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

uplanderguy

For '78 though, it does list the prices, and the Landau was $304 more than the regular Caprice. On the Impala, for some reason, the Landau was $390 more.

The Impala Landau option was more than on the Caprice Classic, because the base Impala didn't have wheel opening moldings standard, and came with dog-dish caps. The Caprice had those moldings and full wheel covers standard. Even the Impala Landau had the wire caps so the 'upgrading' on the Impala required more stuff.

andre1969

Any interest out there for a low-mileage 1983 Dodge Omni?
https://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/aucdsclnk?sl=71QSCI22339020&fbclid=IwAR22ZT9tIkUFexCYHMz_8g7dDvKLG35T_UWCKnZpmPSmrMKtuY0J4Zjadto

Only 953 miles on this little gem

uplanderguy

LOL.

I used to get Omni/Horizons for rentals quite a bit. I much-preferred them to K-Cars and I seem to remember them actually being pretty peppy.

The cars in that class I hated getting the most as a rental were the Renault Encore and/or Alliance. Slow and stupid-looking IMHO.

andre1969

Oh, while it's on my mind...update on '78 car prices. Again, this is from my Auto Encyclopedia, so I don't hold myself responsible for any errors (unless they're from my own typing )
1978 Caprice V8 coupe: $5711
1978 Caprice V8 Landau: $6015
1978 Coupe DeVille: $10,584

I didn't realize that you could order the next model year's car that early on. The way I misread it, I thought your friend had ordered a '77 in the spring, but it didn't arrive until the '78's were out.

$9600's still a lot of money though, even for a '78. I just looked up the old Motortrend test of the '77 Caprice, and they list its base price at $5236.55. My auto encyclopedia lists $5237, so I guess they do get one right from time to time! Anyway, MT had that Caprice loaded up to $7986. So yeah, I could definitely see a loaded '78, especially with a sunroof and CB, pushing $9600.

As for those '61-64 station wagons, that vertical C-pillar never bothered me before, but now it catches my eye. So, thank you for that, Uplander! From a functional standpoint, it might have made the back seat easier to get into, and if you had to load/unload anything from the back seat, it may have made it easier than if it was sloped. But that probably wasn't THAT big of an issue, and in the end, they probably did them the way they did, because it was cheaper. Also, the '59-60 had that upright C-pillar, although they also had the little quarter window behind it, which made the car look a bit like a 4-door sedan with a wagon roofline simply grafted on. Normally I don't like the cluttered look of too many windows, but for some reason, the '59-60 wagon roof doesn't bother me. Perhaps it's because my eye catches the sloping roof pillar, and that takes the focus away from how vertical the rear part of the door really is?

I always thought it was a big curious that Olds and Buick departed the big wagon market in '65. Buick sold about 10,500 LeSabre wagons that year, while Olds moved about 17,000 Dynamic 88 wagons. Checking out the competition, Mercury sold about 15,000 wagons, in cheaper Commuter and nicer Colony Park trim levels. Chrysler sold about 6700 Newport wagons and only 2800 New Yorkers. My old car book doesn't break out Dodge 880 production, but only around 33,000 880/Custom 880s total were sold that year, so chances are its wagon was a bit player. Rounding out the mid-priced marques, Pontiac sold about 33,500 Catalina Safaris, and 5844 Bonneville Custom Safaris.

Wagons are more of a low-volume item, so maybe those numbers weren't enough for Olds and Buick to keep them around? Plus, I wonder if the idea of the luxury wagon as a status symbol hadn't really taken off yet? Of that "mid priced" batch above, the New Yorker Town & Country started in the $4700 range, while all the others were in a much narrower span, like $3200-3600. Of course, Buick and Olds did compensate, by offering those long-wheelbase intermediate wagons.

andre1969

The only two real experiences I have with the non-turbo 2.2 are my uncle's old '82 Reliant that he briefly owned, and a college friend's '90 Horizon. They were both dogs, although admittedly, the Reliant was getting a bit tired by then. The Horizon surprised me though. You'd think something that light, with the 2.2, should be pretty quick. It was also a stripper, with no a/c, so there was that much less weight/drag on the engine.

