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

uplanderguy

....and, although never much of a fan, I certainly have to give this '79 Fairmont Futura in a similar color, a nod. Look how original/authentic. And it's a 302 4-speed! A longtime friend and coworker had a new '79 Zephyr Z-7 302 4-speed, in a firethorn-like color with red vinyl buckets. He always said it took months to come in, and he felt he didn't get his usual clutch life out of it, but still, interesting car:



Asking $8K. I couldn't find any mention of mileage in the ad:
https://barnfinds.com/302-4-speed-1979-ford-fairmont-futura/?fbclid=IwAR2u5z0tPwE1R6jV1QS_rjzg9kuU6QIHKGhYTG6amZp4Ve_khJFWUume5-g

ab348

I remember sitting in a Futura in the Ford dealer showroom when they first came out, as I liked the styling. I was surprised to find my head was touching the roof! And I'm just 6' tall. I suspect the early production ones used the same seat tracks/hardware as the sedan until Ford realized they needed to accommodate the lower roofline.

andre1969

It's not my first color choice, but I actually don't mind that color on the Malibu, or the Futura. This might just be a combination of my monitor, eyesight, and the lighting, but the Malibu seems a bit more caramel, where the Futura seems to have just a hint of orange.

I imagine a Fairmont might actually be kinda fun, with a 302 in that fairly light body.

stickguy

nice looking Malibu. But I prefer that version as an El Camino!

Fairmont is not too bad either. Would be tempted by a V8 4 speed combo. Real easy to update to more power and a 5 or 6 speed manual. I assume a lot of Mustang underpinnings (brakes, suspension) will bolt right on too. If you really want something cool, get that set-up in a wagon!

fintail

8K is the new 5K, that Futura seems like a fair deal for that, nicely equipped and insanely rare now.

stickguy

seems fair. Some people get focused on book value but we aren't talking about a normally $10k car going for 50K instead. If you always wanted one, not getting hurt paying a few grand extra for a nice one. Not like there are many good ones left, and they certainly aren't making new ones!

uplanderguy

That Futura seems worth it to me on the surface, although going through the pics right now I notice there is no front fender "FUTURA" nameplate on the left side, which would probably indicate body work/paint there of some level.
I don't know if I've ever been less bowled-over by a steering wheel than on that car!
andre--that Malibu I think is a lighter color than the Fairmont, but it is orangish as well. I well-remember that hue on the '78 GM's, mid-size and full-size. I have no recollection of a camel color until later than that.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I don't know if I've ever been less bowled-over by a steering wheel than on that car!

Fairmonts were unrelentingly cheap inside unless you ordered various upgrades/packages. If you did, you got the slightly more deluxe Ford corporate steering wheel which was better than that one, but only slightly. Basic spec cars were very noisy and tinny.

uplanderguy

Did those cars have the horn on the turn signal stalk? I'm thinking, yeah.
I had my share of Fairmonts as rental cars in the early '80's. In fact, the only car I came out to that didn't start, in all my rentals, was a Fairmont. (I had a relentlessly bad '80 Grand Prix once too, but it did start every time).
I've mentioned this before, but when my '81 Monte Carlo was stolen, I was given a rental '81 Cougar two-door sedan (think 'Fairmont') to drive until thirty days had passed and my Monte wasn't found. I was very, very unimpressed. It was a six, had four lug wheels (how do I know that? It had a wheelcover missing, and on that wheel, one of the four lugnuts was missing). It also had a horizontal seam right at eye level on the C-pillar that was a piece of fiberglass or plastic, one or the other.

I'll defer to the Ford guys here, and I know there are some....are those factory wire wheelcovers? I can't tell.
Still, an interesting car, very unusually equipped.
The guy who restored my '63 Lark Daytona Skytop is married to a woman who bought a new, black Fairmont two-door sedan, 302 with 4-speed. They still have it. So I knew two people with Fairmont/Zephyr 302 4-speeds. But no more than two! That Futura is still interesting and seems priced fairly to me. I had posted a year or so ago, pics of a maroon with white Landau top, '78 Malibu Classic with 19K miles and a 305 4-speed, no A/C. I googled it and the ad is still there, at $17.5K and "SOLD" written across it (of course who knows what the selling price really was). Nice car but it had faded red bucket seat backs....of course.

fintail

When I was in driver's ed, small town, early 90s, the school had 2 cars - a then-new Plymouth Acclaim, and a powder blue Fairmont. The Fairmont was the car everyone feared, as it apparently had a stalling problem. I lucked out and got the Acclaim (which was also blue).

