8th Dec 2017, 21:34

How many classics do you own? Must be a few if you open the garage door just to admire them.

9th Dec 2017, 23:23

Right, they are stacked. If you do the same, go 220V to raise and lower lift(s) quicker; a tip I wish that I had done.

26th Oct 2023, 22:38

Cars like this are bought and made better though, I've fixed many a manufacturer's bad design ;)

29th Oct 2023, 18:05

So, you buy old cars and make them "better" as in, improvements like in modern cars?

30th Oct 2023, 16:11

The manufacturer's bad designs on these old Buick V8s were timing chains and oil pumps. Both of which can be upgraded for the life of the engine. After that they can virtually run for a very long time.

30th Oct 2023, 20:10

Yeah, by adding touch screens and cup holders.

28th Oct 2024, 17:31

Yeah, and 50 years from now when "touch screens and cup holders" in cars are considered relics of the past, someone will then no doubt insist that cars equipped with them were "better".

29th Oct 2024, 19:02

Problem is today's cars, the way they are built, won't be around 50 years from now unless somebody wants to preserve and never drive their me too crossover for whatever reason.

29th Oct 2024, 22:29

Please explain what would take the place of cup holders 50 years from now that would be so much better.

18th Nov 2024, 12:01

This review caught my eye because I'm always interested in American cars of the '60s and '70s. It sounds like a pretty honest review. This also caught me eye because the first family car I vaguely remember was a 1968 Skylark. My dad said the transmission was slipping so he traded it in on a new 1971 Dodge Charger, which began my family's long association with Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth cars of the '60s and '70s.

I own a few '70s cars and in the main I'd agree not to put them into modern daily traffic. My '73 Dodge was a daily driver up until 2007, but at least it had power front disc brakes so stopping wasn't an issue. Up until 2006, I would take it on a thousand mile road trip vacation every year and it drove like a regular car. My '71 Plymouth has 4-wheel drum brakes, non power assist, and it doesn't do the nose-dive thing the reviewer described for their Skylark. It does take longer to stop so you have to think ahead and leave more following distance, which is an invitation for someone to slide in front of you all the time. The biggest issue I've found for daily driving an old car is urban traffic, stoplight to stoplight. New cars do a good job of winding up the RPMs quickly and are matched to a transmission that gets you going from a dead stop quickly and easily. In contrast, the old V-8's with a carburetor and 3-speed automatic have to make more of an effort to get moving unless you're continually jamming your foot on the gas. It just gets tiresome. And the other obvious issue, those old cars are irreplaceable so it doesn't make sense to drive a nice car in daily traffic where it could be damaged. But if you look at somebody like Uncle Tony's Garage, where he drives '70s Darts that he built in his back yard for a few bucks, or Chargers painted in primer, why not? They still perform their original job of driving around town.

It's funny to see people talk about cup holders. In my early '70s cars, the glove box door opens to make a flat surface with two indents where you could set a 12-ounce can of pop like if you were having a picnic. In those days they didn't have cup holders, nor did they have 64 ounce Big Gulps, nor did they have an obesity and diabetes epidemic. I don't think cup holders are the mark of a great car. Nor do I think an infotainment center, touch screen, or blue tooth is the mark of a great car. It wasn't common to have AC on a car back then, either. It was a different era. Maybe people were tougher and less spoiled than today, or maybe they were happier with what they had. Or maybe if those things had been available, they would also have chosen to luxuriate in self indulgence. If a convenience is there, why not take advantage of it, but don't make the mistake of thinking it's a necessity.

When I got my 2002 Explorer, I had to admit that the '73 Dodge no longer served a purpose as a daily driver. The Explorer was more comfortable and stopped faster, handled better, yes it was just a better all around driving car. But after driving cars of the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s, and 2010s, I would also say that it wasn't until the 2000s that cars once again became as good as the cars of the mid-70s. I worked at National Car Rental in the '90s while going through college, and those Chevy Cavaliers, Pontiac Sunfires, and Oldsmobiles were uninspired puddle jumpers. Oh sure, my family got our '83 Cavalier, '85 Plymouth Reliant, '89 Pontiac 6000, and '97 Mercury Sable past 200,000 miles, but they were rattletraps by that point. And yes, my 2002 Explorer drove and rode better than my '73 Dodge, at least until the suspension was just worn out past 200,000 miles, but was it really better? When the flimsy brake rotors had to be replaced every 50,000 miles compared to the much larger and sturdier rotors on the Dodge that lasted over 100,000 miles, was that better? When the fancy digital readout stuff began to fail, that wasn't better. When the fuel pump on my 2010 Cadillac failed, it cost over a thousand dollars to replace it and they had to tear the car apart to do it. When the fuel pump on my '75 Dodge began to fail, first, it kept running for one thing instead of just dying, and you could see for yourself it was going bad because fuel was dribbling out the weep hole. Second, a new pump cost $25 and I replaced it myself in half an hour. Which of those scenarios sounds better?

So, my 2010 Cadillac is a really good road trip car, my 2017 Explorer is also a really good road trip car, both very comfortable and they get much better gas mileage than my '70s cars, 28-30 MPG versus about 18-20 MPG for a 318. Our 2013 Tundra gets about the same mileage as the '73 Dodge with a 318 2-barrel. For the cost of a new car, is that really progress? So I agree with this Skylark review, the car was probably okay for its time, maybe that model in particular hasn't aged well or had built-in shortcomings, but I can certainly understand why some people would choose to keep a '60s or '70s car going for daily use to fulfill the need of basic transportation. Plus, those old cars have a cool factor that new cars just don't. Why does a new Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro look like the '69-70 Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro? Because people wish they could have the '69-70 original, but they never will and this is as close as they will ever get. I like old cars, but I'm a realist. I had a '67 Chrysler Newport that was neat, but it wasn't a great car because it had some design problems: the 383 engine and 727 automatic transmission were rock solid, but the headlight switch shorted out when the heater was on, it was undrivable until the thermostat opened up, the rear leaf springs were sagged out, the 4-wheel drum brakes and lack of power steering made it tough for urban traffic. It was good enough to get me through college and to work in the mid '90s, though.