About a year ago I walked by this Starcraft Ford E150 conversion van in our local suburban Tokyo neighborhood that had obviously been abandoned – I took a trip by this same area last weekend and it was still there – and had acquired a couple of companions…

The Van still looks in pretty good shape, and the Crown and Avensis look like they could be found on any neighborhood used car lot.  It reinforces something I realized when I first arrived in Japan almost 40 years ago – Japanese still view cars as disposable items.  In addition, though its decreased somewhat, there is still a stigma here with driving an older car, i.e., “you’re poor.”  As a result, the collector car hobby is smaller than in the West – just as devoted, but smaller.

Let’s take a look at these new additions; on the left is an eleventh generation S-170 Crown Athlete Estate, made from 1999-2003.  This one has the mesh grille so it must be a 2002 or 03.  During its tenure, you couldn’t get a more top-tier wagon in Japan.  It was also the last in a long line of Crown Estates – subsequent models did not offer one – but this S-170 wagon was kept in production for several years even after the new S-180 model came out in 2004.

They came with a variety of straight six engines from a base 2.0 1G-FE SOHC unit, to the 2.5 turbocharged DOHC 1JZ-GTE, to the big 3.0 DOHC 2JZ-GE.  I had a 1988 GX-71 Cresta with the 1G-FE and a later 1993 S-140 Crown with the 2JZ-GE – both were superb engines; turbine smooth, powerful, and unbreakable.

These Wagons seem to be popular with the current custom inclined wheel crowd…

The Avensis also has an interesting history – it was styled by the Toyota design team in France, and was built with the European market in mind.  Avensis is a derivative of “Avancer” or Advance in French.  It was sold pretty much all over the world, with the exception of North America which already had the Corolla (which it shared a platform, though the Avensis was a touch larger) and Camry.  European models were built at Toyota’s Burnaston plant in Derbyshire, England.

The one above is a second generation T-250 built from 2003-09 – and looks like a 2003-06 model, again based on the grille.  Engines were a 2.0 1AZ-FSE and 2.4 2AZ-FSE gas four cylinders, and a 2.2 D-4D diesel.  I always thought these were tidy looking little sedans, with a bit of European flair.  I liked the wagon more than the sedan.

There were a couple more cars parked to the right of the Avensis, but they looked as if they were being driven.  As the Van has been here immobile for a good two years now, I don’t have much hope these other two will get back on the road – shame, they no doubt have lots of miles left on them.

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-asian/cc-global-1995-toyota-crown-comfort-japans-crown-victoria/

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/curbside-classic-2002-toyota-crown-comfort-super-deluxe-g-time-for-a-change/

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule/curbside-classic-toyota-crown-japanese-import-royalty/

Here’s a bus that caught my eye when doing a little research on the Mercedes O321H – this is a 1954 Krauss-Maffei KML (Krauss-Maffei Lightweight) 110 coach, and as you can see, it’s quite the looker…

Krauss-Maffei was a company formed in Munich in 1931 that manufactured both trucks and locomotives.  During the war, they produced a variety of armored vehicles, the most famous being the Sd. Kfz. 7 half track prime mover – an eight ton bruiser that could carry 12 troops and pull a 88mm flak gun.

Early post-war Krauss-Maffei Coach

After the war, the Allied Occupation realized buses were a key element in re-establishing public transportation networks and commissioned Krauss-Meffei to produce both urban transit and intercity coaches.  These coaches were pre-war designs that featured a separate body and frame.

In the early 1950’s, several manufacturers were exploring semi-monocoque, stressed-skin models which were much lighter and cheaper to operate than those with a heavier body-on-frame.  Krauss-Maffei’s entry was the KML 110 – and in addition to its stressed skin body, it was unique in several other aspects…

Screen capture from the Elvis Presley movie “GI Blues”

The body was shaped with aerodynamics in mind and given rigorous wind tunnel testing.  The resulting wind-cheating, enclosed body brings to mind a similar era Hudson or Nash.

The engine was also unique – a rear mounted 8.0 litre Deutz air cooled diesel V6, putting out 125 hp

The wind cheating avant-garde body may have been a little too much too soon, as the 110 was fairly quickly superseded by the KM 125, with more traditional bodywork, here in transit form.

Kruass-Maffei is still in business today, though no longer producing buses.  The main company now manufactures  injection molding machines, but an off-shoot, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, produces locomotives and defense equipment to include tanks and self-propelled artillery.

(first published Jan 7 2018)  For me, the turn of the year always brings forth a sense of nostalgia – another year past and a longing to look back at the “good old days” of my youth in the early and middle 1960’s. More so now as I’m into my seventh decade – and wonder how much longer I’ll be able to keep these memories…

Paul’s recent article on the step-down Hudson Hornet made these reminiscences much more vivid, as it brought back those long forgotten of a Hudson owned by a family in our neighborhood. That then led to recollections of other “classics” that roamed the streets of our lower middle class section of Columbus Ohio, and their unique and colorful owners. Thanks for the memory jogger Paul – if you’ll allow me, I’d like to reach back and offer some thoughts on these owners and classics, with a now over fifty years of perspective. Note names have been changed and pictures are representative examples from the Internet.

Let’s first look at the Hudson – it was owned by a large Italian family named Murcer. The father was a part time house painter, and as with most others in the neighborhood, didn’t have much money. He drove a early 50’s faded blue step-down Hudson – probably a Hornet because I can remember the large “Twin H” badge on the back. It was  both a work and family car – I would always see his ladder, tarp, and other supplies stored in the trunk and back seat. At this point, the Hudson was at least 10 years old – which in the 60’s was ancient. As an eight year old already fascinated by cars, I thought this Hudson was one of the ugliest cars on the road – compared to the new crisply-styled Stingrays, Rivieras, T-Birds, and Starfires that passed by our neighborhood enroute to the more upscale environs of Columbus, the Hudson could only be described as hoary, bloated, and roach-like. I’d wince when it went by, it was so ugly.