On the road: yellow Fiero GT, Samurai with a heavy off road conversion, early 80s Coupe DeVille, 71-73 Mustang, maybe 68-69 Cutlass convertible, Nash Metropolitan convertible.

roadburner

Ford moved the horn to the signal stalk because their engineers thought that an airbag wouldn't be compatible with a horn switch on the wheel.

uplanderguy

But an airbag came at least a decade later, right?

tjc78

roadburner said:

Ford moved the horn to the signal stalk because their engineers thought that an airbag wouldn't be compatible with a horn switch on the wheel.

Really? That was early - mid 80s when they did that. Then they went to horn in the middle of the wheel for the balance of the 80s before switching the corporate column in 89 or so for the brick look airbag wheel (90 in some models like the Panther). A lot of time in between those two changes.

ab348

The Fairmont came out in the fall of ‘77 so I suspect airbags had little to do with the decision to put the horn control on the stalk. I think it was more due to Ford’s desire to make the car feel “Euro”, and lots of European cars had it there. The Fairmont represented one of those strange design spasms that afflicted Ford from time to time, like the ‘82 T-bird, the first two Tauruses, the Contour, etc.

sda

I think moving the horn button to the end of the turn signal was also to be perceived as being european in design. European influence was becoming popular with domestics such as the Granada ESS. I recall dad’s Renault 16 and I believe his Renault 30 had the horn button on the end of the turn signal.

ab348

Going back to the convo about '80s Monte Carlos, I was perusing the brochures available online. It seems like the '81/'82 model years were pretty grim in terms of powertrains. By '83 the 4.4L V8 went away and the 305 was back. And the next year brought the SS if you so desired. I liked the SS equipment but was indifferent to the styling, especially all the blacked-out things on the exterior and limited color choices. It was funny in retrospect to think that I had always been a GM kid, but in '85 I was doing well enough that I wanted to buy my first new car, and I ended up with a Toyota MR2. I didn't even look at things like the Monte or the Olds 4-4-2. The MR2 was a fun little thing for a single guy, but I think lots of other choices would have worked out about as well.

uplanderguy

I owned new '81 and '82 Monte Carlos, but my parents traded their '80 for an '84 and I liked it the best of all four of the Montes we had. The 305 4-barrel felt like an absolute hot rod after our V6's (Dad said "boy, that pedal is a light touch!"). I liked the nearly-flat dark woodgrain panels with gold outline pinstripe and gold background on the rectangular "Monte Carlo" script nameplate above the glovebox (it was red on '81 and '82 models). All '83's and '84's (and later) Montes came standard with a center armrest, which I know the '81 did not (my '82 had the optional interior so it did).
I like the HO engine the SS came with, but I don't like 'boy racer' graphics and emblems and nameplates and the SS was full of them. Kind of butting heads with the luxury boxy styling IMHO.
I thought the cars were quiet, comfortable, and smooth, and surprisingly roomy in the back seat and trunk for a coupe. Of course, same would be said for the B, O, and P cars like it.

andre1969

I liked the '86 Monte Carlo that my Mom gave me. It seemed like a good blend of power and economy, for the time. I'd guess 0-60 came up in around 10 seconds, which is nothing to brag about by today's standards, but there was just something about the way it launched, that felt like it had some guts to it. From a standstill if you stomped on it, you could actually feel it pinning you back in the seat just a bit.

As for that boy racer crap, that was honestly a bit of a turnoff for me as well, with the Monte SS. Because of that, I had a preference for the Hurst/442 and the Regal T-Type/Grand National. They still had the muscular look about them, but didn't scream it like the Monte SS did.

It's a shame that Pontiac never did their version of a car like this. They did have that Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 Aerocoupe, for '86, but I never really considered that in the same league, because it just used the same 150 hp 305-4bbl that a regular Grand Prix, or Monte Carlo, would have used. Although, I think it had a dual exhaust, so that might have boosted its hp in real life, even if the "official" rating was the same. And I think they gave it quicker gearing, like a 3.55:1?

