By on March 12, 2019

Despite the presence of the well-regarded, all-new Ram 1500 on the market, penny-pinching truck buyers still have the opportunity to save cash while remaining true to their preferred brand. The 1500 Classic, a “new old” pickup, keeps the previous-generation model alive as a lower-priced alternative. It’s looking like this won’t simply be a single model year experiment, either.

Not that Fiat Chrysler is the sole player of this game. For 2019, the previous-gen Chevrolet Silverado soldiers on alongside its fresh-faced successor. Ask for an “LD” model. And anyone remember the Volkswagen City Golf and City Jetta? Keeping decently popular old relics around beyond their best-before date can earn an automaker extra spending money.

But what if these so-called classics were actual classics?

Instead of thinking automakers for this example, think gunmakers for a moment. Sorry for the terrifying imagery, but it’s valid. Smith & Wesson offers a line of handguns under the banner “Classic.” Vintage models, only brand new and ready to buy — not a reproduction sold by another company. Colt did something similar recently, offering a buyers a new 1903 Pocket Hammerless — a slick .32 autoloader whose production run ended in 1945. In this case, Colt licensed the gun’s manufacture to another company.

You get the idea. A long-out-of-production model returns to the lineup, ready to please both traditionalists and individualists.

What if an automaker did it? Imagine you’ve woken up in a world where it’s suddenly feasible for an OEM to legally offer, say, a few classic models at something approaching a normal price. This wouldn’t be a direct reproduction, as that low-volume vehicle law isn’t all that fleshed out, and major automakers wouldn’t apply anyway. Let’s just say that, on this particular morning, regulations were loosened and your favorite automaker felt generous.

There’d be available radial tires, power front disc brakes and steering, maybe anti-lock, and seatbelts, all to sweeten the proposition. Perhaps even a beefed-up frame and reinforced body for increased crash performance. Engines and tranny? In the interest of authenticity, those would remain stock. The one automotive brand of your choice would offer three (no more, let’s not get greedy) models dating from anywhere in its history.

Outwardly, these things would be dead ringers — and they could be yours.

So, which brand will it be, and which three vehicles will get new life? The only asterisk here is that the automaker which originally built the vehicle must still exist. No Duesenbergs or Packards, sorry.

[Image: Ford]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

105 Comments on “QOTD: Which Classic(s) to Resurrect?...”


  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I’d want the classic look, but everything underneath to be thoroughly modern, including the driveline for better economy.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      +1 and with modern crash engineering, too.

      Otherwise, why buy new?

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      +2 I would love any of the old tiny SUVs, but with modern safety and equipment, which is probably the reason we don’t see any of them

    • 0 avatar
      Blackcloud_9

      This is why resto-mods are becoming so popular on the Mecum and Barrett-Jackson circuit. Classic styling on the outside with modern bits underneath.

      • 0 avatar
        dividebytube

        Oh yeah – there is a guy who took a 1988 Monte Carlo and replaced the stock engine/transmission with a modified LS7/T56. 704RWHP, running 10s in the quarter mile.

        Suspension and brakes were also modified to handle the extra power. You can find the car by googling “Monte Carlo SS LS7”

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Of course, though how could the economy of the classic 1950 bathtub-bodied Rambler be improved?

      The best selling classic of all would be the ’55-’57 Chevy, with a modern drivetrain and under-the-skin crash resistance – but no computer screen to mess up the classic dash and instrument panel.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        I’d rather have the ’59 myself, Lorenzo, but I won’t argue a ’57 would look nice. Would rather have ’57 Nomad, though. As for any of them, a modern drivetrain with 6, 8 or 10-speed transmission would improve their economy notably.

        On that Bathtub Rambler, the body would be surprisingly aerodynamic since it was one of the cleaner bodies and very light. I’d bet on no less than 30mpg with a 2.5-2.7L I-4 at around 150-200 horses. Remember, those things only had about 80-100 horses under the hood on average at the time.Give it a 1.6-2.0T and it might do even better.

  • avatar
    jack4x

    Cadillac.

    1930 V16

    1959/60 Coupe Deville

    1967 Eldorado

    Backup choice: CTS-V Wagon

  • avatar
    threeer

    Bring back my 2002. I’d ask for a waiver on the “original engine and tranny” and at least upgrade both to something approaching modern standards. Oh, to have that much greenhouse available again in a moderately sized vehicle. I know you can buy 2002’s relatively easily still and spend vast sums of money to get them modified, but to get one straight from the factory new? That’s be pretty cool.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      A new 2002 and E9 coupe with modern rust-proofing and the appropriate turbo-4 or turbo-6 with 6 speed manual or 8 speed automatic would be perfect. Throw in a new 507 with the current BMW turbo V-8 and upgraded brakes and suspension and you would have the perfect set of factory resto-mod BMWs.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Buick.

