I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

fintail

I suspect on an Echo AC and automatic were like $1500-$2000 apiece, significant for a base price of 10K or less. And then what do you get, Echo refinement and comfort with AC and automatic.

Reminds me of in 2009 when my mom's Corolla got hit, and she was car shopping. I visited then, and we went to look at more Corollas. She was really eyeing a 2 year old "S" model CPO lease return, but I thought it felt like a tin can, and I was surprised her similar year model fared as well as it did in the crash. After test driving it, I noticed a low mileage Camry for maybe $2500 more than the Corolla. and steered her to it. It felt like a Bentley in comparison. I talked my mom into the Camry, and she still has it.

xwesx

andre1969 said:

He ended up getting an early '03 Corolla, Memorial Day weekend 2002. It was a fairly basic CE model, and ended up in the $15K range. Automatic and a/c, nothing fancy, but it had a decent radio, at least. Still, for what it was, it was a decent car. Seemed like it was definitely worth the ~$1K as equipped price premium over an Echo. It was still kinda ugly, a big egg-shaped and goofy, but it did the job. He made it to something like 238,000 miles, and traded on a 2013 Camry LE.

Yeah, for a long time, there wasn't much better way to get good bang-for the-buck on long-distance commuters than to buy a cheap Corolla. I know a few different people in the area here that put on far fewer miles per day driving to work (around 80-90 round trip), and they can still put around 40,000 miles a year on their Corollas. One of them has over 300,000 on his, but he doesn't use it on a regular basis anymore. He calls it his "dog car," and basically just uses it for transporting dogs to the vet or whatnot when he only needs to haul one or two at a time (he's a musher, so he also has a pickup with "dog boxes" built onto the back).

uplanderguy

I'll say, we rented a Corolla (that's what they gave us) a few years back. It felt tinny. Even my wife, who isn't at all into cars, said "This feels crappy compared to our Cruze". I totally understand this, but I always felt Toyotas were largely (not always) made for people who weren't interested in cars, LOL. Of course I realize, that's most people.

andre1969

Oh, on the subject of tin cans, that reminds me. In late 2003, I think it was, my uncle hit a deer with his Corolla, a couple miles from home. It was a bad enough hit that it disabled his car, to the tune of around $4800. It was hard enough that it ruptured the radiator, and all the coolant drained out. The hood was buckled, so was the driver's fender, and it was pushed back into the door, wedging it shut. He had to get out on the passenger side.

The deer? It hopped off into the woods like nothing ever happened.

Still, I think this is more a function of how, exactly, the deer and car collided, rather than any failing of the car itself. I knew someone who hit a deer with a mid 80's Town Car, and it totaled it. This was around 1996-97 when I heard the story, so the car was, admittedly, older and lower-value, and therefore easier to total out.

And, back in the early 90's, one of my neighbors hit a deer with, ironically, an Impala. It was a '65...something that you'd think would be pretty sturdy. But, the hit twisted the bumper, really gouged out the driver's side fender, and messed up the front door pretty badly. It looked like he had hit another car with it! He was able to drive it home, but then just parked it and let it sit, until one day it was gone for good.

kyfdx

I've seen deer get up and run off from nasty collisions, but that doesn't mean they'll survive their injuries.

We had a rental Corolla in FL from National, in 2019. 30K miles and it was already a crapbox.

fintail

After Y2K especially, they kind of moved to what I call cars for people who don't like cars and don't like driving. A shame, as Toyota has some really interesting and even cool cars in its past. They are trying very hard to get over that dull image now, which I think is a big part of the reason behind the overstyling.

uplanderguy said:

I'll say, we rented a Corolla (that's what they gave us) a few years back. It felt tinny. Even my wife, who isn't at all into cars, said "This feels crappy compared to our Cruze". I totally understand this, but I always felt Toyotas were largely (not always) made for people who weren't interested in cars, LOL. Of course I realize, that's most people.

fintail

I recall my dad hit a deer in his 68 Fairlane. Not sure at what speed, but damage was minor - broken headlight, bent trim piece near where the grille and fender meet, and fender itself had a small dent/crease, but as the car was white, it was really hard to see.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

I'll say, we rented a Corolla (that's what they gave us) a few years back. It felt tinny. Even my wife, who isn't at all into cars, said "This feels crappy compared to our Cruze". I totally understand this, but I always felt Toyotas were largely (not always) made for people who weren't interested in cars, LOL. Of course I realize, that's most people.