uplanderguy

I liked on the Buicks how you could get a T-Type that didn't have a bunch of graphics and stuff. I know people love the GN, but too much black for me. The 442 is busy to me and didn't it have the twin shift levers inside? That struck me as gimmicky, although I can't say I remember seeing a whole lot of them.
I actually put a deposit on a new, burgundy '85 Monte Carlo SS. I changed my mind and ordered a Celebrity Eurosport instead.
A small improvement thing I liked better about the '87 and '88 SS was the pinstripe around the wheel openings, instead of that bigger striping on the earlier ones. But there's not a Monte SS that wows me, other than possibly an Aerocoupe in black with the gold side stripes, instead of red like all the other colors had. Gold (whatever they called it) interior too. I'd actually want the 55/45 seat.
I don't know why I was thinking your '86 was a 4.3. Was it a 305?

uplanderguy

I stand corrected. I think the 'Hurst Olds' had the twin shifters.
Here's a low-mileage '87 442. Looks very nice. Only thing I'd wish they'd have done is leave the hood ornament off, minor of course. I don't remember that they had black inserts on the panel, which I like. I was thinking they still had all the woodgrain of a regular Cutlass Supreme. For some reason I'm thinking someone probably added that "442" emblem flat on the console, but I don't know. But it looks a lot nicer than I thought I remembered them looking.
https://www.orlandoclassiccars.net/vehicles/135/1987-oldsmobile-442

andre1969

I think when it was the Hurst/Olds, it had that "Lightning Rod" shifter, or whatever they called it. But then when they started calling it 442 again, I believe it was just the regular console shift? And, yeah, it did still have some graphics on it, but I still thought it was more tasteful than the Monte Carlo.

And yeah the '86 my Mom gave me had the 305. I've always been curious to see what one would have been like with the 4.3 V6 and 4-speed automatic, though. Mom's Monte Carlo, thanks to the 4-speed overdrive automatic, got mpg close to what my '80 Malibu and '82 Cutlass Supreme did, despite those cars just having V6 engines (229 and 231). So while the 4.3 would've probably had performance somewhere in the middle of the range of those two V6es and the 305, I'd imagine it would've gotten pretty impressive fuel economy, for something that size.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I liked on the Buicks how you could get a T-Type that didn't have a bunch of graphics and stuff. I know people love the GN, but too much black for me. The 442 is busy to me and didn't it have the twin shift levers inside? That struck me as gimmicky, although I can't say I remember seeing a whole lot of them.

That was the Hurst "Lightning Rod" shifter, and I agree that it was very gimmicky. I suspect most people didn't know how they were supposed to work. But they were only on the '83 and '84 Hurst-Olds. The 4-4-2 returned in '85 and later, and didn't have it AFAIK. It was basically a Cutlass Salon (which already had the upgraded suspension and steering) with a high-output 307, a 4-speed automatic, and some modest graphics outside. I liked it better than the Buick GN, which aside from them being virtually all black outside, had a very bland interior compared to the Olds. No doubt, though, that the GN was faster with the turbo 3.8.

sda

That was a sharp 87 442. It was nice to see the speedometer was no longer limited to reading up to 85 mph. Olds made no effort to dress up the engine compartment, very plain and business like. No Rocket stickers or chrome.

andre1969

I do like that 442. I didn't realize that they started going away from 85 mph speedometers that early on.
I do remember hearing that the 442 was a bit slower than the Monte Carlo SS. Even though they both had 180 hp, and the 307 actually had a bit more torque, I think the SS just revved better. Also, I remember reading somewhere that the 442 used a beefier rear end than the SS. Something like a 10-bolt versus a 9-bolt, or however GM classified their rear-ends?

roadburner

sda said:

That was a sharp 87 442. It was nice to see the speedometer was no longer limited to reading up to 85 mph. Olds made no effort to dress up the engine compartment, very plain and business like. No Rocket stickers or chrome.

I HATE those 85 mph speedometers; when that assinine regulation was repealed the European and Asian manufacturers ditched them overnight. It took some domestic automakers 2-3 years.

uplanderguy

Ironically, on my donut run this morning down the road, a Hurst Olds of the mid-eighties era blew by me. It looked and sounded good. Black over silver, red striping, as I believe all of them were.

uplanderguy

Here's one Monte Carlo SS I could enjoy owning. I detest the SS decal on the doors; to me, car would look so much better without that.



I like the split bench seats too. Fairly unusual in an SS. I never liked my right leg resting up against a console, and I do like the emergency extra seating when needed, and the ability to slide across the seat to the right door. Plus, I never felt a vinyl console top that felt as good as a cloth center armrest, LOL.
Was never a fan of T-tops though.
I like the Aerocoupe, which always reminded me of '77-79 full-size Chevy coupes but the window wasn't as large as used on the Pontiac 2+2, pleased to report.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Ironically, on my donut run this morning down the road, a Hurst Olds of the mid-eighties era blew by me. It looked and sounded good. Black over silver, red striping, as I believe all of them were.