    -1989 LeSabre T-type
    -1987 GNX
    -1938 Century

    • 0 avatar
      dividebytube

      I remember some car salesman telling me that Buick was going to bring back the “Grand National”.

      Me: Is it going to be RWD? Full-frame? Look like the original 80s car?

      Salesman: No.

      Me: Then I’m not interested.

      • 0 avatar
        87 Morgan

        GM had the perfect opportunity in 2009.

        New fascia that has the Buick crest on a Pontiac G8, offer it in black and voila you have the next GNX and GN.

        No doubt I could be wrong, but have long thought this car would have sold very well, better than the G8.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          A GN or GNX needs to use a V6. The 3.6T would work, although a turbo’d version of the 4.3L would be better.

          A V8 Buick sports sedan would be better named as GS, GSX, or Wildcat.

        • 0 avatar
          1500cc

          @87 Morgan

          No matter how good the car would have been, people would have bitched, similar to the resurrection of the GTO. I owned a G8 GT and it was a great car, but as soon as you put a classic name on something rational thought goes out the window for many.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          The G8 was an Australian Holden, and should have been a Cadillac.

  • avatar

    I’d enjoy owning a ’84-6 Shelby Charger again. It was a fun car to drive and I thoroughly enjoyed the ’84 I had. Ironically, someone has one in their yard for sale on my commute. I’d be concerned about parts and such in case of needed repairs (and there would be needed repairs) so I haven’t even stopped to give it a closer look. A 68 Mustang, ’67 Roadrunner, ’67 GTO or 72 Charger would be nice also.

  • avatar
    MoDo

    No true “classic” would meet crash test standards except ones that recently were being made like the Ram etc. What car was recently replaced with an all-new model that you would still like around? – then it gets a little more difficult. Also FCA is technically doing this with the grand caravan as well because the pacifica was its replacement – but the GC still sells and will be made until it no longer meets crash standards which comes in 2020.

    • 0 avatar
      jatz

      “No true ‘classic’ would meet crash test standards”

      This.

      Plus the fact that the reservoir of hatred for modern vehicles, especially among the oldsters who buy the most new cars, is so overflowing that the demand would be insatiable and Nanny could never permit its fulfillment.

      So, anyway… Volvo 240 wagon in Scotia Blue, please.

    • 0 avatar
      Flipper35

      I bet an Imperial would if you added airbags.

      • 0 avatar
        jatz

        Channeling Tom McCahill :-D

      • 0 avatar
        MoDo

        An Imperial would run through a modern 1/2 ton pick-up and keep on going lol. There’s a reason they are banned from most demo derbies or have their own class.

        • 0 avatar
          Halftruth

          Funny story – friend of mine was out in her mom’s 60 Imperial when she was a new driver. Little brother went along for the ride. They parked in a lot that was on a hill (near a park or something). They get out and she forgets to put it in park. The car takes off over the curb and down the hill. Drives straight through a phone pole and keeps going. They finally catch up to it and stop it. No damage incredibly and mom was none the wiser.. Yeah, bring back the Imp.. My choice would be a 62 though as I am not a fin fan :)

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          It wasn’t just the Imperial. ALL full sized Chryslers built from ’62 to ’67 were banned. Their radiators were hard to hit, and it didn’t matter because the engines wouldn’t seize up anyway, and Chrysler then had the world’s most powerful stamping press that turned 3/8th-inch plate steel into bumpers.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Agree with Vulpine, if you are upgrading everything else, then also upgrade/modernize the driveline.