I think one thing GM tends to do is make smaller cars that feel "bigger" than they are. Now, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, depends on your preference. I haven't tried out the latest Cruze yet, but have been in a few of the first generation. I kind of liked it, because it felt a bit roomier up front than your typical small car, and it did feel like it was a bit more heavy and rugged than the norm. But, I've heard people who prefer small cars tend to not like GM's offerings, because that heavy feeling equates to being "ponderous" to them.

My 2003 Regal is like that, to a degree. My Dad bought it used, in the fall of '03, so it's pretty much been in the family all its life. I drove it every once in awhile back then, and always thought it felt like a bigger car than it was. In my mind, I was mostly comparing it to the 2000 Intrepid I had at the time, a car that, while hard to judge the corners when it came to parking and tight maneuvers, was very light on its feet and agile. If anything, when I bought my '76 LeMans, I'd say the Regal somehow managed to feel kind of like that.

Now that it's the main car that I drive, I've gotten used to it, but until then, I just wasn't a huge fan of the way it handled. While it wasn't horrible, I just thought a modern car should feel more responsive than that.

sda

I really wanted to like the Cruze when it came out in 2011 but I found the performance from the 1.4 turbo to be disappointing, the front seat too firm and found the room in the back seat area to be woefully cramped. It did feel like a solid car, rode well and was quiet. While the 98-99 Olds Intrigue used the same 3.8 as the Regal and they were both on the same platform, the Intrigue handled in a much more modern way even in base form. It could be driven at a brisk pace down a winding road without much effort. Dad's 95 Cutlass Cierra would be in the weeds if you were foolish enough to drive it like the Intrigue. The Cierra was one car that did not like to handle. It would plow ahead with tires screaming for mercy, though it was fine on straight roads.

tjc78

I can testify to the Ciera’s handling. We had a 92 Century V6 (same car as far as I know) and I am serious when I say that my 89 Grand Marquis would run circles around it on a curvy road.

imidazol97

andre1969 said:

I think one thing GM tends to do is make smaller cars that feel "bigger" than they are. Now, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, depends on your preference. I haven't tried out the latest Cruze yet, but have been in a few of the first generation. I kind of liked it, because it felt a bit roomier up front than your typical small car, and it did feel like it was a bit more heavy and rugged than the norm. But, I've heard people who prefer small cars tend to not like GM's offerings, because that heavy feeling equates to being "ponderous" to them.

You're too late. The Cruze left a couple years back. The Cruze, like the Cobalt, has a quiet smooth feel. All GM offers now is Impala (from Canada? ) and Malibu in a version I don't care for.

sda

imidazol97 said:

andre1969 said:

I think one thing GM tends to do is make smaller cars that feel "bigger" than they are. Now, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, depends on your preference. I haven't tried out the latest Cruze yet, but have been in a few of the first generation. I kind of liked it, because it felt a bit roomier up front than your typical small car, and it did feel like it was a bit more heavy and rugged than the norm. But, I've heard people who prefer small cars tend to not like GM's offerings, because that heavy feeling equates to being "ponderous" to them.

You're too late. The Cruze left a couple years back. The Cruze, like the Cobalt, has a quiet smooth feel. All GM offers now is Impala (from Canada? ) and Malibu in a version I don't care for.

Unfortunately the Impala has been discontinued and the Malibu is on a short leash. I think after all is said and done the only sedans GM will offer will be Cadillac. sad

andre1969

I'm not a huge fan of the current Malibu either, but at some point it got a mild facelift, that made the front seem a bit less droopy. I mean, I don't hate it, but it just doesn't stir anything in me. I'd much rather have an Impala, which just seems like a lot more car, and I find its styling and proportioning to be a bit more pleasing to the eye. But, looking at the interior specs, I don't think there's really much difference in interior room between the two.

I wonder, as time goes by, if the market will ever trend back towards more low-slung sedans, and away from crossovers? In the past, the main thing that kept SUVs and crossovers down was the relatively poor fuel economy compared to a similar-sized sedan. But that gap has been reduced considerably, in later years.

uplanderguy

The Impala is gone already. The nearest dealer to me apparently sold their last one, a pearlescent white Premier model. I like the Malibu, except for the zig-zaggy lower grille.

I have owned two Gen 1 Cruzes (daughters) and a Gen 2. The Gen 2 is hands-down better. The interior feels fairly upscale to me for the price class--chrome accents in a lot of places, and cloth on the instrument panel where others are a sea of gray or black hard plastic. The backup screen is pretty large too. The rear seat is very roomy, particularly compared to the cramped Gen 1 there. I do think the Gen 1 had less tire/road noise. Those things are things that really hit home for me when I rode in an acquaintance's '15 Focus a couple years ago.

