Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I liked the Lumina Euro coupe better than the Z34--didn't have the extra vents and quite the graphics, but either's rare on the ground to see around here. I do believe I posted here a '90 coupe in turquoise with the awful silver-painted flat 'Euro' wheelcovers, maybe a year or so ago. Other than that, it looked pretty good. I'd have had to have the polished aluminum wheels though.
The exterior colors match my first brother-in-law's parents' '65 Grand Prix, which I loved. I did like the Bonneville's fastback roof and 'regular' taillights better, though.
We've discussed the sometimes awkward proportions the longer Star Chief and Bonneville wheelbase had, but as andre I think said here, for some reason the '65 and later cars tended to hide
that better. Perhaps the fastback roof helped.
So, so unusual to see a Bonneville Hardtop with the buckets and console. In fact, I'm not sure, but I'm thinking perhaps '65 was the first year they were offered on a coupe. They'd been offered on the Bonneville convertible for a few years before that.
30K miles on this car when these 2018 pics were taken.
Just lovely. There's not another GM full-size that year, well, at least, Chevy/Olds/Buick, that I'd take over this car.
Something a little funky about the LF wheel opening molding, but if that's the only thing I can nitpick...
But with the '65-70, it seems like they put more thought into coming up with a design that would work well with both the longer and the shorter wheelbase models. In fact, while my '67 Catalina looks "normal" to me for the most part, there's been a few times, at the GM show in Carlisle, where there would be a '67 Bonneville convertible parked right next to it, and suddenly to my eye, the Catalina looked stubby. Almost as if the Bonneville was the default design, and then they just shrunk it up quickly to make the Catalina!
Buick did a similar thing with the Wildcat vs the LeSabre, as I recall. I think the wheelbases were 123" for the LeSabre, 126" for the Wildcat, and it was only '65-68? Buick seemed to do a better job at hiding that extra length than Pontiac. At least, when I look at pictures of the two, it doesn't jump out at me, where they stuck the added wheelbase, like it does on a Pontiac. But that could also be that I'm just more familiar with Pontiacs and have been around them more than Buicks of that era.
For '71-72, the Catalina was on a 123.5" wb, while the Bonneville and Grand Ville were on a 126". For '73 they all went to 124.0". In this case though, the extra 2.5" was tacked on ahead of the firewall, so you got a slightly longer hood and fenders. It's a bit subtle, because even the Catalina's front clip is pretty long, but if you look closely at both, you'll see it eventually. I have a feeling though, that it was too subtle, hence all of them going to the same wheelbase for '73. The Grand Ville (and then the Bonneville in '75) still managed to look like bigger cars, but I think that's because of their rooflines, which were sort of the C-body Electra/Ninety-Eight/DeVille, crammed onto a shorter body.
I guess, too, that the '73 bumper regulations could have had something to do with it. According to the brochure, a '72 Catalina was already 222.4" long, while a Bonneville or Grand Ville was 226.2" The '73 models were all 224.8" long, while the '74 models were 226.0". So perhaps the folks at Pontiac figured the 126" wb car, with 5-mph bumpers worked into the design, would be too long?
Actually, I'm impressed that those crash bumpers didn't add more to the overall length of these cars. And I always wondered about that subtle difference in wheelbase, of the 123.5" versus 124"? Did GM simply do something to the suspension for '73, that made the wheelbase just a bit longer? Or did they actually stretch the frame 1/2"?
Not too long ago I saw a '72 Pontiac salesman's training video. They were talking about the Catalina Brougham having the 'Bonneville interior', which is absolutely true, and that prospects should be shown how the Bonneville and Grand Ville were longer than a Catalina, and that 'the customer can see this looking out at the hood from inside the car', or something quite like that.
I did know the Wildcat was a longer wheelbase than the LeSabre, but I never really noticed it all that much. For some reason, on pillared sedans the extra length of Star Chiefs was usually noticeable to me, but there wasn't a pillared-sedan Bonneville until '68, and it seems like I never saw many Wildcat pillared sedans at all.
With the 2-door models, the length isn't quite as noticeable to me, because the extra wheelbase can "hide" a bit better in the sheetmetal of the rear quarter, ahead of the wheel opening, since there's no other seams to reference against, as there are when there's a rear door there. But you can still tell, because of the position of the C-pillar, in relation to the rear axle.
Something else I just thought of...with the Bonneville/Star Chief, they not only added the 3" of wheelbase, but also stuck a few inches out in back, on top of that. For instance, my '67 Catalina is 215.6" on a 121" wb, whereas a Bonneville or Star Chief Executive was 222.6" on a 124" wb. So there was 3 more wheelbase, PLUS 4" of overhang. In contrast, a '67 LeSabre was 217.5" on a 123" wb, while the Wildcat was 220.5" on a 126" wb. So while the Wildcat was longer, in wheelbase and length, it wasn't as exaggerated as a Bonneville or Star Chief/Executive. So maybe that's why the Wildcat doesn't jump out as being so much bigger than a LeSabre...because it isn't!
Also, I'm wondering if the Wildcat didn't put those extra 3" up front, ahead of the firewall? It can sometimes be hard to tell in pictures because they can get distorted, but here's two pics I'm trying to compare...
Neither is exactly petite, and I think that "hockey stick" trim piece on the Wildcat might trick the eye a bit, but to me it looks like the extra wheelbase on the Wildcat is ahead of the firewall, resulting in a longer fender, between the wheel opening and door.
Besides the colors outside, it's the buckets and console in a Bonneville hardtop thing, quite unusual.
My guess is that car was ordered that way.
How the Grand Prix steering wheel center made it to the customer is the kind of thing that used to frustrate me. As the original owner, I'd have had that fixed.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Photo courtesy Filer family.
I guess stylists back then just couldn't leave well-enough alone sometimes, in an effort to go 'upscale', LOL.
And, on the subject of giving thanks, let's all be thankful that cars have come a long way since this...
They didn't give a 0-60 time, but did a 500-foot acceleration test, where it took 10.7 seconds, and was doing 51 mph. Quarter mile was 21.3 seconds @ 68 mph.
I wonder it it's possible to extrapolate a 0-60 time from those statistics. I'm going to guess about 14.5-15.0 seconds? To come at that conclusion, I just looked up a few old road tests, and it looked like the 0-60 times were about 34-39% longer than 0-50. Those tests though, were of a '79 LTD and Caprice (351 vs 350) and an '80 rematch (302 vs 305).
Despite the sucky engine and performance, I actually find this car oddly appealing. I think it might be partially because it seems like it's the least common. I just looked up sales figures, and it didn't do too bad for '82. Roughly 74,000 Regal sedans sold, versus 71,000 Malibu sedans, 64,000 Bonneville-Gs, and 94,000 Cutlass Supreme sedans.
But, it just seems like they disappeared from the streets much more quickly than the others. The Bonneville-G, however, lasted through '86 and the Cutlass Supreme sedan through '87, while the Regal was dropped after '84, so that might be one reason why it seems to me the Bonneville/Cutlass were a more common sight.
I wonder if too much reliance on junky engines was also a problem, though? These cars never got a V8 in '82-84, with the exception of the Olds Diesel 350, so that just left the Buick 231 and 252 V6es, and neither was known for durability. The Bonneville didn't have a V6 either in '82, but used a 305 from '83 onward. The Malibu offered 267 and 305 V8s, while the Cutlass offered 260 and 307 V8s. And the Malibu's 229 V6 while weak, was at least fairly durable.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Their 0-500 foot test took 10.4 seconds, at 51 mph. Same speed as the Regal above, but slightly quicker time. And quarter mile in 20.8 seconds @ 69 mph.
I'm surprised that the Regal and this LTD are so close in weight. They said the test weight of the Regal was around 3400 lb, wheras this LTD was around 3700 lb. I figured there'd be a bigger spread than that, especially considering GM's midsized cars got criticized for using frames that were too under-sized and weak. Unless, that was just the rear frame rails, and not the whole frame? They also mentioned the Regal was pretty fully loaded, whereas the LTD was a more basic model, but still...
I also like the comment "...and windows that ACTUALLY roll down" in reference to the back seat area. A not-so-subtle jab at GM, perhaps?
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
Those performance numbers are amusing, makes me think of our Tempo.
Looks like those small V8 domestics didn't perform much better than MBs smallest diesel engine offering, a car in automatic form anyway now probably unsafe for regular use on high speed roadways:
I like the A wagons better than the coupes and sedans. They are nicely proportioned. I’d like a Eurosport wagon with the aluminum wheels used on the Citation X-11.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
These days though, if there's one midsized car from that era that I still see every once in awhile, it's an A-body. Usually a Century or Cutlass Ciera. And I don't think it's reliable, necessarily, but they're fairly cheap and easy to fix. And for the longest time, parts were always easy to get. Even now, parts might still be somewhat easy. In comparison, about the only time I'll see an '83-86 LTD/Marquis is at a classic car show (usually the Ford Nationals at Carlisle). I can't remember the last time I've seen a Taurus of the '86-95 era, unless again, every once in awhile, at the Ford Nationals. Chrysler's most direct competition to the A-body was all over the map in that era, and most of it K-car based. I guess you could throw a Diplomat or Gran Fury into that comparison, as they were marketed at midsized cars by that time, although physically much bigger and heavier. The stretched K-cars, such as the Dodge 600, Chrysler E-class, and Plymouth Caravelle were probably the most direct competitors, and maybe to a smaller degree the Lancer/LeBaron GTS, and in later years the Spirit and Acclaim, although those two were introduced about the time the Celebrity and 6000 checked out.
If I wanted to pick up a cheap midsized used car, and found an old A-body from that era that seemed like it had been well taken care of, I wouldn't be ashamed of it. I'm not a huge fan of the 2-doors for the most part, because they really looked more like sedans than coupes. But, I thought that when they gave the Ciera and Century that "Thunderbird treatment" to the roofline, it made them kind of interesting.
Remember the two-door FWD Electras of the time? Terrible! I knew a guy where I worked that had a blacked-out two-door Electra, I'll assume it was a T-Type, and it looked terrible!
I like the LeSabre coupes of the late eighties/early nineties. I could still like one. Very American looking, in and out. I like the four headlights but the later ones have better transmissions I'm told. One or so years, they offered a light metallic turquoise that is striking by even the boring colors of those days, yet alone today.
I like the LeSabre styling better than the Eighty-Eight, with its yellow taillight lens portion, which always screamed "Import!" to me.
Here's an Electra for comparison...
I don't exactly hate either one, but in each case, I'd probably go for a 4-door version. I usually look at there being a tradeoff...you get more practicality in a 4-door, but more style in a 2-door. Not always, but in general. But, when it gets to the point that the 2-door doesn't look any better than the 4-door, it's like what's the point?
And apparently buyers thought so too, as sales of the Electra and Ninety-Eight coupes dropped off pretty quickly. For '85, there were three versions of the 2-door...base, Park Avenue, and T-Type. For '86 it was dropped to just base and Park Avenue, and then for '87, simply Park Avenue. For '88, it was only sedans.
Unfortunately, the only time I ever saw the car, it was sitting in their driveway, dead, with a flat tire. This would've been in 1993. I can't remember what issues it had, but they got rid of it soon after. At the time, her car was a white Cutlass Supreme coupe. I forget the year, but I'm pretty sure it had a quad 4, and I do remember it being that "grille-less" style with the tiny square inset headlights that, coupled with turn signals that were about the same size, gave it a 6-headlight look. She ended up having problems with that too, and traded for an early Nissan Altima.
Thinking of A bodies, my 5th grade teacher had a Pontiac 6000 coupe (2 door sedan?), has to be a unicorn today. I recall her husband, also a teacher, had an early 70s Vista Cruiser that was already something of an unusual car.
I believe the Ninety-Eight coupe came standard with a vinyl top in those years.
Funny, in the four-door cars, I liked the Ninety-Eight best of the three (Sedan deVille and Electra the others). Often, I like the Olds version of a platform the least for styling, but I liked the cathedral taillights and large, round wheel openings front and back. My Stude dealer friend had a champagne-colored '86 Ninety-Eight Regency Sedan he bought when it was several years old, and I thought it really packaged serious American-style luxury in a practical-sized exterior.
I wish cars now had the visibility of that Electra!
I have to admit, the car left me cold. I am indifferent at best to the '70 Chevy, partly based upon us owning a similar '69 Impala that nobody in the family liked very much. The interior felt cheap compared to earlier Chevys, and that large expanse of painted metal on the dash seemed out of step with the times. One thing he did note that I didn't know was how pricey the Caprice was compared to both its GM stablemates and the competition from Ford and Chrysler. According to him you could buy a Bonneville or LTD Brougham for less in 1970.
I found it odd that he said he was unaware of Chevy's signature triple-taillight design feature over the years. Kids these days...
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
My auditor's nature is making me cringe when he spells it as (lower case, with an 'e') "rallye wheels" instead of "Rally Wheels".
To be fair, that's the kind of slight error I'd probably make if I were writing about a Mopar or Ford product of that time. I used to absorb the Chevy's brochure information like a sponge when I was a kid. I hated sports, so that's what took up all my head space.
I guess they could have used thicker gauge metal in the roof pillars, maybe beefed up the structure of the doors under the skins, and such? But, I'm guessing there's still some kind of cost rationale as to why they didn't go that route. Or maybe, from an engineering standpoint, it still wasn't feasible? To the point where, say, a larger roof pillar might still be stronger than a smaller roof pillar that uses thicker gauge metal, and such?
You could also get a pillared Bonneville 4-door for $3770, whereas the Caprice was only 2- or 4-door hardtop that year. So if you don't do an apples-to-apples comparison, the prices get a bit closer. Then there's engines. What was the standard engine in the '70 Caprice? Was it a 350, or a 400? I'm pretty sure for '71 it was a 400, but I don't know about '70. The Bonneville had a 455 standard. So depending on how much the 454 option on the Caprice was, that could've closed the gap. And then, I think a Pontiac 400 was actually a credit option for the Bonneville...just to confuse matters even more.
I wonder too, if, Pontiac sales got soft that year, and maybe they were running bigger discounts than Chevy, so the out-the-door prices might have occasionally been lower?
**Edit, according to my old car book, an LTD Brougham was $3579. Over at Plymouth, the most expensive 4-door hardtop was the Sport Fury trim level, at $3363. A Dodge Polara Custom 4-door hardtop was $3528, while a Monaco 4-door hardtop was $3743
Having owned a 1988 Oldsmobile 98 for ten years, I can say that the luxury was wonderful in that car. Great visibility, and great room front and rear. That car had one weird feature that you can see after 16 minutes in the video below of two cigarette lighters and ashtrays in the back seat in those fancy doors. And it had interesting decorative exterior lights on the B-pillars. A good car with that 3.8 engine, which had good acceleration for the time.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Agree, the video car is just begging for whitewalls.
In my memory, there really was nothing else offered by anyone that was similar to these cars. Before the domestics just started to ape the import luxury cars. Nice packaging IMHO, and I guess that was still a fairly-new concept in domestic luxury at the time.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I'm always amazed that backing down our driveway, which is probably a 30% downward grade, maybe?, combined with a turning lane beginning at our street just before our driveway, that a car coming down our street can be hidden completely, and I mean completely, behind the B-pillar in my '17 Cruze as I'm backing out. It's almost like some geometric experiment happening!
More than once I've avoided an accident by hearing a horn beep. I always stop for a few seconds before backing out into the street, for that reason.
Really!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
That may have been for a different ad:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1991/08/22/volvo-ad-agency-penalized-for-commercial/a14c38c3-73ea-4c12-a85c-a3d07e5a8971/
It looks like the “stack” ad was legit:
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/the-stack/amp
My mother-in-law, a single lady, bought a used Volvo for her teenage son sometime in the mid-nineties, thinking it would be safe and bulletproof. It may have been safe but she felt the repair costs were ridiculous. I don't think they had it three months. He subsequently had a 1968 Dodge Coronet 440 4-door sedan, followed by a mid-'80's LeBaron sedan.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6