    For starters as I am sure I will think of more later, or see the recommendations of other posters and say, “yes wish I had thought of that”.
    Jaguar E-Type.
    Jaguar Mark II
    1959 Cadillac, particularly the convertible.
    1961 Lincoln Continental
    1975 Lincoln Mark IV (Pucci edition please)
    1955 Imperial
    1977 Chev Caprice
    Datsun 240Z
    1st North American generation Honda Odyssey
    Corvette split window coupe

    • 0 avatar
      Felix Hoenikker

      Arthur,
      You nailed that list except for the Honda Oddy if you are talking about the one with the car like rear doors instead of sliding doors and the weak (for the weight) four cylinder engine.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @Felix, yeah that one is a little out of left field. However with a modern driveline, I believe that it could be a winner. Good greenhouse/visibility, sits higher than a sedan but not too high for easy entry/exit, large enough to be a great highway cruiser for 4 plus their gear, or 6 for a short visit/trip, yet small enough to be useful in a downtown, urban environment. More of a ‘raised wagon’ than a CUV/SUV but without the sliding doors, not a traditional ‘mini van’ none of which are now ‘mini’.

  • avatar
    Mike Barter

    Nissan:

    240Z
    C10 GT-R
    R34 GT-R

  • avatar
    Jon

    The fullsize 4×4 K5 Blazer.
    Two doors with two additional half doors as an option
    Engine options: 6.2L 5.3L, 3.0L (id settle for the latter two)
    All with manual trans option!
    AAM 9.5″ in rear, 9.25″ (solid) in front.

    • 0 avatar
      Jerome10

      Oh, yeah the K5 is a good choice too!

      • 0 avatar
        87 Morgan

        I have pondered multiple times buying a nice k5 and swapping in a 5.3 or 6.0. I think that would be a spectacular driving rig.

        Nice units go through Mecum for 20k, all done you would be 35k maybe into it. Compared to going to your local (insert brand here) dealership and buying a full size truck or suv you really are not out of line financially.

        • 0 avatar
          jack4x

          I have a strong urge to do this as my next car project. An early 70s convertible K5 would be a phenomenal summer cruiser.

          • 0 avatar
            gtem

            Do it!

            A fullsize Bronco with a modern 5.0L or 6.2L would be neat too. I forget why but I was window shopping late model (OJ) Broncos on tempest a few years ago and ran across a very well preserved one with a Kenne Belle supercharger on the 5.8L on an otherwise fairly stock and well preserved looking truck, $7500 asking price. In hindsight that was a steal of a deal.

          • 0 avatar
            jack4x

            A full-size Bronco with the new 7.3L Ford V8 might be the ultimate version of the idea and should start becoming available right around the time when I’d actually be looking to acquire something. Hmmm…..

            But yeah, you should have bought that Kenne Bell one :)

          • 0 avatar
            87 Morgan

            Those early K5s bring very solid dollars. If you can find one that is not a rusted relic, I really cant see how you would get too far underwater unless you went LSX..

            My project will be done in about a month or so. I can report back on whether the $$ were well spent or not.

  • avatar
    snoproblem

    1994 Ford F150, flare-side box, 302 engine, standard cab, two fuel tanks.

    Then I’d get a propane conversion done – that 302 is awfully thirsty by modern standards.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    I always thought a modern Jeep Wagoneer would be cool.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    I think it is cheaper to resto mod and old one than buy a limited run new one. Moreso if you are ok with a motor and trans from a wrecked donor.

    I am 8k into the ls conversion for my 57 Chevy. This includes donor 5.3, 4l60, fuel tank, motor mounts etc, new ac from old air products, trickflow cam, wiring harness, new head gear springs etc for cam, and other misc parts. Iron block 5.3 with 53kish miles before total. Non mds motor.

    Regardless, i think i would like a 93’LX 5.0 notch. A simple and classic looking car, with a Coyote 5.0 of course….

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    You said three models from one automaker? 1965 Mustang notchback with 289, four-speed manual and rally/handling package; 1966 Thunderbird (I prefer the 390 over the 428) and the 1967 Bronco 4×4 with 289 and four-speed manual. Yeah. Ford used to make great stuff.

    • 0 avatar
      whydidithavetobecars

      Feeling yeah here on this one. My tweak to his would be a K-code ’65 fastback, a ’65 Galaxie convertible and a ’76 Bronco Sport, with optional half doors.

  • avatar
    forward_look

    Nostalgia is so intoxicating. If you take off your rose-tinted glasses, you’ll see that compared to today’s cars, they were crap. I have a lot of memories too, mostly bad. They belong in museums, not driving around.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “I have a lot of memories too, mostly bad.”

      Ya don’t say?

      Anyway, right now I have a car built in ’96 and one from ’18. The one from ’96 is hardly “crap”. Heck, even my 50s Mercury is perfectly driveable even if I wouldn’t want to commute in it every day.

      Seeing the past with brown-tinted glasses is just as bad.

