mmarshall

Agreed. Until Lexus screwed up the new 2007 model with the semi-sports-sedan chassis and tires and the flashy but El Cheapo plastic parts inside, the ES was one of the few cars on the market today that truly rode comfortably and quietly ( more or less like big-brother LS ) and had superb interior trim.

Lil4X

One of the proto-muscle cars that is often overlooked was a specialized 1963-1/2 Ford Falcon. Designated the "Sprint", it benefited by the extraction of the tired old six cylinder engine and the application of the small block (260 CID) V8 from the Fairlane. For the 1963 Monte Carlo, Lee Iacocca, the newly-arrived general manager, had this transformation made, and the engines worked over by Holman & Moody, to boost output from a lowly 160hp in stock trim to something truly amazing. Ford had officially withdrawn from racing, but Iacocca's mantra was "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" - and it would work spectacularly for him. His Monte Carlo Falcons challenged the world's best rally cars and showed well, winning second place in 1964.

With a four-speed manual transmission and a heavy clutch, this lightweight "economy car" would FLY! A friend had one of these limited-edition Q-ships that owned the Friday night drags on Austin's Guadalupe St., alongside the UT campus. It really didn't look like much - really no different than a hundred other identical Falcons that seemed to be everywhere around a college campus. A couple of easily overlooked "Sprint" badges, fat tires, and a pair of large dual exhausts under the rear bumper were the only clues - but because the Falcon was by then in its third year of production with the original body style, there were plenty of kids who tacked on big tires and a fake exhaust to their cheap transportation.

This was my first experience with a car that could easily pin you helplessly to the seat under hard acceleration. No more than 3,000 were built, and only a few with the H/M powerplant. If you wanted to stun the opposition, pull up to the light beside his shiny new Impala SS with your lowly economy car and when the light goes green, flee the scene leaving your adversary choking on a pall of tire smoke and with the roar of those oversized dual exhausts thundering in his ears.

Little did we know that this strange little car was actually Iacocca's test mule for what would arrive in Ford showrooms the following spring. Using practically the same parts inventory and new body panels, the 1964-1/2 Mustang debuted and changed the automotive world forever.

ES350Bob

Mmarsh,

Tell it like it is: They have so horribly messed up the ES it will take them time to address the errors. I am less bothered about interior fittings and the like, even rattles don't irritate like they do most, but they went out of their way to make it noisier for some reason, both engine and also things like wind noise, transmissions can be replaced or new supplier gotten, but then add engine noise and wind noise and you are left with a what the heck have they done to an industry standard blank expression. This is my 4th and last if they do not get their act together and pronto.

mmarshall

If you are not aware of it, Lil ( you probably are ) the 1963 Falcon served as the platform for the wildly successful Mustang which was indroduced in April 1964....and became the highest-selling first-year new car in history, up to that time.

mmarshall

The 2007 ES350 I reviewed several months ago was actually pretty quiet as far as road, engine and wind noise goes. I accept the fact that your car, in your view, was noisier....and perhaps we are judging the same car by two different standards. Without actually driving your car I cannot directly comment on or compare the two. Perhaps your car and the one I drove had different brand tires, which could explain at part of it.....but not the engine noise.
However, I was very disappointed.....even bordering on angry......that Lexus, for the 2007, not only took the beautiful full-dash and full-door panel walnut and maple trim out and substituted too many El Cheapo plastic parts inside, but tried to make the ES into another semi-BMW with the lower-profile tires and firmer chassis ( as if the world doesn't already have ENOUGH sport sedans as it is ). By doing so, they took some of the ride comfort out of what was already one of the VERY few cars left that was really comfortable.

You told me to tell it like it is. That is the way I see it.

And we're kind of getting off topic here....being thankful for the features we have in new cars today vs. the ones of decades ago. Perhaps we should start another new thread here in CAR CHAT if you want to compare the old and the new ES in detail....I'm game for that if you are....I'll talk cars anytime, anywhere.

CUMan

The discussions by mmarshall and lil4x about the Buick Dynaflow transmissions reminded me of the rise and fall of the Chevrolet Turboglide transmission in the late 50's.