Across from the Murcer’s were the Andrienko’s; a Ukrainian family with the parents first generation immigrants from the old country. Neither the mother or father spoke much English, but the children, several my age, were all born in the US and were typical US kids. Perhaps because of his lack of language skills, the father performed mostly odd jobs; small mechanical and electrical repairs, etc. The family car was a early 50’s “bullet-nosed” Studebaker Starlight coupe. Here was another car that I thought was beyond bizarre – a wrap-around cathedral like rear window and what looked like a propeller hub in the nose,  Its trunk was longer than its hood – maybe the first cab-forward.  Truly weird.  You couldn’t call it ugly – it was too strange to call ugly – I’d just stare at it; puzzled…

Across from our flat was Mr Dillard, a middle-aged, single gentlemen who lived with his elderly mother. He had some type of office job as he always wore a suit to work. He was formal and very uptight – one who had no time for young kids running around causing noise and mayhem. He was a routine visitor to our home complaining to my parents about something I had done to upset him or his mother. He had the only new car in the neighborhood – a bone-stock early 60’s Ford Falcon, white, completely lacking in chrome, with dog-dish hubcaps. It fit his personality…

Down at the end of the street near the railroad tracks lived Mark – Mark was a professor at nearby Ohio State University – and was one of the nicest guys in the neighborhood. A bachelor, he lived in an apartment, and his door was always open to us young kids. Today I imagine folks would raise an eyebrow at this, but Mark was just this truly nice gentleman who would share with us his time, food, books, and music. He also would impart things that maybe our parents had forgot to do – always say please and thank you, never interrupt a speaker, etc.  Surprisingly he didn’t drive a Volvo but a haggard 1956 Desoto – which appropriately was covered with “stop the war” and “save the environment” bumper stickers.

At the opposite end of the apartment complex from Mark lived Tony – Tony was probably in his early 30’s, a bachelor, and a “player”.  I never knew his job, but my guess would have been “salesman.”  He was always friendly to us but was more interested in the string of young ladies that he escorted into his apartment. Between these liaisons, he would occasionally invite us in – he had a ham radio kit and would explain how the radio worked and show us how it operated – fascinating stuff to young kids.  He drove an early 60’s Buick Lesabre convertible – a few years old but in very good shape.

Looking back, I’ve learned some things over the intervening fifty some years;

The Hudson may have been ugly then, but its a gem now. Big flathead six, quality step-down unit construction; sure would love to have one in the garage.

The Starlight coupe still puzzles me – I can appreciate its then (and now) daring styling – but even today when I see one I still just stare at it, puzzled…

I wish I had been nicer and more empathetic to Mr Dillard – who was probably an awkward, lonely soul whose common complaints were likely just his attempt to communicate with us.  And I’d be glad to be an owner of an original bone-stock Falcon.

Mark is one of those few people from your childhood you look back on with true admiration – and a ‘56 finned, hemi-engined Desoto would be pretty cool to have too.

And from now on every time I see an early 60’s Buick convertible, I’ll remember Tony cruising our neighborhood with the top down and a cute young thing in the front seat.

Thanks again for the memory jogger Paul…

(First published on Jan 20 2018)  Here’s another bus you would have likely have seen or ridden in if you were spending time in any large North American metropolitan area in the decades of the 1950s and ’60s, especially those in the US Midwest. It’s a Flxible Twin Coach FT series urban transit coach.

Before there was a “Flxible – Twin Coach” there was a “Fageol – Twin Coach” – a company that manufactured buses, trucks and marine engines – and was founded by the innovative Fageol brothers after they left American Car and Foundry (ACF) in 1927. Why Twin Coach? Because one of the first models they introduced in 1929 was a dual-engined transit bus. It had two Waukesha six cylinder gas engines, one on each side located about mid-way between front and rear. This design offered more power and increased interior space over then current front- or rear-engined models.

With more powerful and improved engines available post-war, the company introduced a new single-engined design to compete with GM and other urban transit bus manufacturers. It was designated the S-series, and came in sizes seating 34, 38, 41, 44, and 50 passengers. It was 96 in. wide and varied in length from 29 to 38 ft.

While GM had its innovative airbag suspension and others were still using steel springs, Twin Coach used BF Goodrich’s “Torsilastic” torsion bar setup – later a staple on Eagle coaches and their European predecessors.

While engines from different manufacturers could be ordered, most came with an in-house gas or propane fueled Fageol FTC, a 404 cubic inch inline OHV six that put out 180 hp and 379 ft lbs of torque (gas version).

Lacking a diesel engine to compete with GM, Twin Coach partnered with Leyland and produced a version of Leyland’s diesel. Engines were located underfloor amidships and were all longitudinal “laydown” designs.

Twin Coach was also a major producer of electric trolley buses.

A few also made it to Europe.

In 1953, Fageol sold the bus portion of the business to Flxible, who at that time did not have a transit model. Flxible kept the design with few modifications, but renamed it the FT series (Flxible Transit). They also kept the protruding six-pane front windshield design, which would become a Flxible transit bus trademark.

One articulated demonstrator that seated 55 was built, but unfortunately found no buyers – you can see the rear wheel steering in action in the photo above.

Fortunately it has survived and resides at the Seashore Trolley Museum in Maine, awaiting restoration.

Flxible kept the design in production until 1959, though sales steadily declined throughout the 1950’s. One city that was a loyal Twin Coach customer was Chicago who maintained a large Twin fleet, until finally succumbing to the GM juggernaut. In this photo you can just make out the Flxible logo on the front below the windshield which was placed on top of the Twin Coach badge.  This bus is also a 102 inch wide model, introduced in 1952.

By 1961, Flxible had its “New Look” model ready for the market and the Twin Coach name was laid to rest…

Well built, a few of these Twin Coaches were still in regular service in the mid-’70s.

(First published Jun 16 2018)  Mention Dayton Ohio and most folks will immediately think of the Wright Brothers and the birthplace of aviation. That’s certainly true; the city takes great pride in its aviation legacy. But Dayton is also rich in manufacturing and transportation history. Dr Charles F. Kettering called Dayton home, working first at National Cash Register (NCR) and later founding the Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (Delco). Dayton was a “GM town”, with not only Delco but the Moraine Assembly Plant that cranked out thousands of vehicles, most recently the GMC Envoy and Chevrolet Trailblazer, before closing in 2008. But what I enjoy and admire most about the city is its commitment to a unique form of public transportation mostly written off by other metropolitan areas – the trackless trolley or trolley bus.  Here’s a short history…

Like many other cities in the decade of the 1930’s, Dayton was looking to replace its urban streetcars – it received an extra push when a large fire broke out in one of the city’s maintenance barns, destroying a good percentage of the streetcar fleet.  Rather than replace these with gas or diesel engined buses, it decided to keep its overhead catenary infrastructure and ordered twelve trolley coaches from the JG Brill company in 1933.

Brill T30

Brill, at the time the largest US manufacturer of streetcars and interurbans, introduced a trolley bus in 1931; the T30 (30 pax) and T40 (40 pax). Dayton’s order was composed of both models.

Pullman-Standard ETB

Marmon-Herrington TC48

More Brills were ordered and they served well up to and during the busy war years, but with the postwar expansion of the city, Dayton looked to broaden its fleet. They did so with orders from the Pullman Company for their Pullman-Standard ETB coach, and from Marmon-Herrington (MH), for their TC44 and TC48 models.  The Pullman seated 40 passengers, the MH’s 44 and 48 respectively.

