Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm looking for inner & outer door window felts for a Buick Skyhawk 1975-1980 or a Monza's, as they are equal. My email: sansebachile336@hotmail.com. If anybody knows where to find them, new or used, please let me know. I will really appreciate your help and tips. Thanks a lot. I have not been able to locate them yet. Carlos.
Last edited by Carlos Mesa A.; 06-02-2010 at 12:55 AM..
Reason: Because I'm looking for some autoparts (window felts)
Urgent reply, cash payment, VISA CARD or Western UNion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Mesa A.
I'm looking for inner & outer door window felts for a Buick Skyhawk 1975-1980 or a Monza's, as they are equal. My email: sansebachile336@hotmail.com. If anybody knows where to find them, new or used, please let me know. I will really appreciate your help and tips. Thanks a lot. I have not been able to locate them yet. Carlos.
If you have them or know where they are, please send me an e-mail. Thanks.
Yes! Had it been a front-engine car, there would have never been any questions or debate. GM really had a good style and design... they should have just made it a front engine car. They were really nice looking cars.
The Corvair was actually quite well developed when GM killed it in '69. It had already stopped using the swing axle design by '65 (when the updated bodystyle and Nader's book, came out). And, just to really drive home your point:
The Corvair was on a shared platform with 3 other GM cars in '62. ALL were rear wheel drive, but only the Corvair was rear engined. The Tempest used the Corvair chassis, but had it's engine in the front with the Corvair's transaxle in the rear (giving excellent weight distribution and independant rear suspension). The Buick Special used the same platform, but a conventional drivetrain, as did the Olds F85/jetfire. The Corvair and the Olds also pioneered another automotive staple: the turbocharger. In 1962 they became the first production cars to be fitted with an exhaust driven turbocharger.
There was never any debate or controversy surrounding the other 3 Corvair platform-mates. And in '64, the Tempest lost it's rear transaxle, and became the basis for the GTO...
I think it stems from how Mustang went from a nice roomy 4 seater that was fun to drive, down to a little tiny "warmed over Pinto" that was heavy for it's size......and also remember in '74 they didn't offer a V8 for the Mustang II. Also because all Mustangs 1964-1973 had a nice design, then in '74 they sort of killed the looks. I think the only reason for it's success is because when it came out we were in a gas crunch so obviously smaller cars then looked more attractive.
Actually, the Mustang II was started to be designed in 1970, while the BOSS 302 and BOSS 429 cars were in the showrooms, and BEFORE the huge '71-73 Mustangs had even reached dealers. Lee Iacocca was realizing that the Mustang had grown away from its original intent: an inexpensive sporty car based on an economy car chassis, and determined that it had to be downsized. The original Mustang was a warmed over Falcon. By '70 the Falcon had become just a base model Torino intermediate, and the Pinto was just about to hit the showrooms. Mustang insurance costs had become stupid (as had all musclecar insurance costs) and it was determined that a "back to basics" Mustang was what was needed.
The '71-73 Mustangs ended up selling slowly, and just as Ford was bringing out the Mustang II, the fuel crisis hit. The Mustang II, which was planned back in the musclecar era, was the right car at the right time, and sold in HUGE numbers.
they make GREAT platforms for hot rod projects now, with good suspensions and factory V8 installations making it easy to upgrade powerplans and the like.
Actually, the Mustang II was started to be designed in 1970, while the BOSS 302 and BOSS 429 cars were in the showrooms, and BEFORE the huge '71-73 Mustangs had even reached dealers. Lee Iacocca was realizing that the Mustang had grown away from its original intent: an inexpensive sporty car based on an economy car chassis, and determined that it had to be downsized. The original Mustang was a warmed over Falcon. By '70 the Falcon had become just a base model Torino intermediate, and the Pinto was just about to hit the showrooms. Mustang insurance costs had become stupid (as had all musclecar insurance costs) and it was determined that a "back to basics" Mustang was what was needed.
The '71-73 Mustangs ended up selling slowly, and just as Ford was bringing out the Mustang II, the fuel crisis hit. The Mustang II, which was planned back in the musclecar era, was the right car at the right time, and sold in HUGE numbers.
they make GREAT platforms for hot rod projects now, with good suspensions and factory V8 installations making it easy to upgrade powerplans and the like.
It might have been the right car at the right time, but as far as "back to basics" it seems to me they missed the mark by a mile. IMO a Mustang II is a glorified Pinto, and really only the Cobra models which are dolled up Pintos are the only thing that even look half way exciting.
But then again I don't know where they went wrong; 1964-68 Mustang pretty much remained the same car with some minor changes here and there; '69 is when it got more of a facelift but kept it's same design and a new nose for '70; by '71 IMO the Mustang looked more like it was trying to compete with the Cougar. Maybe the '69 model was too big for it's britches?