The styling looks like about everything else in that class, but I do think the aluminum wheels look better than one might expect, and there's no silliness like climbing taillights or a blank space in front of the driver and center instruments. Mine is an LT, the middle model, with no options at all.

And in 44K miles in NE OH's totally pockmarked roads, it does not make a single noise it's not supposed to.

ab348

I quite liked the last-gen Cruze hatch. It just looks good to me. I wish they (a) still made it and (b) offered an upgrade engine/suspension package to sport it up.

andre1969

I was a bit curious about the last-gasp attempt of the Buick Regal...the one that was offered as a hatchback and a wagon. While normally not a fan of hatchbacks, I thought it carried off the look rather well. Alas, I went on Cars.com, to search for Regals. The closest one was up around Baltimore, a pretty burgundy one. But then I saw it was just a 4-cyl. If I wanted a V6, I'd have to go out of the state!

Ironically, the second closest Regal to me was a good old fashioned 1980's Grand National, showing 6 miles away, as the crow flies. A 2011 or so showed up slightly closer, but I'm kinda meh about those. My real estate agent had one of those that, oddly, considering the conversation we've had lately, got taken out by a deer! She told me what she replaced it with, but I honestly can't remember. I think it was either a Subaru or Volvo...two cars you'd think someone wouldn't mentally mix up!

uplanderguy

I quite liked the last-gen Cruze hatch.

I got a sinking feeling about Lordstown when they announced the hatch would not be built there. How much work would that have taken? The desire to save manufacturing money was overwhelming, apparently.

Apparently at some point, I think late sixties, Lordstown was the biggest automobile assembly plant in the world.

At their 50th anniversary, I went to an outdoor car show there. I had been there as a kid and teenager, but drove the back roads this time, past little houses in the country and came over a hill and there it was, like the Emerald City....just enormous. In fact, I had a hard time finding the car show and had to stop and ask a security guard.

I've bought new, four cars built there, and three used. All were/have been good cars.

I read a brief story on Facebook, by a guy who worked there when they built early Firebirds and he remembered when Nancy Sinatra came to visit there and her pink Firebird was coming down the line.

ab348

andre1969 said:

I was a bit curious about the last-gasp attempt of the Buick Regal...the one that was offered as a hatchback and a wagon. While normally not a fan of hatchbacks, I thought it carried off the look rather well. Alas, I went on Cars.com, to search for Regals. The closest one was up around Baltimore, a pretty burgundy one. But then I saw it was just a 4-cyl. If I wanted a V6, I'd have to go out of the state!

I didn’t like that last generation of the Regal and dealers here had zero interest in selling them so there weren’t many to look at locally. But if memory serves they only came with turbo 4 engines unless you bought the GS version which was very rare and quite expensive. They didn’t sell many.

tjc78

andre1969 said:

I was a bit curious about the last-gasp attempt of the Buick Regal...the one that was offered as a hatchback and a wagon. While normally not a fan of hatchbacks, I thought it carried off the look rather well. Alas, I went on Cars.com, to search for Regals. The closest one was up around Baltimore, a pretty burgundy one. But then I saw it was just a 4-cyl. If I wanted a V6, I'd have to go out of the state!

Ironically, the second closest Regal to me was a good old fashioned 1980's Grand National, showing 6 miles away, as the crow flies. A 2011 or so showed up slightly closer, but I'm kinda meh about those. My real estate agent had one of those that, oddly, considering the conversation we've had lately, got taken out by a deer! She told me what she replaced it with, but I honestly can't remember. I think it was either a Subaru or Volvo...two cars you'd think someone wouldn't mentally mix up!

I saw a late run Regal wagon today. I actually like it.

sda

ab348 said:

andre1969 said:

I was a bit curious about the last-gasp attempt of the Buick Regal...the one that was offered as a hatchback and a wagon. While normally not a fan of hatchbacks, I thought it carried off the look rather well. Alas, I went on Cars.com, to search for Regals. The closest one was up around Baltimore, a pretty burgundy one. But then I saw it was just a 4-cyl. If I wanted a V6, I'd have to go out of the state!

I didn’t like that last generation of the Regal and dealers here had zero interest in selling them so there weren’t many to look at locally. But if memory serves they only came with turbo 4 engines unless you bought the GS version which was very rare and quite expensive. They didn’t sell many.

I was happy to see they improved the backseat room and thought the car was nice looking. Unless it had the leather interior, the interior looked cheap. The look of the instrument gauges (gages?) looked dated. I thought I might consider a nicely equipped low mileage CPO but most were previous rentals that I found and that put a big damper on my interest.

uplanderguy

Were those cars essentially Opels? I can't think of them but there's not a Buick dealer near where I live.

fintail

Both of the last Regals were Opel Insignia. I had one as a rental in ~2011, nice enough car.

roadburner

uplanderguy said:

I've bought new, four cars built there, and three used. All were/have been good cars.