Ex-Little Rock Brill

In the 1950’s and early 60’s, many cities were converting their trolley bus lines to diesel, and Dayton was able to purchase some well-cared for second-hand units. Between 1956 and 1965, they acquired 21 Brills from Little Rock and Indianapolis; and 75 Marmon-Herringtons from Little Rock, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Kansas City.

A tradition was started in 1965 when a MH TC48 was repainted in bright red and christened the “Winter Trolley” and used on downtown routes in December. A large chair was installed in the back and volunteer RTA employees took turns portraying Santa – it was a big hit with the kids. Its success spawned other seasonal buses for Spring, Summer and Fall.

The Brills and Pullmans were retired in the 1960s and early 70’s and by mid-decade, the fleet was mostly Marmon-Herrington, all of which were more than 20 years old. Looking at replacement options, Dayton settled on the Canadian Flyer E800 coach, very similar to the AM General diesel bus then being sold (AM General had a joint venture with Flyer). Sixty-four were purchased and delivered in 1977, and were Dayton’s first trolleys with air conditioning.

The Fleet remained all Flyer until 1996 when Dayton purchased two second-hand GM “New Look” trolleys that had been in service with Edmonton Transit.

The latter part of the 1990’s again necessitated fleet-wide replacement with the Flyers then 20 years old. Few of the existing bus manufacturers were willing to convert their production lines for such a small trolley bus order, however, a small start-up company named Electric Transit Inc. offered a version of the Czech Skoda 14Tr trolley bus then in use in Europe. These buses were somewhat unique in that they were 37 feet long, rather than the standard 40 feet, and had their rear door aft of the rear axle.

Dayton ordered fifty-seven in 1994, which were delivered in 1996-98, but unfortunately the 14Tr’s were plagued with problems; electrical gremlins, cracked frames, and persistent rust. Fixing all this was exacerbated when ETI went out of business in 2004 – kudos to the RTA mechanics who kept them running.  Dayton decided to look for replacements after just 15 years of service.

The RTA decided to go with a more experienced manufacturer for their next trolley and purchased four Kiepe Electric (formerly Vossloh Kiepe) 40 foot Nex Gen trolley buses for testing and evaluation. Kiepe is a German electronics company with a long history in transportation. Their Nex Gen bus is a Gillig Low Floor BRT coach fitted with Keipe traction motors and controls. Two of these models also had a diesel-electric hybrid power train for off-wire operation, while the other two had lithium-oxide batteries. Both models have a 15-20 mile range when off-wire.

Dayton tested these models for a full 3 years in hopes of identifying any problems – none were noted and in October 2017, an order was placed for 26 lithium battery models with plans for 15 more. Delivery is scheduled to start in early 2019.

For those looking to view some of Dayton’s trolley bus history in-person, a restored MH TC48 (No. 515) is on display at Carillion Park in Dayton – a beautiful location chock full of unique historical displays.  If you’re in the area, I’d recommend a stop by.

Currently there are only six metropolitan areas in North America that still operate trackless trolleys (Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, and Dayton). It will be interesting to see if this number decreases as pure battery-electric powered buses, with advances in range and faster recharging, gain prominence in urban transit fleets.

Think Alfa Romeo and your mind’s eye will most likely conjure up a beautiful red roadster or lithesome coupe, both powered by a high-revving DOHC engine that is both powerful and visually a work of art.  But buses (and trucks) were once a major part of the company’s product line.  As we’ve recently reviewed the Mercedes O6600H and the Krauss Maffei KML 110 coaches; both produced in the decade of the 1950’s, let’s look at several buses that Alfa built during that same period.

Alfa Romeo 110 

Alfa Romeo 130 

First a little history.  Pre-war, Alfa built some of the largest motor coaches in Europe…

Alfa Romeo 500A (both pictures)

And during the immediate post-war period, they made some highly stylized conventional designs…

But the 1950’s was the “Golden Age” for the company’s motor coach division.  The bus above is the 140/150A urban transit coach.  The 140/150 was built from 1950 – 58, and was used primarily in Milan.  It came in two and three axle versions with the three axle model twelve meters (39 ft) long.  It could seat 46, and used a big Alfa 12.5 litre inline six cylinder front-mounted gas engine that pushed out 140 horsepower.

A articulated model was also produced and could hold one-hundred fifty; both seated and standing.

The trolley bus model was perhaps the most popular – it was also made in both single body and articulated versions.  Note the steerable rear axle  in the photo directly above.

For intercity travel, Alfa produced the 800/900A – made from 1952 to 1956.  Like the Krauss Maffei, this was Alfa’s first semi-monocoque body design (no separate body and chassis).

It came in several different lengths, but most were ten meters (32 ft) long, seating thirty-five.  Engine was a front-mounted Alfa 1606 9.5 litre diesel inline six, with 130 horsepower.

Alfa made several more models and continued to produce buses until the mid-60’s – it’s last coach was the “Mille” (1000).  After 1964, the company exited the bus and heavy truck market, though some smaller commercial trucks were made until 1974.

I’d like to take a ride in an Alfa bus – just to see if it is imbued with the same spirit of enthusiasm and élan that its smaller, more famous products were noted for…likely not, but one can always dream…

Our past few Bus Stop Classics have focused on older buses – those from four or five decades ago.  Let’s move forward and look at a bus that is still hard at work carrying passengers today.  This is an “Opus” produced by the Optima Bus Corp. of Wichita Kansas, and was manufactured from 1999 to 2009.  Contrary to the definition of the term, this Opus was not very lengthy.  

Optima was previously known as the Chance Coach Division of Chance Industries, Inc.  Beginning in 1979, they produced diesel-engined trolleycar replicas that were and are a frequent sight at tourist destinations in the US.  Chance marketed two; the Alamo Streetcar, a basic version, and the American Heritage Streetcar which was Americans with Disabilities Act compliant.  These were replica streetcar bodies placed over an existing medium duty truck chassis.  I have to admit, I’ve never been a fan of these – too fake…

Wrightbus Coachwork on Volvo Chassis

In the late 1990’s, seeing a demand for a mid-sized urban transit coach, Chance looked to partner with an existing bus manufacturer – and found one in Northern Ireland.  To our UK and Irish readers, the Opus may look familiar – the initial bodies were produced by Wrightbus, formerly known as Wright and Sons Coachworks of Ballymena Northern Ireland.

Chance entered into an agreement to license-produce a smaller low-floor Wrightbus model naming it the Opus.  Initial assembly at the Wichita plant, beginning in 1999, was from completely knocked down (CKD) kits imported from Northern Ireland.  These CKD bodies were mated to a Chance designed rear-engined chassis.  Chance kept the unique Wrightbus curved lower windshield – making the model easy to identify.