    • 0 avatar
      jatz

      Old cars were unarguably better for visibility; it’s getting to where even trucks are affected by CAFE: the more locomotive the front fascia (for God knows what reason), the more slanting the A-pillar and less the beltline-roof distance.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        This. They better be more crash-worthy, because you will never see who hit you. This is why I hate the otherwise lovely Charger.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I think a lot of the older folks on TTAC have PTSD over their ’80 Granada with 90hp and sandpaper upholstery.

        No one should deny the advantages a modern car brings in things like safety, from-new dependability, and power. But, stating that old cars were uniformly “crap” is a bridge too far.

        • 0 avatar
          dividebytube

          Yep – I loved my ’94 Nissan pickup, my ’86 Monte Carlo, and ’94 Buick Roadmaster. I would gladly buy a new one of these; but yes, I would miss the traction and stability control. And would feel less safe driving them – well, except for the Roadmaster which “felt” like a tank even though it would probably not measure up to a new car for crash safety.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      I don’t know…Show me a small Nissan built today that can touch the B13 SE-R on my list. You can’t get that much power in a Kicks. I have no desire to go back to carbs and 3 speed automatics, but to me the late 80’s through about 2003 or so is the sweet spot. Modern drivability in a pretty safe package (especially post 97) that still looked good.

      I love modern cars. Powertrain wise, I think they are the best they have ever been…but dear God, they are ugly. I love my Fiesta ST, but a freaking Escort EXP body from the 80’s over those mechanicals would be a better looking car. The RX-7, The Integra (gen2)…they looked good. Sure a Civic type R is a better car…until I have to look at it.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @forward_look: Agreed.

      My father (born 1938) was a car guy, street racing his 40 Ford and 56 T-Bird around in the 50s. He had absolutely no interest in visiting car cruises, because he felt that those old cars were terrible. He always liked the new stuff more. He’d be thrilled to see the automotive landscape today.

      I’m as nostalgic as anyone, but those old cars didn’t perform very well and required constant maintenance. My warm feelings for them are actually rooted in good memories of other things in life from those times.

  • avatar
    jknezek

    1986 or ’87 Jeep Grand Wagoneer. Pre Chrysler build. Fully loaded. Swap out the ancient tech carb 360ci for the current gen 5.7L 6 speed Hemi V8/transmission combo. That loaded ’86 version was an amazing luxury tank. I get most people love hot rods, but I’ll never forget my ’87. It’s a shame the AMC/Chrysler merger had tanked the build quality, because otherwise that vehicle was everything a luxury off roader/family hauler/heavy tow vehicle could be. The seats, sunroof, interior were gorgeous. The exterior was classic faux woody with a brute design that nothing matched. Roll down rear window, easy open tailgate, fold down rear seats. All functional. It rode fantastic after the ’85 improvements to the suspension. Stainless steel bumpers, fog lights perfectly set off the look and were functional.

    Yeah, I know. They are putting out a ’22 version, supposedly. But it’s not going to be the same. I’d rather have a resto-mod of those post suspension 85, pre Chrysler 86/87 any day. With a new power plant and transmission it might even be able to go everywhere the old one went, plus past the nearest gas station!

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    1977 to 1990 GM B-bodys but I want modern engines/transmissions (along with at least side guard door beams and front airbags).

    Give them the same engine/transmission choices as the current Camaro and I’d happily pay current Impala MSRP for a V6 and 10 speed auto Caprice sedan.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      The current RWD 3.6L in a box Caprice would be pretty wild (although not even the Camaro offers the 3.6/10A combo).

      Although I’m generally not a fan, I think the 2.8TD from the Colorado would match the personality of the boxes the best.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        3.6 plus 8 speed is fine too.

        (Sorry I’ve never spec-ed the Camaro out in current form, I do enjoy being able to see out of my car and having a driver’s side window large enough to pass a Happy Meal box through.)

        I don’t need the hassle of DEF etc with a TD. The 2.7 Tripower might be interesting from a flat torque curve standpoint.

    • 0 avatar
      gtem

      Sign me up for this as well. A chevy truck 4.3L and 5.3L would be sublime, I’d prefer to stick with a 6spd auto though, or even some kind of retrograde 4spd.

  • avatar
    whynotaztec

    Fuselage Chrysler – pick any 3

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Steph – to clarify, are Pontiac and Oldsmobile in play? (Brands are gone, but parent company still exists, well sort of.)

    If those are out I gotta give it more thought.