I was really into Chevrolets in those days. The father of one of my high school friends purchased a 1958 Chevrolet Impala with the new Turboglide transmission. I believe this was the first year that Chevrolet offered any automatic other than the horrible Powerglide. As I recall, it had a 348 c.i. engine. This was one of the most impressive cars I had ever seen. Like the Buick transmission, it had a smooth flow of power without any shift points.

The reason I am bringing this up is to illustrate the cheapness, market indifference, and plain incompetence which existed in GM management even back in those years. As I recall, the Turboglide was only offered for two or three years. I would guess it was a similar design to the Buick Dynaflow, so GM did not have any large amount of sunk costs into this transmission. But, for some reason, Chevrolet dropped this transmission and went back to the Powerglide as its only offered automatic. This continued until the late 60's when they finally offered the three speed Hydramatic on some of their higher end cars.

I remember buying a 1962 Chevrolet Impala and talking with the salesman about the weaknesses of the Powerglide transmission. His response was: "Well, it's a proven, trouble-free transmission." The same statement could be made about the Model T Ford; but, thank goodness, we were not still being offered the Model T Ford in the 1950's.

GM (and Ford and Chrysler) were really on a roll during this period. How sad it is that they failed to follow through on the success they were enjoying. But their continuing deference to the beancounters over the design innovators resulted in cars being produced which were not competitive with those being offered by the Japanese. All of them are paying the price for these mistakes now. Furthermore, even after all these years, they still can't seem to get headed in the right direction.

mmarshall

Chevy, at this time, was concentrating on developing manual transmissions rather than new automatics. In 1962....the year you mention......the Impala SS 409 with a 4-on-the-floor manual was the hottest car on the market, and was a status symbol among young people.....the mid-sized, high-performance muscle-car era started by the 63-64 GTO had not quite dawned yet.

Lil4X

I seem to remember the 409/4-speed could be ordered in a stripped Biscayne coupe, making for a noisy, uncomfortable straight-line thrill ride that pre-dated the Roadrunner. A set of big "cheater" slicks (with two grooves that served the letter if not the spirit of the law as "tread") and a couple of exhaust modifications (open exhaust plugs) could turn this option-sheet Frankenstein into a world-beater at the stoplight grand prix. Well, at least until the Hemi's arrived on the scene.

mmarshall

Even though the Impala SS was the glamor car, those who wanted the most performance bought the big-engined Biscayne. It was lighter than the SS because it had less trim and equipment.

Chevy coil-spring suspensions, though, as you pointed out, were not the best for handling. The front torsion-bar / rear leaf-springed Plymouths and Dodges easily outdid them on the curves. However, as I mentioned in my opening post, none of these vehicles can compare with the steering and handling of a modern car.

afterburne

From one Marshall to another Marshall... like a religious argument that you can never win. Where the answer is "I don't care what you say , I believe!"
Me, I will go with the Pebble Beach winner any day or even my old 1959 Chevrolet Impala or my current 1994 Jaguar XJS coupe. My feelings most newer cars may be technically superior to the older cars, they are ugly to the frame and look like a bunch of jelly beans on the road.
PS: My wife's car is an RX330..

mmarshall

Wow....you really dug up one of my old threads.......though I remember it well.

Of course, in this thread, my comments (and those of the other posters here) reflect the state of the automotive industry as it was eight to nine years ago, not necessarily today. The advances that I wrote about, though, from the cars I learned to drive on in the 1960s to the modern era still remain. And we can still be thankful for the many good automotive advances that we have. Except for the better riding/seating comfort and roomier interiors of those cars (which minivans, today, to some extent, have replaced), I would not want to go back to them, compared to what we have today.

I do agree with you, though, that old cars like your Bat-Wing 1959 Impala can be fun to drive for nostalgia purposes. Just be careful not to get in an accident...particularly if it has not been retrofitted with seat belts.


Often I am correct. But I am not an arrogant person. When it sometimes it turns out that I am not correct, unlike some other people on Internet forums, when I AM wrong, or when I post an error, I admit it. Only a fool clings to that which is untrue, provided that it really IS untrue and not just someone else's opinion. And, there occasionally are cases where neither side is entirely correct.