I read a brief story on Facebook, by a guy who worked there when they built early Firebirds and he remembered when Nancy Sinatra came to visit there and her pink Firebird was coming down the line.

I also like to keep track of where my cars were built. The Wrangler was built in Toledo of course, while the 2 Series and X1 were built in Leipzig. The Club Sport came from Munich while my sons 3er was built in Rosslyn South Africa. The Clubman hails from Cowley, Oxfordshire(Plant Oxford) in England. Our old X3 was built at Magna Steyr in Graz, Austria- and my next car might well come from that same plant(the Zupra). The S3 was built at Hinckley, Leicestershire in England.

uplanderguy

This was not my prime purchase decision, but my Lordstown cars fit my 'second car' buying plans and I enjoyed that they were built near-enough that local people where I live, and also where I grew up, were employed there.

Thinking back, I seem to remember a Regal sedan that was an Opel, that was built and sold here the same time you could still get a Century model. Is that right, or not? My mind was still of the "Regal should be bigger than a Century!" set, LOL.

ab348

The early 2000s Regal was a W-body like the Intrigue, Grand Prix and Lumina. The last-gen Century also was a W-body although it used the 3.1 Chevy V-6.

In 2011 GM brought back the Regal. For the 2011 model year the Regal was built by Opel in Russelsheim, Germany and was a rebadged Opel Insignia. For 2012 they built North American Regals at GMs Oshawa plant up to the last year of that model's run. When the new version (hatch/wagon) was introduced, production went back to Russelsheim. Both of those generations were GM Epsilon platform cars, so they followed the same evolution as the Malibu, with the earlier ones having the shorter version of that platform which made for a tighter back seat, while the later version gave some extra room there by using the stretched Epsilon platform.

uplanderguy

Thanks Greg. My memory was wrong about German Regals being sold at the same time as the last Centurys.

I'd have preferred an Oshawa Regal, just because.

They struck me, at least the ones I'm thinking of, as sort-of narrow.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Thanks Greg. My memory was wrong about German Regals being sold at the same time as the last Centurys.

I'd have preferred an Oshawa Regal, just because.

They struck me, at least the ones I'm thinking of, as sort-of narrow.

I leased a 2011 Regal Turbo in September of 2011. It was a nice car and I (and others who commented) really liked the looks. It wasn't particularly narrow to me. It was a tweener of sorts in terms of tech, being one of the earlier GM direct-injection engines and even with the turbo was in a fairly mild state of tune with 220HP. It was a tremendous car on the highway. I didn't like the Aisin automatic transmission much as it seemed slow to change gears. The infortainment tech was pretty primitive compared to today with a monochrome screen in the center of the dash and with limited functionality. The later Oshawa Regals had an uprated turbo 4 and were much zippier.

tjc78

“ I didn't like the Aisin automatic transmission much as it seemed slow to change gears.”

Good transmissions with horrible computer programming.

uplanderguy

I do remember that Regal styling.

fintail

Going through my archives, here's the Regal rental car:



I seem to recall getting a compliment on it too. I remember I took it to a car wash, as it had become covered with bugs (driving in southern GA), and someone there liked it. No sunroof, rental spec, but I am pretty sure it had leather or pleather.

stickguy

a guy I know in my neighborhood had that vintage in the Turbo model, with the rare 6 speed stick. Not too long ago he got rid of it and replaced with a Lexus RX350. I haven't seen him to ask why. I do recall a few times hearing it drive away, and it seemed to rattle a lot. Like a loose heat shield sound.

fintail

IIRC the car made a lot of direct injection clatter when cold.

ab348

fintail said:

IIRC the car made a lot of direct injection clatter when cold.

Very true.

roadburner

The DI injectors in my MS3 sounded like lifter clatter.

uplanderguy

I love a good original car, and I can usually tell when someone is BS'ing--at least in a seventies GM car. Yes, a '77 to '79 would be easier to live with I think, but what remarkable condition and pretty stunning interior:

https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0121-442797/1976-oldsmobile-98-regency/?fbclid=IwAR3SXtnKAK0yj_gVHWqGvcSxgI9DcnOMeKrP-KFBn8BxXxoVEoj66mdXl7Y

stickguy

a real barge, but nice time capsule.

uplanderguy

A friend commented on no cruise control and no power door locks, which I hadn't noticed, but I gotta say I think that white interior is lovely. He also noticed the wheel cover 'claw' marks on the spare's wheel, which would make one think that spare has been down. Nitpicks for sure though.