  • avatar
    71charger_fan

    ’68 Charger skin over the current LX Scat Pack platform
    ’69 Trans Am skin on the current Camaro platform
    Willys station wagon body on current Wrangler platform

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Hasn’t this been done in a sort of roundabout way? I remember back in the 90’s Nissan for a time restoring old school gen 1 Z cars and selling them through their dealerships…in limited number of course. They, from what I remember, got a sort of Ferrari Red Book type all OEM restoration. This is probably as close as you can get with crash standards and what not being what they are. Shelby will do the same and build you a new car.

    Having said that, If I can go back I don’t really want to leave the fuel injection era. I’ll take the following:

    1. 91-94 B13 Sentra SE-R. Shouldnt be hard…I think it just ended production in Mexico.
    2. Gen 1 Lexus SC300/400.
    3. E30 3 Series
    4. Lincoln Mk VIII

    I don’t need any changes made to those. If I can combine some things (The early Lexus SC grilless frontend with the later power incerases and 5 speed auto for those that don’t want the 300 w/ stick for example) that would be best, but I’d be at the dealer paying the “Market Adjustment” on any of those if they were sold in any capacity today.

  • avatar
    2drsedanman

    Compare a new Dodge Challenger to a 1970 model Challenger and you can see how much it alters the car to include all the latest/greatest offerings on a new version of an old car. Wider, taller, longer, heavier, etc. But there is something about the new Challenger that still speaks to me. Going on it’s eleventh year, it is almost becoming an old car all by itself. This is the best example of retro-design done right.

    I would also buy a new version of the GMT400 platform today (1988-1998 GMC/Chevy pickup). Apex design for a pickup from my perspective.

    • 0 avatar
      MRF 95 T-Bird

      I like the current Challenger, even rented an RT version last summer vacation. It’s classic old muscle with modern technology.
      I could see them taking some of the model bloat off of it to make it look more like a 70-74 model.

    • 0 avatar
      FormerFF

      i don’t think the Challenger has to be the size it is, that’s more just what FCA has available to them. What if it had the proportions of the current Mustang?

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        The extra foot is what makes the Challenger work. Compressing a retro shape into 188″ gives you the choice of stubby eyesore (S197), ergonomic disaster (Camaro), or abandoning any pretense of looking like a classic car at all (S550).

        The original Challenger was just 51″ tall. Scale that up to the 58″ for the people who don’t play football anymore but have the knees that did and it’d be 217″ long on a 125″ wheelbase.

        And I’d have already bought one.

  • avatar
    bufguy

    1963-1965 Buick Riviera
    Mk1 Volkswagen Scirocco

    • 0 avatar
      SilverCoupe

      Gee, you just named my first two cars! (after that came an ’84 Chrysler Laser Turbo and an ’89 Toyota Supra Turbo)

      On the other hand, though I have fond memories of all of those cars, I do not know that I really need new versions of them. The Scirocco, with 78 horsepower, would not be something I would choose to drive nowadays!

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I want to see all bodies from the mid-50s to the mid-70s available, built with modern structure and drivetrains. Keep the seat belts, dump the air bags.

  • avatar

    Toyota does this in Australia. You can still get j70 series models there new.

    https://www.toyota.com.au/main/landcruiser-70

  • avatar
    JohnTaurus

    1979 Honda Prelude
    1993 Honda Accord coupe
    2001 Honda Prelude Type SH

    (I’d consider swapping the 1979 Prelude for a 2000 m/y Civic Si)

    As others pointed out, this is pure fantasy. You cant just add modern crash structure underneath an old body without dramatic changes. All you can do is style the modern car similarly to the old one, as in new Challenger, 2005 Mustang, etc.

  • avatar
    FormerFF

    I’d like a 1973 Porache Carrera RSR.

    Maybe not, I couldn’t afford one back then and I couldn’t afford a new one now.

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    Ford F-150 Lightning. A modern version with the Coyote motor.
    A new Prelude based on the Civic.

  • avatar
    WallMeerkat

    I’m going to suggest the following, but – if I may be so bold on a comments section of an enthusiast’s site – as EVs.

    Citroen.

    – 2CV – as a hipster sub-sub-compact citycar. Would hate to crash one, but if Renault can make the Twizy crash worthy then this can be beefed up a little. That’s what I see it competing against.
    – DS – These were so futuristic that they are in Back to the Future 2 and Children of Men as future cars. Make it the flagship sedan EV of their DS brand range. The DS5 was panned for having uncomfortable suspension, this will make that right.
    – SM – Again within the DS marketing brand, a sports car EV

  • avatar
    scott25

    FD RX7 with the current Mazda 2.5 and 2.5T engines, no rotary thank you.