1983 was black over silver. 1984 was silver over black.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I like the split bench seats too. Fairly unusual in an SS. I never liked my right leg resting up against a console, and I do like the emergency extra seating when needed, and the ability to slide across the seat to the right door. Plus, I never felt a vinyl console top that felt as good as a cloth center armrest, LOL.

Back in '84 the standard SS interior was the one below, which was a bit odd, but I suppose I could learn to live with because of how distinctive it is.

uplanderguy

Yeah, the SS came out in mid-year '83 with that interior being all there was, because Chevy had last offered buckets in the Monte in '81. Buckets were reintroduced for '84. In '83 and '84, the SS could only be had with white or dark blue exterior.
I liked how the console up through '85 met the bottom of the center of the dash. Later Montes did not.
Chevy did some weird stuff in and around '83 and '84. Buckets reintroduced on the Monte; Caprice coupe reintroduced; Citation Club Coupe reintroduced.
I think I'd like an '87 or '88 LS in black with that same light-colored interior 55/45, maybe even in vinyl, as opposed to the optional loose-cushion, heavy velour seating, I don't know. I'd get the checkerboard wheels and pinstripe whitewalls and F41.
I hate how from '85 on, the glovebox knob on the Monte was black instead of chromed. I always thought I'd have to change that, LOL.
Not sure about these numbers, but I think those last two or three model years, the SS outsold the LS.

kyfdx

I had a next door neighbor with the SS. A few months later, it was replaced with an identical new model with the aero rear window. Race on Sunday, sell on Monday!!

andre1969

I don't like that combination of blue and white, in the Monte, but I think the aspect that really bugs me is the clash of the materials. I've seen these, even when they're all the same color, and there's just something about the pattern in that cloth, that does not mesh well with vinyl, in my opinion. The armrest is throwing me off, too. It looks like the only part done in blue vinyl, with all the rest of the interior being done in blue for the fabric, white for the vinyl.

uplanderguy

My parents' '84 non-SS had those same seats in the same cloth, but maroon, and I liked that interior, and the dash, in that color. Though, their center armrest was cloth. Theirs was the 55/45 seat. I was not a fan of that first SS interior.

fintail

That 84 makes me think of a standard interior with a few pieces of extra flair - maybe the model was rushed into production.

My friend still has the 85 SS he bought in ~2000. Black, t-tops, red interior, buckets. Had around 50K on it when he bought it, nice driver quality car, I think he paid around $5K for it, which was a decent deal. I remember going with him to look at it before he bought it, and I told him it looked good to me. He had wanted one since he was a kid, and had some money burning a hole in his pocket, this one was barely more expensive than neglected examples. He still has the car, maybe 70K on it now, but with work/marriage/kids, I don't think he gets to drive it much, last couple times I saw it, it was a dusty garage ornament. I drove it once - only mod to the car was a slightly louder exhaust, which sounded good on a summer evening with the t-tops off (IIRC they indeed leak a little).

Around 2002 the car was involved in a fender bender - ~20 year old girl ran a stop sign in a Corolla or Sentra or something. Insurance wanted to total the Monte, my friend had to fight them by showing the clean low mileage SS wasn't a neglected hooptie. He got it fixed and repainted, I remember him having to source the decal set.

Looking through my archive, I have a few pics of the damage, taken on what I think was one of the first phone cameras, I recall it was an attachment that plugged into a port on the phone. File data says July 2002. Big impact at front corner and again at rear:

uplanderguy

One weird thing I'm reminded of from that interior pic of the '84 SS, is that my new '81, built August of '80, had those same all-vinyl door panels that were used through '85, but in '81 almost every other single Monte Carlo I ever saw, even with the standard seating, had the optional door panel trim that was used in the Custom Interior option. As below brochure photo:



How strange that that was a stand-alone option--and a highly-produced one. Generally, I'm all for what gives you the least fake woodgrain inside, LOL.

One thing I liked about the '81 better than later Montes--the color palette. I loved my light jade over dark jade two-tone, and jade interior--a pretty light turquoise not seen on a Chevy in over a decade. Gone after '82.

The '81, only, had the chrome trim around the rear license plate cutout in the decklid--I liked that too.

stickguy

How did she hit both far corners and not the middle?

fintail

IIRC the impact spun her car around and it hit his twice. Funny story, I remember he told me he called her insurance company to get things going, as everyone was dragging their feet. They were actually very responsive, and started confirming details - about an accident she had a few weeks prior. I suspect someone's premiums became like a mortgage payment.

stickguy said:

How did she hit both far corners and not the middle?

fintail

They were committed to the term!