My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Plymouth Reliant, and its performance seemed about what you'd expect from something like that, around 13.5 seconds in 0-60, About the same as the Toyota Camry they tested.

stickguy

my wife (well, GF then) bought a new Horizon after graduating college. Was either an 84 or an 85. Blue, cloth seats. Was not a bad driving car. with the 2.2l/AT moved along quite well (definitely quicker than my 62HP Colt!). And the Horizon is still the best car I have ever driven in the snow.

sda

I thought my 84 Horizon SE 2.2 5sp was decently quick. It did have a tall 5th gear so a downshift to 4 was sometimes required when driving in the mountains around Asheville, but that was when the a/c was on. It got 30 + mpg on the road, too.

ab348

andre1969 said:

As for those '61-64 station wagons, that vertical C-pillar never bothered me before, but now it catches my eye. So, thank you for that, Uplander! From a functional standpoint, it might have made the back seat easier to get into, and if you had to load/unload anything from the back seat, it may have made it easier than if it was sloped. But that probably wasn't THAT big of an issue, and in the end, they probably did them the way they did, because it was cheaper. Also, the '59-60 had that upright C-pillar, although they also had the little quarter window behind it, which made the car look a bit like a 4-door sedan with a wagon roofline simply grafted on. Normally I don't like the cluttered look of too many windows, but for some reason, the '59-60 wagon roof doesn't bother me. Perhaps it's because my eye catches the sloping roof pillar, and that takes the focus away from how vertical the rear part of the door really is?

Going to the opposite extreme, while stylish, I always thought these '57 Olds Fiesta hardtop wagons looked positively brutal for rear seat access. Buick was similar that year.

fintail

Weird they'd keep a crash tested car around for nearly 40 years.

Looks like it has a nicer cloth interior, posh. I remember when I was a kid and my dad had a Horizon, we test drove another one, a more luxurious model than his (which had vinyl interior and no AC), it had a plush interior and seemed much smoother and quieter than my dad's car. I think it was blue or grey with a similar interior.

andre1969 said:

Any interest out there for a low-mileage 1983 Dodge Omni?
https://gsaauctions.gov/gsaauctions/aucdsclnk?sl=71QSCI22339020&fbclid=IwAR22ZT9tIkUFexCYHMz_8g7dDvKLG35T_UWCKnZpmPSmrMKtuY0J4Zjadto

Only 953 miles on this little gem

sda

I know I've shown these before, my 84 Horizon SE 2.2. It was a good car, comfortable, peppy, economical. I thought the interior was quite nice. I do wish it had full instrumentation which I believe was an option.

fintail

It's been over 35 years now, but I am pretty sure the car I rode in had an interior like that, I recall it being velour rather than cloth. My dad's car had a different steering wheel, a 3 spoke style with a round hub, which apparently existed until 1981/2. My dad was quite pleased with that car, and less pleased with the S10 Blazer that replaced it.

tjc78

@sda said:
I know I've shown these before, my 84 Horizon SE 2.2. It was a good car, comfortable, peppy, economical. I thought the interior was quite nice. I do wish it had full instrumentation which I believe was an option.

My Dad had a Horizon. I remember him really liking it.

I like the vintage Marantz head unit. Bet that was pricey back then.

tjc78

This is nice

https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdxrLG9o/

andre1969

At a quick glance, this picture almost looks like something out of an advertisement, or some kind of glamor shot...
It really looks nice in that shade of burgundy, with the matching interior. I even remember my college buddy's 1990 Horizon, as cheap as it was, having an interior that seemed nicer than you'd expect at that price point. His car was black with a gray interior. I think it cost about $6,000 at the time, but I remember the fabric seeming fairly nice.

tjc78

@andre1969
IMO Chrysler in the 80s always seemed to have nice interior fabrics/leather.

stickguy

that looks like my wife's old one, but she had blue over blue. Actually pretty sharp looking.

I don't remember much about it other than being good in the snow, and having to replace the voltage regulator after it flaked out after only a couple of years.

fintail

I've posted this before, but will do it again as it's a sentimental item for me. My parents' cars probably heading for 40 years ago, photo taken with the skill of a small child on the high resolution of a Polaroid - surprised it turned out this well and has survived. I wish a date would have been noted, but the Bird was off the road in 1985, so that's a boundary. I wish my parents had been more into documenting their cars, hard to find them in more than a background shot:



I don't recall my dad having any issues with the Horizon.

sda

Luxury gas gussler for mom, economy for dad.

fintail

The Horizon replaced a 70 Mustang, also blue. I think my dad mentioned the transmission acted up in the Mustang, this was right after the second gas crunch, so he let it go. I know he had a thing for the Mustang, but I think the Horizon was a bit cheaper to run, and kind of zippy in its own right - also good in the snow, as he mentioned many times.

The Bird was bought when the downsized models were out and it had depreciated wildly, I am pretty sure my dad justified it on features/weight per dollar, that and my mom really liked it. Fun memory of that car is it sitting in the driveway, hood up, my dad apparently removing a bunch of emissions equipment.

uplanderguy

That maroon seating in the Horizon/Omni above is pretty plush for a car of that size and price class. I definitely remember that steering wheel.

Starting maybe in the late sixties and going at least through the seventies, I did like how Mopar's vinyl interiors were often two-tone; two shades of the same color. I'm not remembering that anybody else did that.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

That maroon seating in the Horizon/Omni above is pretty plush for a car of that size and price class. I definitely remember that steering wheel.

Starting maybe in the late sixties and going at least through the seventies, I did like how Mopar's vinyl interiors were often two-tone; two shades of the same color. I'm not remembering that anybody else did that.

I have mentioned in the past getting an '84 Horizon as a rental when I toured around the midwest for about a week in '84. No A/C, surprisingly. It had the 2.2L and was pretty zippy. I remember drafting behind semi trucks on the Interstate and was amazed at how that worked in such a light car.

The two-tone Mopar interiors of the early '70s were pretty cool. Mostly found on Furys, but also on an occasional Polara. I remember getting the 1970 brochures from the dealer and thinking of how unique they were compared to GM and Ford.

uplanderguy

A Stude friend is thinking of selling his two '61 Larks and getting a Mustang convertible of the '79-or-later generation. I'm guessing he doesn't want probably anything as new as the last decade.

He's looking for reliability, the ability to drive cross-country if he wanted, etc. I know anything used is a crap shoot, but any particular year(s) better than others? Any engines to avoid? Can a Ford dealer still get parts and do service on any general era there?

Thanks in advance.

stickguy

well, if I wanted to drive cross country, for many reasons a 1979 Mustang convertible is not the car I would chose to do it in.

stickguy

uplanderguy said:

A Stude friend is thinking of selling his two '61 Larks and getting a Mustang convertible of the '79-or-later generation. I'm guessing he doesn't want probably anything as new as the last decade.

He's looking for reliability, the ability to drive cross-country if he wanted, etc. I know anything used is a crap shoot, but any particular year(s) better than others? Any engines to avoid? Can a Ford dealer still get parts and do service on any general era there?

Thanks in advance.

avoid the 4 cyl. That is a dog at one point I think they still had the old straight 6? Me, I would opt for a V8. and probably push at least to the later 80s when it went to EFI instead of a carb. I suspect a lot of the OEM style parts are hard to come by (and likely a dealer would not be a great option). But at least on those you can get modern updates (like a Holley EFI set-up) to bolt on.

kyfdx

What @stickguy says.

texases

V8 for sure, unless they wanted go go as recent as the 3.7 L V6 in 2011. I’d rather have something 1996 or newer for the OBDII.

andre1969

That 3.8/232 "Essex" V6 was used in the Mustang from 1983-86, I believe. I think sort of replaced the 200 inline-6 and the little 255 V8 at the same time. And then it was dropped for '87, when Ford simplified to just using the 2.3 4-cyl and the 302 V8.

Anyway, that 232 V6 tended to blow head gaskets around the 70,000 mile mark, from what I've heard. And supposedly, it ruins the whole engine. That's something I never understood though. I've known people with other engines who had head gaskets blow, and they just replaced the head gasket. But supposedly the 232 is somewhat fragile, in that regard? Or maybe, most newer engines in general? I think in later years that V6 came back, somewhat revised, as a 3.9 V6, but still had the head gasket issue. I've known a few people, with the 232, and that later V6, which was a common minivan engine, that had the head gasket failure/engine-self-destruct.

I don't think the 2.3 4-cyl or the 200 inline 6 are bad engines, necessarily. Just dogs. The 2.3, I believe, is the old Pinto OHC 4-cyl. And, if you get into more recent models, I've never heard anything bad about the 4.6 OHC V8.

texases

Yeah, all the V6 models prior to the 3.7 DOHC are to be avoided, IMO.

roadburner

A Mustang without a V8 is a crime against nature.

texases

roadburner said:

A Mustang without a V8 is a crime against nature.

Yeah, I'd take all the money from the sales, add a bit, and get the newest V8 I could find. Every generation got better.

uplanderguy

Thanks. I think he could do well on a sale; the one car is a convertible and the other a low-mileage wagon, both in good shape and with documentation back to new.

Thanks everybody for all the information which I'll pass on.

uplanderguy

This is making me a hypocrite, as I really like this four-door pillared Star Chief Executive. Yes, it's too damn long in the back, but I love the color, the original condition, and the very nice, muted-luxury IMHO, cloth interior, not-often seen. I see that Adam posted under it, "Sent you a PM". The car's for sale.

I'm not a fan of all the black vinyl inserts on the instrument panel. Weird that it seems the hardtops had color-keyed vinyl there, but the pillared sedans had black no matter the interior color.

Something similarly weird I've noticed before on sixties Delta 88's and early '70's Delta Customs. The four-door pillared sedans didn't have a center armrest but the hardtops did.

If that cloth interior had been available on two-door hardtops, I might actually be searching for one.

I usually don't like when the cloth inserts don't go the whole way up to the top of the seat back, but I do like how there's no vinyl bolster in the center of the seat--the cloth goes the whole way across.

I always liked the individual "EXECUTIVE" and "VENTURA" lettering on the front fenders in '66. The Catalina had a very large, stylized "Catalina" script there.

explorerx4

The front end looks too nice for the rest of the frumpy 4 door sedan body.

andre1969

Well, you know me...I actually prefer that added length, so I'd be more than willing to foster that Star Chief! With me, the nitpick would be the car having a B-pillar, but that thing's gorgeous enough I don't think I'd care. Normally I'm the same way, where the more of the seat that's covered in cloth, the better. But in that shade, I think it's a nice accent.

In somewhat-related old car news, my garage is supposed to get its final inspection today. The builder had warned me not to put too much stuff in it before the final inspection, because the inspector might simply fail it on the spot, and order it to be cleared out before it would pass. But then, one of the workers had said that the cars shouldn't be a problem, as they're not hiding any structural features of the building, and the inspector could easily move around them. And then, yet another employee of the company said that what they really look out for, is if the homeowner starts doing other work that's not included in the original plan, such as finishing off interior walls, putting up cabinets, or anything that potentially obscures the parts of the structure they're looking for.

Anyway, just to play it safe, yesterday I got all the cars started, and moved them out of the garage. So, here's a couple family shots of that...
So, with luck, the garage passes its final inspection today, and I can finally go full-force into cleaning out the old house, and getting it sold and out of my hair!

**Edit...on the added length of the senior Pontiacs. Since my Catalina is the one I'm the most familiar with, its proportions seem more or less "normal" to me. But, I've noticed that if I pay enough attention to a Star Chief/Executive or Bonneville, it's like my sense of proportioning adjusts, to where they seem "normal", and suddenly my Catalina looks stubby!

stickguy

You gotta paint that poor Desoto!

uplanderguy

Good luck on the inspection!

I assume the longer wheelbase got you some added trunk room, is that right? Was the decklid itself longer on a Star Chief/Executive/Bonneville than a Catalina or Grand Prix?

In my mind, I always thought the Star Chief/Executive pillared sedan buyer wanted the longer wheelbase, but liked the solidity of a pillared body style, which wasn't offered on a Bonneville until 1968. Still, seems like I hardly ever saw a pillared Bonneville in those '68-70 years.

For some reason, I've long-liked the 'middle' models of a car line. Besides liking the Ventura and Star Chief Executive, in Buicks I liked the Wildcats and Centurions, and in Oldses I liked the Delta Custom, even better than the Electras and Ninety-Eights. Just fewer seen. Luxury interiors without the formal tops.

ab348

That dark turquoise metallic paint on the Pontiac really reminds me of my youth. I remember that color seemed to be on about half of the GM cars running around here in '65-'67.

I saw the Pontiac posted on FB yesterday and thought it was nice enough, but ridiculously overpriced at $22K. That sounds like it is way out of Adam's normal range, but what do I know. He seems to be on a buying spree lately. I spent some time last night catching up on his YouTube channel and see he just acquired another barge, a '74 Mercury Marquis Brougham 4-door hardtop (I think he already has a sedan of that year). It seems to be a very nice example, but I wonder about the appeal. He also was showing off his 1800-mile 1st-gen Monte Carlo which he apparently kept in his house garage all winter after taking delivery. He also revealed he has an '82 Trans Am which we have not yet seen. One wonders about how much his addiction costs him. Given the types of cars he buys, if he ever has to liquidate some of them it might not be a hugely lucrative venture. But it seems to make him happy.

andre1969

In most years, I believe the longer Pontiacs got you about 3" more wheelbase, but then around 4" more in back, for a total increase of about 7". For instance, in '67, I think my Catalina is 215.7" and a Bonneville or Executive would have been 222.7". And wheelbases were 121 vs 124". So you did get a longer trunk, overall. However, the extra space afforded by the wheelbase was ahead of the axle hump, so it probably didn't give you much advantage. Although, with convertible models, that longer wheelbase meant more of the top was stored in that forward area, so it did free up a bit more of the deeper part of the trunk.

On non-convertible models, the spare tire was stored at the front of the trunk, between the wheel wells. On the longer cars, I think that allowed them to move the spare further forward, again freeing up a bit of trunk space. And making it more of a back-breaker, to reach for it!

In '71, the few extra inches of wheelbase of a Bonneville or Grand Ville was ahead of the firewall, so as far as I know, the trunks were all the same. And then, for '73 I think it was, they put them all on the same wheelbase, 124"

uplanderguy

Another sweetheart on the 'All Original Cars' page. This car has 45K miles (the Executive has 47K, BTW). These are my favorite Mopars of the '70's. Perfect size to me, and 'light' styling. I'd have left off the body side molding of course--I assume it was optional like on GM's--but of course most of these had them.

sda

If the LeBaron has leather interior, that is a very nice, comfortable interior. Chrysler used very supple leather that felt great to the touch. I don't think it wore any worse than what was used in other domestics at the time.

uplanderguy

Yep, blue leather (I assume it's leather, anyway). Very nice. I know it's a Volare underneath but it's a nicely well-done disguise job.

ab348

Blue leather inside, but crank windows. I think this is saddled with Lean Burn though.

sda

It is a great looking interior. A bit odd it doesn't have power windows/locks?

andre1969

I thought it was interesting that the M-body (Diplomat/LeBaron) was one of the few cars that Mopar got more or less right, from the get-go in the later 70's. But that could be because they were based on the Aspen/Volare, so they had about a year and a half to get the bugs worked out! And, as I recall, the mid-1977 and later Aspens and Volares were much better than the earlier models.

But, for '78, the Omni/Horizon were troublesome in their early years. So were the '79 full-sized R-bodies. They were fairly rugged for the most part (although I've seen a rear-end crash test of a '79 Newport that's pretty scary), and the drivetrains were pretty durable, but the bodies were slapped together with poor fit and finish, trim pieces would fall off, and on the New Yorker/5th Ave models, they would tend to leak around those padded opera windows. The 1980 and '81 models were supposedly improved, but by that time I think the damage to their reputation had been done. Plus, by that time big car sales in general tanked.

The 1980 Cordoba/Mirada were similar...rugged drivetrains, but bad fit and finish, both in and out. And then there was the 1981 K-cars. They were rated pretty bad by Consumer Reports, although by that time, domestic cars in general were rated badly enough that I don't think they stood out much worse than their peers.

One detail about the Diplomat/LeBaron...despite being "right sized", they definitely handled and "felt" like a bigger car than they were. I had an '89 Gran Fury ex-police car for a couple years. It actually felt more cumbersome than the '79 Newport it replaced, as well as my '79 5th Ave. On the plus side, the handling was there when you needed it, for sudden, emergency-type maneuvers, but in just typical day to day driving, it felt a bit ponderous. I remember Consumer Reports testing an '85 5th Avenue, and they said its routine handling was worse than average, but emergency handling was better than average.

When it comes to overall size, these cars actually overlap GM's Colonades just a bit. Their wheelbase was 112.7", where the Colonades were 112.0" for the coupes (except Grand Prix/Monte Carlo). I believe back seat legroom for the M-body coupe was slightly better than the Colonades, but not as good as GM's downsized '78 intermediates. So, it was a slight step forward in space efficiency, but not as big of a leap as what GM took.

Overall though, I'd say my '76 LeMans feels more nimble in day to day driving than my '89 Gran Fury did. These M-bodies weren't perfect, but I wouldn't mind having another one. I like the '77-79 models the best. For 1980, they squared them up a bit and, while still attractive, they seemed a bit less distinctive. They also put the coupes on a shorter 108.7" wheelbase, although I don't think they lost much in rear legroom, so the '77-79 models apparently weren't that space-efficient to begin with!

texases

Chrysler Inc. sure made a business out of using their entry level cars as the starting point for their 'luxury' cars, it seems for decades, Volare and K-cars in particular.

ab348

I always liked the first-generation 2-doors in that LeBaron line, with the coke bottle kick-up aft of the doors and the semi-boattail effect on the trunk lid. I remember reading that they were built in a different plant than the one making the troublesome Aspen and Volare, although back then Chrysler build quality always seemed problematic.

texases

I found a way around Mopar quality problems - get one with not much more than an engine, transmission, and 4 wheels. No options of any kind on my Duster, other than 2-tone (white roof) paint and fake hood scoops. Had next to no problems with it over 6 years/60,000 miles.

uplanderguy

texases, your post reminded me of a guy who used to regularly post on another Edmunds forum that I used to post on. He had a '94 (I think) Neon that he felt was a lemon. He currently (as of a few years back, anyway), owned a new Audi which he loved. Nearly daily he would post what a POS his Neon was compared to his Audi.

Really? LOLOL

That'd be like a guy who hated his Model A saying what a superior car his new '55 Cadillac was!

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

texases, your post reminded me of a guy who used to regularly post on another Edmunds forum that I used to post on. He had a '94 (I think) Neon that he felt was a lemon. He currently (as of a few years back, anyway), owned a new Audi which he loved. Nearly daily he would post what a POS his Neon was compared to his Audi.

Yeah, as I recall, his Edmund's name was similar to mine (Andre-something or other). Lemko used to call him my alter-ego, or "Spock With A Beard" or something like that. I wonder if he's still around? One thing I actually respected about him, at least, is that I could engage in a somewhat civil conversation with him. He wasn't your typical internet troll...just had a severe hatred for Chrysler, because of that Neon!

I remember when the Neon first came out, I'll say that, for a small car, I actually liked it a lot. I could fit in it fairly comfortably, and the back seat wasn't cramped, and the engine seemed to have enough kick to it. The early ones were troublesome, though, and probably turned a lot of younger, first-time buyers off to Chrysler.

**Edit...almost forgot, the reason I logged back on for a moment...just wanted to say, my garage just passed its final inspection! So now I can really get serious about clearing out the old house, and getting that sucker sold!

uplanderguy

There were plenty of trolls back then....guys that couldn't bend one millimeter on an opinion. I stick to two forums here now and that's enough for me, and probably those other guys too.