The Opus was a “Midi-Bus” – produced in 30 and 35 foot lengths; with passenger capacity 28 and 33 respectively.

Engine was the somewhat ubiquitous Cummins ISB; a 5.9 liter turbo diesel OHV inline six cylinder – outputs varied by year but most had on average  230 horsepower and 480 ft lbs of torque.  Engines were mounted in a longitudinal “T” configuration.  Allison B300 automatics were standard with Voith and ZF as options.

In 2003, Chance was sold to American Capital Strategies, who renamed the company Optima, keeping the same product mix.

The Opus was popular with both larger cities as a shuttle or for cross-town routes, and in smaller metropolitan areas in regular service.

In 2006, Cleveland purchased several as downtown shuttles with trolley-like body work – somehow I don’t think they convinced many passengers they were riding on a real trolley…

Optima was sold to North American Bus Industries (NABI) in 2006, and the Opus remained in production for several more years, but NABI ended manufacturing all Optima models in 2009.  As was mentioned in our NABI post, that company was purchased by New Flyer in 2013.

Wrightbus is still going strong, marketing a variety of bus bodies that go over any chassis the customer specifies.

With a 15 to 20 year service life, there are more than a few Opus still in service.

Here’s a very unique and technically interesting bus from our friends down under – it’s a Dyson Landliner and it plied the roads in Australia for several years back in the mid-to-late 1940’s.

I’m sure CC readers are familiar with the semi-tractor trailer bus – they were used in the 1920’s and 30‘s, but gained prominence during the war years transporting workers to and from defense plants throughout the country.  They were cheaper and easier to construct than a regular coach, and the trailer could be built in elongated versions that could carry more passengers.  They are still on the road today in some of the world’s less developed areas.

Dyson Trailer Bus with Reo Prime Mover

In Australia, Dyson’s Peninsula Motors Ltd was a bus service located in Frankston, a city just to the southeast of Melbourne.  During the war, their current coaches were being used at capacity, so they built several trailer buses to augment their fleet, and transport increasing numbers of military personnel between various Army Camps and railheads in the area.

When the war ended in 1945, they leveraged their expertise in trailer buses to construct a novel new design.  Instead of a prime mover that pulled the trailer, they developed a powered bogey that went under the front of the coach body.

This bogey contained two Ford flathead V8’s – side-by-side – very similar to the Fageol Twin Coach bus.  Each had its own four speed transmission that was joined in a single linkage.  Fortunately for the driver, hydraulic assisted steering was provided.  Initially, a marker was placed on the front bogey that extended up to the front of the windshield allowing the driver to see the orientation of the front wheels – you can see its triangle shape in the photo above.  Later models had an internal gauge.  The driver’s cockpit was dead-center in the middle of the front.

The first coach was designed as a luxury model, with thirty aircraft style first class seats, a lavatory, and a hostess who served drinks and snacks.  Later standard models had sixty regular seats.  Length was forty-five feet and it was eight feet wide.

Dyson “Cheetah”

As was typical with twin-engined models of this era, getting everything to run in synch was difficult, and as a result, reliability tended to be poor.  In addition, the local transportation regulation board would not certify them for regular service use – only for special charters.  After two years, Dyson’s sold off their Landliners switching to regular coaches.  The company did build two updated models named Cheetah in 1947 for another operator, but these also proved fairly unreliable – and after a short time the bogies were removed and the bodies converted to a standard tractor trailer bus.   An example of an earlier converted model, here with a Foden Prime Mover, is above.  They remained in service up until the early 60’s.

These Landliners were an innovative experiment, and certainly produced a very unique looking bus.

In the US, Santa Fe Trailways Lines also developed a bus during the war with a powered front bogey; the “Victoryliner” – we’ll take a look at it in an upcoming post.

Each November, Toyota hosts a classic car show in downtown Tokyo in the Meiji Jingu Gaien complex, a series of parks, athletic fields, and museums in the central part of the city. Up until a few years ago, I was an annual visitor – but last trip I noticed that the cars were pretty much the same ones as the previous year, so I passed on attending in 2016 and 17. The weather was beautiful this year so I decided to give it another go – and I’m glad I did. Lot’s of new cars and a new attraction.

Toyota hosts the show and brings several cars from its factory museum in Nagoya. It also invites other manufacturers to bring cars from their respective museums. In addition, it allows about one hundred individual owners to display their classics.

The show’s theme for this year was cars from the late 1980’s – and Toyota, Subaru and Nissan each brought an example. This is one of the first JDM Celsiors (Lexus LS 400) to come down the line – and is now displayed in Toyota’s factory museum. Toyota sure got this one right – this car still looks good. It took a spin around the display area – and was as silent as a Prius.

What else would Nissan bring but a GT-R, this being an R32. Nice to see one still in original condition.

Subaru brought a first generation Legacy AWD wagon – another one that was one of the first down the assembly line.

Toyota also ensured there was a good representation of cars from all over the world – how often do you see a Panhard Dyna Z – this is a 1958 model with a 851 cc flat twin under the hood turning the front wheels.

Given they both drive on the left side of the road, Japan has always had an affinity for cars from the UK – this restored MGA looked like it had just come off the line at Abingdon.

Another MG beauty – a late 1940’s TC – looks great in bright British Racing Green.

Here’s a late 50’s AC Ace – with a 2.0 litre Bristol straight six with three Solex downdraft carbs – one of only 463 built.

There were several Rollers but this creme-colored Silver Cloud was a stunner.

It seems Austin’s were exported everywhere – this is an A50 Cambridge.

Italy was represented by several Ferrari’s but this Maserati Merak caught my eye – a photograph really doesn’t do it justice, as its a beautifully sleek design.

I didn’t recognize this nice looking little 2-door – I initially thought it might be an Izusu or Hino, but a quick look at the back showed it was a Simca – a late-sixties 1200 Coupe. Simca asked Bertone to style the body and Bertone gave the assignment to a recently hired young designer; Giorgetto Giugiaro. Very nice, even with the vinyl top.

You know you’re getting old when you go to a classic car show and see not one, but three cars that you had previously owned. During my first military tour in Japan in 1981, I bought a 1974 Toyota Crown Royal Saloon MS60 “Kujira” exactly the same as this one for the princely sum of $500. It was a great car – it had the M-series SOHC 2.0 straight six and it would just purr right along.  Owned it for three years and not one problem – I got my money’s worth…

The Isuzu Bellet has a cult following in Japan, similar to the AE86 Toyota Corolla. I had seen coupes and four-doors but didn’t know they made a fast-back 2-door. This is a GT version from 1967.  You can see a regular coupe in the background.

