when it fits 400 applications. Personal faves: Impala, DeVille, Continental. Not a fan of intermediates and small cars from this era because they were a bit, um... Napoleon Dynamite? Pinto, Duster, Pacer... a lot of the oil embargo cars of the era look like the bubble you would pop to roll the dice in Boggle.
80s: Now we're getting into my opinion of the "great at touring" cars. Some of them are a little bit frosted jeans and big hair, but there are some that I find just wonderful. C4 is nothing to write home about, but it's quick, looks great, seats two. You won't be taking a ton of luggage, but a fun highway blaster. Most of the full-size get a little big for their chassis by now. Nothing wrong with a Fleetwood or an Olds 88, but they still have 14" wheels and tiny brakes. Easy to overcome, but I would rather have the same thing with the style of the 70s body on it. 80s were also the time of the glory that is the G-body. The G-body was GM's ultimate parts-bin car. Take one frame on which you can put one of about 6 bodies, any one of the GM engines (BOP and C), and any (and I mean any) of the common automatics and many of the manuals. Copy brakes from the S-truck and the cheap F-body, suspension bits from S-truck and previous A-body, rear bits from an F-body. The only two downsides I ever found to a G-body were the short spindle knuckle making terrible camber curves, and the 7.5" rear axle that doesn't really have a bolt-in upgrade other than the unobtanium GN/442 rear which was an 8.5". But if you're keeping it under 300 hp, don't stress. I had an 87 Cutlass with the 442 appearance package (wheels, gold stripes, floor shifter, rally gauges, but not the engine or 8.5" rear). I still to this day regret selling that car. When you think of a car salesman saying "cream puff," That car was IT. I think a Cutlass or Regal with an LM7 and a 4L65E would make an awesome road trip car.
90s: Meh... I don't have many 90s favorites. Impala SS, 300ZX, C5,
00s: Lincoln Town Car, Jag XJR. Done.
I finally made it to a Mazda dealer that had an RF in stock to sit in. I fit. There isn't a lot of extra room - like if I skip a haircut I'll be in the roof - but I fit. This now brings us to the next stage of things - pricing. The dealer wasn't dealing, which I suppose is understandable for a convertible sports car in April. I recall reading something here a while back about SCCA membership conferring a discount with Mazda, and it seems still to be the case from what I can find. I'm not currently a member of the SCCA (I know, I know, but it's been a long time since I did any competitive driving), but it's certainly worth joining for a significant discount on a new car. My question is how the SCCA membership works with Mazda's S-Plan pricing. Do I just go to the dealer and show them a card and they sell to me at invoice, or should I expect to have to explain the program to them, or worse, fight with them to get them to honor it? Anyone done this before who can shed some light on the process?
This is purely because my little brother and I went all over the Southwest with our grandparents when I was nine... It was a great ride.
In reply to CJ (FS) :
See, posting things like that makes me reconsider my choices. But the appeal of new is stronger than I anticipated.
The choice has been made and realized.
This came home yesterday.
You'll need to log in to post.