It might have been the right car at the right time, but as far as "back to basics" it seems to me they missed the mark by a mile. IMO a Mustang II is a glorified Pinto, and really only the Cobra models which are dolled up Pintos are the only thing that even look half way exciting.
Again, the original Mustang was a dolled up falcon economy car and even had the basic Falcon 6 cyl engine. the MII was essentially the same car, reborn.
Quote:
But then again I don't know where they went wrong; 1964-68 Mustang pretty much remained the same car with some minor changes here and there; '69 is when it got more of a facelift but kept it's same design and a new nose for '70; by '71 IMO the Mustang looked more like it was trying to compete with the Cougar. Maybe the '69 model was too big for it's britches?
Yes, it was, which is why they started to design the Mustang II in 1970. the writing was on the wall for musclecars and pony cars. Insurance costs had gone through the roof, and there wasn't much room in them at the time for more muscle. Emissions regs were around the corner. The Mustang needed to change or die.
Now, to help clarify where I'm coming from , I've owned 3 1970 Mustang fastbacks, including a BOSS 302. I've done restorations on numerous '64-73 models. And I'd love a Mustang II as a project.
Well, the fact that he put it into a tree so fast tells you it was probably too much motor for the chassis.
actually it sounds more like too much motor for the driver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deez Nuttz
It might have been the right car at the right time, but as far as "back to basics" it seems to me they missed the mark by a mile. IMO a Mustang II is a glorified Pinto, and really only the Cobra models which are dolled up Pintos are the only thing that even look half way exciting.
dont forget that the original mustang was a dolled up falcon. the mustang ll was a nice car for its day. in fact i wouldnt mind having a mustang ll fastback as a daily driver/toy.
Quote:
But then again I don't know where they went wrong; 1964-68 Mustang pretty much remained the same car with some minor changes here and there; '69 is when it got more of a facelift but kept it's same design and a new nose for '70; by '71 IMO the Mustang looked more like it was trying to compete with the Cougar. Maybe the '69 model was too big for it's britches?
the 71-73 mustang and cougar were bunkie knudsen designed cars, and were designed to use the same chassis, just changes in the body lines. the original cougar was based on the 67 mustang, but stretched 3 inches in the wheelbase for a more "mercury like ride".
as for the chevy monza and its clones, i like them, but one thing annoyed me every time i drove one, and that was the snap over steer under braking. never had that problem with my 66 mustang(that one had snap over steer when i stood on the throttle coming off a corner).
I've got one of those Monzas sitting in the pasture behind my property. Unfortunately the little car has been seriously worked over with a 357 magnum and possibly a few 12-gauges.
Again, the original Mustang was a dolled up falcon economy car and even had the basic Falcon 6 cyl engine. the MII was essentially the same car, reborn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
dont forget that the original mustang was a dolled up falcon. the mustang ll was a nice car for its day. in fact i wouldnt mind having a mustang ll fastback as a daily driver/toy.
I understand/knew where the Mustang got it's roots from, just that you would think if they were to rebore one they'd have picked a better platform than a Pinto.
The Falcon was actually a decent car. The Pinto was a pile of crap. You wouldn't think they'd take a good car with a good reputation and then suddenly overnight turn it into junk. Guess we could chalk it up to one of the many mistakes the big 3 made in the 70's.
I understand/knew where the Mustang got it's roots from, just that you would think if they were to rebore one they'd have picked a better platform than a Pinto.
The Falcon was actually a decent car. The Pinto was a pile of crap. You wouldn't think they'd take a good car with a good reputation and then suddenly overnight turn it into junk. Guess we could chalk it up to one of the many mistakes the big 3 made in the 70's.
Actually, the Pinto was a great platform. Better suspension than any Mustang or Falcon prior. My Pintos had slightly better build quality than my '60s Falcons. Of course, that was part of the problem, as they weren't advancing in that regard as far/fast as the imports (though it lagged behind the VW Bettle it was competing with, it was still better than the Japanese economy cars of the day, though by about '74 that had changed, too). the "eplosion" reputation didnt' come until after 1978 and was primarily a smear campaign by Mother Jones Magazine who actually made stuff up. Pintos didn't catch fire any more than any other cars of the era, or even any more than modern cars do.
And of course, the Pinto was the only new small platform they had. The Maverick was very much a falcon derivative itself, but already bigger than where Iacocca wanted to be with the Mustang (though they make great alternatives if you want a project car, as all teh same parts fit, but the initial buy-in is vastly less than a Mustang or Torino).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Urgent reply, cash payment, VISA CARD or Western UNion