This is a 1987 JDM Toyota Cresta sedan, recognizable to US readers as the Cressida. Again, in 1992, I bought a 1988 JDM Cresta exactly like this one. The Cresta was a little more expensive than the Crown I had bought 11 years earlier – I paid about $8K, but it was almost nearly new with only 6K kilometers.  Quiet, refined – you could tell Toyota was inching toward Lexus levels of quality.

An early Isuzu 117 Coupe – a lithe, sleek beauty that could be had with a strong 1.6 litre DOHC four. Another Giugiaro design.

A Toyota 2000 GT from the Toyota Megaweb museum in nearby Odaiba – the Yamaha-designed DOHC six is a work of art…

I had heard Irv Gordon had passed the day prior to the show, so had to take a pic of this handsome Volvo P1800.

This one brought back a few memories – a 1963 Ford Fairlane 2-door with a 260 cu in V8 – my first car was a 64 Fairlane 4-door also with the 260. Mine didn’t have Torq Thrusts, I could only afford a set of “Baby Moon” hubcaps…

As I finished making a 360 around the area, I noticed a couple of long lines – several owners were graciously allowing attendees to sit behind the wheel of their cars and snap a few pictures. There were three cars in this area; a Model T, an XKE and a beautiful pre-war Horch cabriolet. I had driven a Model T and an XKE years ago, so I had to sit in that big Horch – yes, your author is behind the wheel.

What a beauty – its a 1937 Type 853, with a 4.9 litre OHC straight eight. Definitely large and in-charge. I’m sure CC readers know Horch was a predecessor of Audi and Auto Union, and specialized in luxury cars in Germany in the pre-war era.

As I was leaving, I noticed the police were holding back pedestrians from crossing the street – then came a series of police cars and motorcycles – obviously a DV motorcade was coming by. Before I could get the camera out, the Japanese Crown Prince whizzed by in a new Toyota Century – the chariot of choice for the Prime Minister, Fortune 500 CEO’s, and the Royal Family.

An enjoyable day – I think I’m back to being a regular attendee…even if the Crown Prince doesn’t make an appearance.

I saw this spiffy Suzuki Twin parked at a Tokyo supermarket last weekend.  I hadn’t paid much attention to these before, but after seeing this one, it just hit me that these would make great clown cars.

I haven’t been back to the US in about 10 years, but I understand the large traveling circuses are all now gone.  Back in the early to mid-1960’s, our family always bought tickets to the “Big Show” as it made it’s annual swing through central Ohio.  I can’t remember if it was Barnum and Bailey’s or Ringling Brothers, but I clearly recall the clowns driving into the center ring, and all piling out of a very small car.  I didn’t know what type of car it was at the time, but I’d now say it was probably a Subaru 360 or an original Fiat 500.  I can still hear the two-cycle engine buzzing and puffing out large clouds of blue smoke…no EPA in those days…

Well, if any of the small regional circuses still operating are in need of a clown car, I think a Twin would fit the bill nicely.

The Twin is a small “kei” class car, with an even shorter wheelbase than a typical mini – seating only two.  Its overall length is just a touch longer than a Smart ForTwo.  Engine is a standard Kei-size 660 cc triple.

Bill Stopford has already reviewed these before, and I can’t improve on his excellent post, but this Twin looks a little unique.  It appears to have been given a little mild customization.

Most of these Twins have black/grey cladding around the wheel wells and bumpers.  This one has a fully painted body.  In addition, all the Suzuki and Twin badges have been removed, and it looks like an aftermarket customizer’s badge was substituted (badge over vents in front bumper – should have got a close-up pic of it).  Nifty aftermarket wheels too.

Kei cars tend to be treated as disposable items with short lifetimes.  Given this one is over 13 years old, it looks showroom new – must be the owner’s pride and joy.

In the decade of the 60’s, I was a Ford guy – just give me a ’69 Stang with a 428 Cobra Jet.  But even being a Blue Oval fanatic, I always thought their cars had the least attractive factory wheels; either standard or optional.  GM led the way with wheel design, with Chrysler way back in second and Ford a poor third.  AMC I believe didn’t have a factory sports wheel, instead offering an aftermarket model as an option.  Let’s look at some ‘60’s factory wheels (we’ll stick with mostly sports models) and chime in with your favorite…

Most Fords came with hubcaps in the 60’s – Ford seemed to stay with hubcaps longer than the other brands.

Beginning in 1965, Ford did offer a factory styled steel wheel as an option, similar to the attractive Magnum 500 manufactured by Lansing-based Motor Wheel Corp.  Today, every restored Mustang or Fairlane seems to be  sporting a set, but they must have been an expensive option back in the day, as you didn’t see them that often.  Nice looking wheel.

Then in ’68, Ford came out with their factory “GT” wheel which was offered on their all sports models; Mustang, Torino, etc.  I thought it was actually a step backward.  It just seemed too plain to me, and in fact, took some of the allure away from the snazzy-looking ‘68-’69 Mustang and Torino bodies.  Like wearing a pair of buckwing brown shoes with a tuxedo…

I’ll give Ford a little credit however – with one of the best aftermarket wheels of the ‘60’s, they made an icon…

Chrysler, like Ford, took awhile to come up with their own factory design.  Chrysler offered the aftermarket Magnum 500 wheel – very attractive, here on a Road Runner.

Then in ’70, they came out with their factory “Rallye” wheel.  It was a popular option and was produced through ’78.  I thought it was a pretty nice wheel – not great, but unique enough that you knew your were looking at a Chrysler when you saw one.

GM was way out in front of the others when it came to wheels – each division had it’s own unique factory model that blended beautifully with Bill Mitchell’s breathtaking designs.

Chevy had their “Rally” wheel – used on Corvettes, Camaros and even Impalas.  Nice wheel, but still a little too bland for me.

Olds had their “Super Stock II” – a really nice looking wheel.  No doubt in your mind, if you saw a SS II, you knew immediately that the car was an Olds.  Later versions came with painted spokes that matched the body color.  I typically wasn’t a fan of painted wheels, but I thought these looked great.  Had a set on my ’81 Cutlass.

Pontiac had the superb Rally II – first issued in ’67 and used on almost every model.  Another unique design – you knew when you saw one there was a GTO, Firebird, Grand Prix, or even a big Bonneville riding on top.  The Rally II was one of the reasons I preferred the Firebird to the Camaro – through both the first and second generations.

A great wheel – just ask Jimbo…

Lastly, there was Buick.  Buick was more of a luxury mark than the other brands, but it had several sporty models in its lineup in the ‘60s; the Wildcat, Riviera, and GS 400.  All of these came with the Buick “Rally Road” wheel, which  was first offered in ’64.  It perfectly blended luxury and sport in a great looking design.

So what’s my favorite – I actually think the Olds, Pontiac and Buick wheels are all very sharp, but if forced to choose, I’d pick the Buick by the slightest of margins.

Which is your favorite?

What’s The Best and Worst Road Wheel of the CC Era?

Several weeks ago we looked at buses built by Alfa Romeo – today, let’s review another storied Italian manufacturer better know for its svelte coupes, handsome sedans, and rip-snorting rally cars.

Like Alfa, Lancia manufactured cars, trucks, and buses from the early to the latter portion of the twentieth century. And again like Alfa, in the 1920’s and ‘30s, they built some extremely large coaches.  The bus above is a Lancia Omicron L, built from 1930-36.  As the GM PD 4501 Scenicruiser and other bi-level buses are referred to as a “deck and a half”, I guess we could call the Omicron L a “double deck and a half.”

The Omicron was a long distance bus used on the Rome to Tivoli route.  It was powered by a big Lancia Type 77 706 cubic inch six cylinder gas engine putting out 95 hp.  It seated 88 passengers, with the upper rear a first-class section.  I couldn’t find any dimensions but it looks well over 40 feet long.

Here’s a slightly smaller deck and a half model from 1938.

After the war, in the late 40’s-early ’50’s, Lancia continued marketing both intercity and urban transit models – mostly conventional designs.

1951

Then in in the early ‘50’s, they developed their first semi-monocoque bodied model; the “Esatau” built from 1951 all the way to the mid-60’s.  Above is a schematic of the urban transit version, and a picture of the intercity model. They came with a variety of front-mounted engines, one being a large version of Lancia’s V10 gas engine, that had up to 144 hp.

1953 

1955 

1962

Styling was updated every year or so – some fairly “unique”…

Lancia also built a double-decker model, the DDS, in 1964.

The Esatau was replaced by the “Esagamma” in the latter ‘60’s – here in urban transit form.  Engine was moved from the front to underfloor amidships, behind the front axle.  Most used a Lancia laydown six cylinder diesel, in various sizes.

This Esagamma chassis has a body by Spanish maker Pegaso.

Here is a nice looking Esagamma intercity step-up design, from 1969.

Lancia’s bus and truck division was winding down by the 1970’s.  This 1974 ATM model was one of the last built. Interesting asymmetrical grill.

Lancia continued making trucks and buses until 1975 when it’s truck and bus division merged with Fiat, OM, Unic, and Magirus-Deutz to form IVECO.

I haven’t been back to the US or to Europe in over 12 years, so I’m not sure if it’s the same there, but here on the streets of Tokyo, I see an original Mini at least once a day – often more than one.

This one caught my eye as it was parked with a group of Japanese “kei class” minicars; the smallest vehicle segment here in Japan.  And as you can see, the Mini looks absolutely tiny compared to the already small Mazda AZ Wagon next to it.  I’m always taken aback by just how small these original Minis are.

Fun Fact – the Mazda AZ Wagon is actually manufactured by Suzuki and is a badge engineered version of their Wagon R.  I’ll have more on the confusing world of Japanese kei car manufacturers in an upcoming post.

The Mazda is typical kei car size – 3.4 meters in length and 1.4 meters wide.  The Mini is 3.0 meters long and also 1.4 meters wide. The Mazda has a DOHC 660 cc triple putting out about 55 hp – 64 hp if it’s a turbo.  I’ll assume the Mini has the 1275 cc version of the A Series engine that had between 58 to 75 hp, depending on year.

They’re thick on the ground here, for probably a couple reasons.  As I mentioned in a previous post, the Japanese have an affinity with cars from the UK, as both are island nations that drive on the left.  Japanese also have a fondness for “boutique” cars; those that are trendy or fashionable.  There is at least one shop here, probably more, that remanufactures Mini’s – strips them down to bare metal, and puts them back together with new parts – out with the Lucas, in with the Denso…

I’m still waiting though to run across Mr Bean…

Classca.jp

While there were many “deck and a half” buses prior to the introduction of the General Motors PD 4501 Scenicruiser in 1954, it remains somewhat of an icon of the design.  But there was a bi-level coach just as modern and innovative, that beat GM to the market place by three years – it was a bus built by the Spanish manufacturer Pegaso – the Z-403 Monocasco.

Pegaso during this period was one of two brands belonging to the Spanish state-owned ENASA (Empresa Nacional de Autocamiones S.A.) conglomerate.  Having bought the automotive assets of the Spanish arm of Hispano-Suiza, ENASA produced trucks, buses and military armored vehicles.

Monocasco means monocoque in English, and the Z-403 did indeed have a stressed skin, unitized body. Other innovative features included a independent torsion bar front suspension, and an underfloor mid-mounted engine.

That engine was a Pegaso “laydown” inline six cylinder diesel, putting out 125 hp.  Another innovative feature, it was offset of the centerline, oriented more toward the driver’s side, giving more luggage space on the exit side of the coach.

The Z-403 was not as large as the PD 4501, which was 40 ft long – the Pegaso coming in just at 32 ft, with room for 35 passengers.

Approximately 50 were built during its six year run – many going to Iberia Airlines for use as a shuttle.

Like Alfa and Lancia, another manufacturer of motor coaches best known for its more sporting offerings…

Over the past several years CC has reviewed a number of “kei jidosha” – the small minicar segment here in Japan.  For new readers, this class of car sets below sub-compacts, and is limited by government regulation in both exterior dimensions and engine size/horsepower.  Currently, the maximum body dimensions are 3.4 m (11.2 ft) in length, 1.48 m (4.9 ft) in width, and 2.0 m (6.6 ft) in height.  Engine size is restricted to 660 cc, with max output 63 hp.

1982 Suzuki Cervo

Prior to the mid-90’s, these kei cars were real penalty boxes; while thrifty with gas, they were small, tinny, slow, and did I mention small?  Your author can remember trying to contort his 6’6″ frame into a Suzuki Cervo in the mid-1980’s – and still having back spasms today as a result.  As such, the Japanese government offered incentives to increase sales by reducing the cost of mandatory insurance, taxes and fees – which were typically less than half that for a regular size model.  In turn, despite their shortcomings, kei cars commanded a respectful share of the market.

1993 Suzuki Wagon R

The first “tall wagon” version of these cars, the Suzuki Wagon R, was introduced in 1993 – Suzuki used new production techniques to maximize interior space within the allotted dimensions.  With this model, the class began to leave their penalty box reputation behind, and started surging in the sales charts.

2018 Honda N-Box

Throughout the oughts and teens, kei car manufacturers continued to carve out more space inside with the use of high strength steel and modern production techniques.  Engines became more refined and responsive, with turbocharging now the norm.  As their popularity grew, in 2014, the government scaled back the financial incentives – rather than fifty percent, it’s now about twenty-five percent cheaper to own a kei car versus a standard model.  But even with these increased fees, the Top 4 slots on Japan’s most popular car list for 2018 were held by minicars;

Rank          Model                              Units Sold

1.              Honda N-BOX                        241,870
2.              Suzuki Spacia                        152,104
3.              Nissan Dayz                           141,495
4.              Daihatsu Tanto                       136,558
5.              Nissan Note (Compact)          136,324

And I can see why – several weeks ago Honda had a display at a nearby shopping mall and I had the chance to poke around a new N-Box.  The space inside was amazing – sitting in the driver’s seat, I had plenty of legroom and headroom.  You certainly notice the narrowness, but other than that, it was like sitting in a regular small van.

2005-10 Subaru R1

What I’ve also found interesting over the past several years is the consolidation of kei car manufacturers – twenty years ago most all auto companies built their own kei model; usually several models.  But now there are only four – Daihatsu, Honda, Mitsubishi and Suzuki.  The other manufacturers have found it more profitable to purchase OEM units from these four and do a little badge engineering.  That can make things a little confusing – let’s see of we can bring some clarity.  We’ll limit our look to just the most popular kei models…

N-Box

N-One

Let’s start with Honda as it’s the easiest. Honda manufactures the N-Box and N-One, plus several other models to include the S660 roadster. Both the N-Box and N-One are extremely popular.  Honda keeps these models for themselves and does not build versions for any other manufacturers.

Toyota Pixis Mega                                                          Daihatsu Wake

Toyota Pixis Joy                                                                               Daihatsu Cast

Subaru Chiffon                                                                       Daihatsu Tanto

Next there’s Toyota – prior to 2011, Toyota didn’t market a kei car, allowing its subsidiary Daihatsu to carry that flag.  But their popularity forced even conservative Toyota to bend to the winds, and now you can buy a Toyota Pixus Mega which is really a Daihatsu Wake or a Pixus Joy which is really a Daihatsu Cast.  With Subaru’s recent alliance with Toyota, you can also buy a Subaru Chiffon which is a Daihatsu Tanto.

Nissan Dayz                                                                           Mitsubishi eK

Nissan NV Clipper                                                             Suzuki Every Wagon

Then there’s Nissan which no longer manufactures a kei model – but you can buy a Nissan Dayz which is a Mitsubishi eK or a NV 100 Clipper which is a Suzuki Every Wagon.

Mazda Carol                                                                               Suzuki Alto

Mazda Scrum                                                                       Suzuki Every Wagon

Mazda is up next with the Mazda Carol which is a Suzuki Alto, and the Scrum Van (love that name) which is a Suzuki Every Wagon (also sold by Nissan).

Mitsubishi Town Box                                                              Suzuki Every Wagon

And just to make things more confusing, Mitsubishi, which builds several of its own keis, also sells the Town Box which is a Suzuki Every Wagon (also sold by Nissan and Mazda).

Suzuki Bandit Solio

Suzuki, Daihatsu, and Mitsubishi all sell their own unique models in addition to those built for OEM sale by the other brands.

For almost every one of these badge engineered models, the only change is the grille insert.  I have to believe Japanese consumers are knowledgeable enough to know what they’re buying – so I wonder why they choose a Nissan Dayz when the same Mitsubishi eK is $600 cheaper across the street at the Mitsubishi dealer.  I assume brand loyalty still plays a factor.

Badge engineering – the bane of Detroit in the 60’s and 70’s is still alive and well, at least in this segment, here in Japan.

Additional Info:

1986 Suzuki Carry

Subaru Sambar Van

Mazda Porter Van

Subaru 360

Back in 2016, we reviewed the motor coach manufacturer Ikarus, based in Budapest Hungary.  That post focused mainly on the company’s attempts to market its products in the US in the 1980’s and 90’s, though there were several pictures of the 55/66 series bus.  After a little more research, it became clear to me that this coach deserves its own article…

Why does it deserve its own post?  Well, obviously there is the look – which we’ll touch on later.  More importantly, this is a historically significant coach.  During the 50’s and 60’s, while most West Germans, and many in Western Europe, were being ferried to their weekend trips and other excursions in modern Mercedes Benz, Setra, Krauss-Maffei, and Kassbohrer coaches, choices over the border in East Germany were much more limited.

Skoda 706

The two major producers of buses behind the Iron Curtain outside of Russia were the Czech firm Skoda and Ikarus.  The bus above is a Skoda 706, manufactured from 1958 to 1972, and was considered a contemporary of the Ikarus 55.  But while a contemporary, it was not an equal, as it was an older, conventional front-engined design.

So the Ikarus was considered the most modern, and in turn, most popular intercity coach in a majority of Eastern European countries; especially East Germany.  For many Eastern Europeans, seeing a 55 today evokes a deep sense of nostalgia – like a West German seeing a MB 0321H, or an North American seeing a GM PD 4104/06.

And boy, what a looker.  Whether you think that look is bad or good, depends on your taste, but it’s clear Ikarus put in significant effort to give the 55 some style – something you don’t typically associate with Eastern European products during the Soviet era.

Let’s look at some details; the 55 (the 66 was the urban transit version) came in two lengths; 30 and 38 feet, seating 32 and 44 respectively.  The suspension was fairly primitive – leaf springs at both ends.  The engine however was more modern – a water-cooled inline six cylinder pre-chamber turbocharged diesel, made by Hungarian firm Csepel; 8.3 liters putting out 125-145 hp hooked to a five speed manual transmission – located in the rear in a “T” configuration.  It made for a unique look and sound…

The rear is both stylish and functional.  I can imagine more than a few US bus mechanics who would marvel at the access to the engine.

Early Model

Early 60’s Model

Later Model

Few updates were made during the eighteen year production run. From 1955 to 59, the headlights were located low in the front bumper, similar to some US Flxible models, making a smooth, unadorned front end.  They were moved upward in the early 60’s, then incorporated into a small a small grille on later models.

As was mentioned above, it had a long production run – 1955 to 73.  Over 8,000 were imported into East Germany, and in 1988 over 700 were still in service.

Count me as a fan – though the ride would likely be pretty stiff, I’d be glad to take an excursion in one…

This mid-1970s Nissan Caravan has been roaming our suburban Tokyo neighborhood for several years. The owner had parked it in different locations but appears to have decided it’s a keeper and it has now established residence in a rented spot in a nearby parking lot.

Lots of nice patina here – this van has evidently lived a full life. The white wall tires are brand new and a nice period touch. Perhaps the owner is starting his restoration from the bottom up.

These 60s-70s-80s Japanese forward-control vans were built to be functional, as most were marketed to merchants and tradesmen. You can’t get much more boxy than this but it certainly optimizes interior space.

Configured for passenger duty, as this one is, it could carry ten. Four engines were offered: 1.6, 1.8. and 2.0 liter gas, and a 2.2 liter diesel, all four cylinders.  I couldn’t snap any interior pictures but one article says these have a 5 speed manual transmission with a floor shifter that measures 80 cm – some 2.6 feet. It was not known for precise shifting…

I’m hoping the owner is just making it drivable and leaves the exterior as-is.

Fun Fact: The Caravan was sold through Nissan’s Bluebird dealerships; an identical model called the “Homy” was sold by Nissan’s Prince stores. In Australia and New Zealand these models were known as the “Urvan.”

CC has looked at several models from Japanese niche manufacturer Mitsuoka.  For those unfamiliar with the company, they make custom bodies that go over an existing OEM shell, which they then market and sell.  Engines and interior mostly carry over from the donor model.  Though not all, a majority of their offerings follow a retro theme and mirror older designs, mostly from the UK.  Their newest model the Rock Star, however, obviously draws inspiration from one of the colonies.

Mitsuoka was founded in Feb 1968 as a repair garage, formally established as a manufacturer in 1979, and its first model came out in 1982 – the “Bubu.”  What’s a Bubu?  Well, think of it as the Japanese equivalent to the British Peel P50, a one-seater micro car with a 50 cc engine.

Company founder Susumu Mitsuoka had higher ambitions though, and broadened the line-up with larger models.  Their most well-known is perhaps the “Viewt”, a half scale Jaguar Mk II look-alike that resides over Nissan March running gear.

Their current line-up is composed of seven different models and includes underpinnings from Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota – the Rock Star was introduced last Nov.

As you might be able to discern, the donor car in this instance is a new Miata/MX-5, with the JDM model’s normally aspirated 1.5 liter SkyActiv four cylinder.  Average Rock Stars sticker at $46K, quite a bit more than a Miata/MX-5 which starts around $26K.  However, reviewers note that craftsmanship is very high, as most are hand-assembled.  As a result, total production of all Mitsuoka models is only around 1,000 units a year.

If you live in Japan, and a C2 Corvette is just too hard to get or too expensive, there’s an alternative available if you’re willing to scale down your expectations…

Additional Info:

Mitsuoka Current and Older Line-Up

Curbside Classic: 2007 Mitsuoka Galue MkIII — Bentley/Cadillac Tribute Band Goes Off Key

Curbside Classic: The Japanese Retro Trial (2nd Witness) – Mitsuoka Viewt K12

Mitsuoka Le Seyde: The Compact Zimmer

Flxible is mostly remembered for its classic Clipper models of the 1950’s, but it also built some other well-regarded intercity coaches.  Starting in 1954 through 1969, Flx manufactured and marketed three intercity coaches – all fairly similar except for the style of their roofs…

Introduced in 1954, The VistaLiner (VL) 100 was Flxible’s answer to General Motors then new PD 4501 “Scenicruiser”.  The VistaLiner was also a “deck and a half” split-level design, with eight seats on the lower level, and thirty-one in the upper rear portion.  Flx decided to keep the bus’ length at thirty-five feet – well short of the PD 4501’s forty-feet.  This was both an advantage and a handicap – since it was shorter and lighter, it could use an existing Cummins JT-600 diesel that provided limited, but adequate power.  As Paul outlined in his excellent PD 4501 article, GM did not have a diesel engine powerful enough for the heavy Scenicruiser.  The compromise was to use two GM 4-71 diesels in tandem coupled together hydraulically – which proved extremely troublesome.  On the other hand, the VistaLiner’s passenger capacity was thirty-nine, while the PD 4501 could typically carry forty-five, but could be configured to hold up to forty-nine.

Continental Trailways was a prime customer and ordered 126 – they came equipped with BF Goodrich’s “Torsilastic” rear torsion bar suspension, later a staple on Eagle coaches, which gave an extremely smooth ride.  One could imagine Greyhound executives wishing they had made a different choice, given the headaches they experienced with the Scenicruiser powerpack – which they were forced to live with until they were all re-engined with the new GM 8V-71 engine in 1961.

Flxible was noted for its specialty models – one of the first large manufacturers to customize a coach to meet a customer’s specific requests.  One such customer was Elvis Aaron Presley – whose first touring bus was a VL 100.

The front of this bus always appealed to me – something about the unadorned front, with the headlights way down in the bumper.  The rear, however, was much different – I’m not sure what effect the Flx designers were striving for here with these three wrap-around bars – it seems overly fussy.  Maybe one of the first “Brougham” attempts…

In the mid-1950’s, the company produced an artist rendering of a 40 foot “AstraLiner” coach for Trailways, but Flx wanted Trailways to fund all the development and tooling costs, which Trailways was unable to do.  That company then turned its attention to Germany’s Kassborher coaches.  Flx would never produce a 40 ft intercity model.

Operators continued to demand more storage space, so in 1959, Flx brought out the “Hi-Level”, which moved the roof forward to within three feet of the windshield.

Passenger capacity remained the same, but all seating was now elevated above the driver, allowing for more storage.  In addition, as this was one year after the government won its anti-trust case against GM, the Hi-Level added the more fuel efficient GM 6-71 to its powertrain options.

In 1963, the Hi-Level was re-named the FlxLiner, and the stepped roof was removed – the windshield was extended up and the roof was now flat from front to back.  Interestingly, MCI and Eagle wouldn’t make these changes until 10 years later, and GM would keep its stepped roof 4107/4903 “Buffalo” model until leaving the intercity market in 1980.  Engines were now GM’s more compact and powerful 6 or 8V-71.

L-R; Clipper, VistaLiner, Hi-Level, and FlxLiner

The FlxLiner was produced through 1969, but by then sales had fallen – as mentioned above, Flx did not develop a forty foot intercity model, while its other three competitors did – and in the bus business more seats means more revenue.  Additionally, Greyhound was committed to an all MCI fleet, and Trailways was doing the same with Eagle.  Flxible and GM were left to battle over the smaller operators.  Flxible had for several years at that point allowed the Mexican firm DINA to license-produce the FlxLiner, and in 1969, it sold DINA the rest of the factory tooling.  No more Flx intercity buses would come out of the factory at Loudonville Ohio.

But as our DINA post highlighted, the FlxLiner, with the new name “Olympico”, would go on to have a long second life south of the border.

And like the Clipper, these Flxible models continue to have a devoted following in the recreational/motor home market.