xwesx

uplanderguy said:

I love a good original car, and I can usually tell when someone is BS'ing--at least in a seventies GM car. Yes, a '77 to '79 would be easier to live with I think, but what remarkable condition and pretty stunning interior:

https://www.mecum.com/lots/FL0121-442797/1976-oldsmobile-98-regency/?fbclid=IwAR3SXtnKAK0yj_gVHWqGvcSxgI9DcnOMeKrP-KFBn8BxXxoVEoj66mdXl7Y

Curious design! It looks like somebody spliced a 70s Eldorado to the front clip of an '80s Olds 98.

uplanderguy

It's nearly a Cadillac, but if I wanted a car like that, I'd choose a Caddy only because they only sold one line of cars (well, two if you count Eldorado separately I guess); they had their own 500-inch engine, and I'm not complaining, but the instrument panel of the Ninety-Eight, and some sheetmetal, is shared with the lesser Delta 88. That said, the car is striking IMHO.

xwesx

uplanderguy said:

It's nearly a Cadillac, but if I wanted a car like that, I'd choose a Caddy only because they only sold one line of cars (well, two if you count Eldorado separately I guess); they had their own 500-inch engine, and I'm not complaining, but the instrument panel of the Ninety-Eight, and some sheetmetal, is shared with the lesser Delta 88. That said, the car is striking IMHO.

Yeah, I like it... especially that interior!

sda

Looks like the buyer got a decent discount on the price. If price was an issue I think I would have compromised with a standard AM/FM mono radio and take the difference from not selecting the 8 track stereo and add power locks and intermittent wipers. If money left over, cruise. Ahh, 20/20 hindsight.. Sharp car.

fintail

The interior in that Olds is amazing. Time warp. When the limit is 55 and there aren't any high feature affordable smaller luxury cars (other than maybe a Seville, which was much more expensive), just sit back and enjoy it.

uplanderguy

No tilt wheel, unusual too. I could enjoy owning that car for sure.

tjc78

I agree that is one nice Olds.

ab348

What a lovely car: https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1971-mercedes-benz-280se-3-5-coupe-16/

texases

Anyone know why they kept the '280' part of the name, instead of '350'? Or were the numbers as meaningless then as they are now?

stickguy

that defines understated stately luxury.

fintail

A cabrio in that condition can hit 200K (300K if truly concours), making the coupes an appealing option.

Regarding the nomenclature, I've suspected because that model was soon to be discontinued, MB maybe didn't want to bother. MY 1971 is the final run for that car, the V8 only beginning production in 69. Also, maybe some thought the extra "3.5" badge made the car more special, differentiating it from an I6 280SE, rather than giving it a new badge. The replacement SLC would have badges relating to displacement (until the end, when you could get a 450SLC 5.0).

andre1969

Does that '76 Ninety-Eight have a leather interior, or is that just a very high quality vinyl? It looks nice, but something about the way the material wrinkles a bit around the buttons makes me think of vinyl.

By this time, I prefer the 4-doors, because they were a true hardtop. And the way the quarter window and the door window don't line up at the B-pillar always bugged me. Still, it's a really nice car. My favorite among these big barges is actually the Buick Electra, which seems just a tad sportier (or at least, less conservative) than the Ninety-Eight, but they're both nice. And I prefer them both to the Cadillacs, which were just too flashy for my tastes.

One mastodon from that era that I'm starting to appreciate more and more is the Grand Marquis. I think it tends to get overlooked, because Mercury started making their whole big car range look the same, once the Monterey went away. I think '74 was the Monterey's last year? Anyway, the Marquis pretty much took over for it, with the Marquis Brougham being a step up, and then the Grand Marquis being priced into Electra/Ninety Eight and New Yorker territory. Unless you're really into these cars, most people are probably just going to lump all the Marquises together back then. It wasn't like with Buick and Olds, where the Electra and Ninety-Eight were actually bigger than the the LeSabre and Delta 88...all Marquises were the same size. But, I've started noticing them more at car shows, and the Grand Marquis trim level was pretty damned nice inside! I always liked the look of the whole range, with its hidden headlights, but just never really thought of them as quite the same league as an Electra/Ninety-Eight.

I think one of the '73-74 Marquis sedans, when they still offered a true 4-door hardtop rather than the thin-pillar sedan, would be pretty cool.

ab348

stickguy said:

that defines understated stately luxury.

The are many, many things to like with that 280 coupe. But what really gets to me is the steering wheel. White (a plus) with a horn ring (a plus) and the color-keyed red padded donut around the hub (plus plus plus).