I recall my friend replacing the "knight" emblems on the taillights of his 83, they were either easy to find NOS or reproduced even in the late 90s. Fun detail.

uplanderguy said:

One weird thing I'm reminded of from that interior pic of the '84 SS, is that my new '81, built August of '80, had those same all-vinyl door panels that were used through '85, but in '81 almost every other single Monte Carlo I ever saw, even with the standard seating, had the optional door panel trim that was used in the Custom Interior option. As below brochure photo:

How strange that that was a stand-alone option--and a highly-produced one. Generally, I'm all for what gives you the least fake woodgrain inside, LOL.

One thing I liked about the '81 better than later Montes--the color palette. I loved my light jade over dark jade two-tone, and jade interior--a pretty light turquoise not seen on a Chevy in over a decade. Gone after '82.

The '81, only, had the chrome trim around the rear license plate cutout in the decklid--I liked that too.

uplanderguy

It's funny--I remember that in a few years, the red in the 'shield' part of the 'knights head' emblem would fade out.

sda

The pictures of the Monte Carlo buckets look like standard GM issue, as they are very similar but with a different upholstery pattern than what was found in the GP, Cutlass, etc. One thing that may be a bit different, if you opted for the euro influenced Cutlass Salon, those buckets had a reclining mechanism where the others were fixed back.

ab348

On the Regal T-Type (or maybe just the GN, not sure) you could option up from the regular bucket seats that looked like the ones above to an extra-cost Lear Siegler bucket seat that appeared to offer more bolstering and maybe a recliner too. I seem to recall those being offered on the 3rd gen Camaro too?

uplanderguy

One other '81 Monte Carlo memory of mine--I always liked the '81's Special Custom Interior, before loose-cushion heavy velour became the typical GM optional interior in the eighties. Sort-of corduroy. World's worst woodgraining on the dash. This was also the Malibu Classic's optional seating, although the standard dash on the Malibu had glossy black panels where the Monte had woodgrain.

There was a pretty redhead at work who had an '81 Monte Carlo Landau in the same Dark Jade color as the lower color of mine, with lighter Landau vinyl top, and had this interior in Jade.

ab348

I liked the light gray interiors the '80s MCs offered. At least a couple of different shades of that during their run.

tjc78

andre1969 said:

I don't like that combination of blue and white, in the Monte, but I think the aspect that really bugs me is the clash of the materials. I've seen these, even when they're all the same color, and there's just something about the pattern in that cloth, that does not mesh well with vinyl, in my opinion. The armrest is throwing me off, too. It looks like the only part done in blue vinyl, with all the rest of the interior being done in blue for the fabric, white for the vinyl.

At first glance (on a phone screen) I really liked that interior. Then after your post I went and looked closer. You are right, it’s a little bit of a mess with many different textures and fabrics.

andre1969

tjc78 said:

andre1969 said:

I don't like that combination of blue and white, in the Monte, but I think the aspect that really bugs me is the clash of the materials. I've seen these, even when they're all the same color, and there's just something about the pattern in that cloth, that does not mesh well with vinyl, in my opinion. The armrest is throwing me off, too. It looks like the only part done in blue vinyl, with all the rest of the interior being done in blue for the fabric, white for the vinyl.

At first glance (on a phone screen) I really liked that interior. Then after your post I went and looked closer. You are right, it’s a little bit of a mess with many different textures and fabrics.

I think another thing that bugs me, is the way the vinyl on the door panels, has that ribbed pattern. I know it somewhat correlates to the pattern on the seats, but it just comes off as a bit too pimpy for my tastes.

It also makes me think of when someone restores an old car, but instead of trying to reproduce what the interior originally looked like, they take the easy way out and go for that ribbed pattern.

uplanderguy

I liked the light gray interiors the '80s MCs offered. At least a couple of different shades of that during their run.

I liked the 'Oyster' color interior introduced in '79, which was very light--nearly white. But overall, I have always equated gray interiors with rental cars, which I drove extensively for a couple decades. Whenever I bought a car I avoided gray interior like the plague--my red Beretta had camel interior; our navy blue Venture had camel interior; our maroon Uplander had camel interior; and our Malibu and my Cruze have black interiors.

Not an 'obscure spotting', but I just saw a super-clean navy blue latest-model Impala Premier with the wheels and narrow-sidewall tires (looks nice but I probably wouldn't have bought those). I still wish my wife would've liked that car better. I still think the styling, and level of trim outside and in, is a car I wouldn't ever need to buy 'higher than'. I'm still an anachronism apparently, LOL.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I liked the light gray interiors the '80s MCs offered. At least a couple of different shades of that during their run.

I liked the 'Oyster' color interior introduced in '79, which was very light--nearly white. But overall, I have always equated gray interiors with rental cars, which I drove extensively for a couple decades. Whenever I bought a car I avoided gray interior like the plague--my red Beretta had camel interior; our navy blue Venture had camel interior; our maroon Uplander had camel interior; and our Malibu and my Cruze have black interiors.

The gray interiors in the '80s were very different from the gray interiors of the last 20 years or so. The newer gray interiors are as you say, a one-size fits all, bland and hopefully inoffensive non-color. The earlier grays were actual shades made to go only with certain exterior colors. They were generally far lighter in tone and often had a slight blue or green component. The choice of camel or black is a plague in modern vehicles. Imagine if you had a choice of red or blue interiors instead of camel with those past cars. And anything is better than a black interior IMO, but it is what seems to come with 99% of cars today.

andre1969

I think another problem with gray is that nowadays, there's so much hard plastic in cars, and gray tends to be sort of a "cold", "harsh" color, it tends to make the interiors feel less inviting. More stark, and it tends to make them feel cheaper, unless you're using really high quality materials.

Beige/light brown, on the other hand, seems a bit more warm and inviting. Perhaps a bit softer, so it helps tone down that cheap look of hard plastics and such.

I've had 3 cars with gray interiors: an '85 LeSabre, an '89 Gran Fury ex police car, and my '03 Regal LS. The LeSabre, a Limited "Collector's Edition" wore it really well. The Gran Fury, for being a police car, was nicer inside than you might think. The dash padding was sort of a soft, leathery-texture material, and very durable. Actually, it was similar to what was in my '85 LeSabre. It also had fairly thick padded vinyl on the door panels, and carpeted lower doors. The seats had cloth on the seating surfaces, and a pulll down armrest up front, so it was a step above your typical copcar/taxi. The Regal, however, is a disappointment. There's just too much hard plastic, and even some of the stuff that's soft-touch, looks hard. Or, it just has sort of a cheap, rubbery feel to it. One thing that surprised me though, when I first felt it, was the seats. Just looking at them, the material looks itchy, like it was covered in burlap. But it's definitely softer and more comfy than it looks!

Oh well..."Body By Fisher. Interior By Fisher-Price" I guess

**Edit, now that I think about it, I guess you could call my old 2000 Intrepid, and my 2012 Ram "Gray". Basically, the headliner and roof pillar trim are light gray, while the rest of it is more of a "charcoal", I guess? Which, if you want to get technical, is a really dark gray. Still, I think the two-toning helps make it feel a bit less cheap, and the charcoal color looks nicer than out-and-out gray. Oh, and the Ram has sort of an insert on the dash, that's a light gray.

Admittedly, the Ram does have a lot of hard plastic in it, but being a fairly basic pickup truck, I don't mind that. I also used to think my 2000 Intrepid seemed a bit too nice for its price class...its interior definitely seemed nicer than a base Impala or Taurus back then. So, what did Mopar do? For 2002, cheapened the interior.

uplanderguy

I think these are the best factory GM mid-size specialty coupe bucket seats, in that '78-87 range...the 'Viscount' seats in Grand Prix:



I seem to remember, but aren't sure, that some model of Grand Prix, maybe the SJ, and the Grand Am, had silver around the instruments instead of woodgrain. I'd have liked that in combination with the Viscount seats but not sure that would've been available.

I detested 'casket handle' door pulls in some of the GM coupes. Luckily the Monte never got them.

andre1969

I was just on YouTube, looking for something else, and somehow this 1984 Eldorado Touring Coupe test video popped up in my feed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf0o-Rj0wmQ

I'll admit, after watching it, I actually have a bit more respect for that era of Eldorado with the 4.1. Motorweek got it to do 0-60 in about 13.1 seconds. That's not going to scare any Mark VII LSC drivers, but it's still better than I thought it would be. For some reason, I was expecting something like 15-16 seconds!

I'd still be leery of a 4.1 because of the reliability issues, but knowing it's not the slug I thought it would be, does make me like it a bit more.