Cruisers

'64 Pontiac would have had a 326 Pontiac motor. The 283 is a Chevy engine. They didn't cross-pollinate engines until the 1970s.

DDavidv -In Canada we had Pontiac bodied Chevrolets. The models were base, Laurentien, and Parisienne... no such thing as a wide-track Bonneville or the like. (I remember us having to replace a rear axle somewhere in the mid-west US, and the mechanic fitting a Chevy part because the Pontiac axle was a couple inches too long.)

Yeah, Canada didn't get US style Pontiacs until about 1971.

I currently have a '61 Bonneville two door hardtop, with a tripower 389 and a four speed. Unfortunately it's a little too low geared and high strung to be a real good long distance cruiser. I used to have a '61 Bonneville convertible, that car was great out on the open road - it had a four speed automatic along with about 2.78 rear gears so it would just loaf along at 70mph.

Probably the best highway car I ever owned was a '71 Catalina; it had disk brakes, and the suspension was reasonably modern, so it handled and stopped surprisingly well for a big car. Unfortunately, that one eventually rusted away.

Doh, freaking Canadiens. Yeah, I actually knew that, just didn't cross my mind being the arrogant American that I am. I pride myself on having at least a cursory knowledge of things like Fargo trucks, Mercury F series pickups, Acadians and so forth but they come up in conversation so rarely down here you tripped me up.

ddavidv wrote: It's so funny you say that about the Falcon/Mustang. Every single time I've almost started shopping for one of those twins I've been deterred by reading someone saying about how gawdawful they are to drive, and these criticisms don't always come from someone with a sports car background. Oddly, I've never driven one of them in all my automotive experiences. I just love them for the styling. OTOH, I generally enjoy driving my '65 F100. Maybe I'm more willing to accept the ponderous driving experience in that because it's a truck?

I own a '65 Mustang fastback. It was totally original when I bought it, right down to the bicycle width tires. Yes, it was awful to drive. In fact, I was very hesitant to go over 60 mph in it. However, the handling can be corrected without spending a fortune. The first thing I did was relocate the upper control arms down about 1-1/8". This corrects the terrible camber curve and makes a dramatic difference all by itself, and it doesn't cost anything. Then I got rid of the tires and put some larger radials on it. Then I replaced the front drum brakes with disks. I built the suspension for handling and added a larger front sway bar and a rear sway bar. Then I replaces the factory add-on power steering with a manual rack and pinion. Now it handles incredibly well and is a joy to drive. So yes, they are horrendous stock, but can be totally transformed for not a lot of work or money.

Don't forget the ultimate cruisers: Cadillacs. I just picked up a '69 Coupe deVille for LeMons money that had been sitting in a garage since 1979. Still had 1976 bias ply tires from Sears on it. I trailered it home, drained whatever foul sludge was in the tank, and tickled it back to life with an afternoon's worth of sweat equity. I can't wait to get some decent whitewalls on it and take it for a drive more than up and down the cul-de-sac. (Amazingly, the brakes still worked!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5qhj_T29h8