    Alpha Camaro platform and powertrains with a 1974-76 Laguna body on it.

    Mazda/Autozam AZ-1 scaled up to Miata size, with the current 2.0 placed behind the seats. Likewise, a MK1 MR2 with the 86 mechanicals.

    I didn’t intend to be Mazda-biased but the 90’s Eunos Cosmo as an EV.

  • avatar
    DEVILLE88

    1961 Chevy Impala, 1960 Chevy Corvair, and 1967 Eldorado………Can i sneak in a 1955 Chevy?

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Well if I’m going to go back to the Carbonated era and Have to stick with one manufacturer, no contest (missed that part of the rules)

    Duesenburg SJ
    Auburn Boattail Speedster
    Cord 810

  • avatar
    Zackman

    Oldsmobile Cutlass 4-4-2. TWO doors, please.

    I don’t know when the current Impala ceases production, but Chevy, for goodness’ sake, you had one of the finest sedans on the planet, but I think you will resurrect it someday, most likely in the form of an SUV, only sleeker and with somewhat of a fastback style. Perhaps subtle fins even.

    That may be fine, but be sure to give it quad headlights and THREE taillights each side. I’ll somehow live with the rest. I think…

    After that, many years ago GM teased us with the Bel Air fantasy car. Bring it to fruition. Maybe even Chevelle – and do it right – I mean Chevelle SS – with only TWO doors!

    • 0 avatar
      jatz

      “THREE taillights each side.”

      Back then, we didn’t take any other Chev seriously.

      How long did Impalas get that… ’58 to 76? Hated it when they went first squares and then to small rectangles.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        The ’59 had a beautiful, wide, teardrop taillight on either side with three bulbs behind the glass (yes, real glass.) I personally loved that and the beautiful, curved wings curving down to a point right between those tail lamps. To me, the best looking Chevy of all time, though I admit the wraparound windshield created one heck of a knee-basher when you tried to get in unless you sat down first and then pulled your legs in.

  • avatar
    96redse5sp

    Easy:

    01. 1966 Chevy Corvair Corsa (Updated for safety but still RWD, with a manual transmission and the turbocharged pancake six in the rear).

    02. 1995 Ford Contour SE

    • 0 avatar
      96redse5sp

      And any utilitarian, bare-boned, no-nonsense, compact-sized, reasonably priced Ford Ranger with a five-speed.

    • 0 avatar
      King of Eldorado

      Good choices. The second-gen. Corvair was the first thing that came to mind, updated for safety, etc., but the body should look (almost) exactly the same, both 2-door and 4-door, plus maybe a new Lakewood wagon (which did not exist for that generation).

      I would have said Contour SVT, but another good choice anyway.

  • avatar
    96redse5sp

    Oh, and a 1953 Studebaker Starliner – or any of the mid-1950s Loewy Studebakers…

  • avatar
    TDIandThen....

    Chevelle SS – red with white stripe of course. Black would be okay too.

    Volvo 850R – yellow-white checkered rally livery please.

    Porsche 928 GTS – but with simplified electronics, modern engine options, and a ten year bumper to bumper zero-deductible warranty. Because I love you Porsche but you’re an….ahem ahem.

  • avatar
    AtoB

    Longnose, aircooled Porsche 911s.

  • avatar
    markmeup

    1979 Cadillac Seville Elegante’

    1980 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz

    1995 Acura Legend Coupe

  • avatar
    VWGTI

    2 1964 Lincoln Continentals:

    1 hardtop

    1 convertible

  • avatar
    WildcatMatt

    Hmm. Three models from one brand from a company that must still exist as an automobile concern.

    Pity about the “still exists” constraint, without it the answer is clearly Studebaker (Avanti, Hawk, Champ).

    I like the Volvo angle though. My list: 240, 850, 1800.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • jack4x: The difference between something like a Riviera and something like a C8 is the dedication/financial resources...
  • slavuta: EBFlex, you tell him!! He is still at the wet market. Even though I posted info before (links) that was...
  • APaGttH: I’ve universal read that the climate control row is WTF visually but logical to use in practice. The...
  • jmo: You really think that’s not all spelled out in the fine print? Even the large print says, “The...
  • EBFlex: CNN must have edited this lol

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber