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

sda

The later DX 5.7 diesels fitted with a proper water/fuel filtration system were reliable engines that would provide consistent 20-30 mpg. Unfortunately the reputation of those engines was already ruined by the earlier engines and soured the domestic market of diesel cars in general. I will say dad’s 79 Eldo with the 120 hp 5.7 diesel was quite peppy and nice to drive.

andre1969

I had to actually look it up to see where Elkton was. I tend to get it confused with Elkridge, which is not too far from where I live. But Elkton is just below I-95, almost into Delaware. I've been past it a few times, but never to it. It's only about 70 miles from my house, but that part of Maryland has a lot of tolls on the highways, which tended to discourage us from really venturing out that way.

As for the 4.3, Lemko's first new car was a 1987 Caprice sedan with that engine. He didn't have it long, as he traded it on his '89 Brougham. I'll ask him about it the next time I see him. He never said anything bad about it.

Consumer Guide tested a 1985 Caprice sedan with the 4.3/4-speed automatic. They gave it a "3" (out of 5) for acceleration, but didn't list a 0-60 time. Judging by other cars in that issue where they did list 0-60 times, I'd estimate a "3" could be anywhere between roughly 13-15 seconds. About all they said of the engine was that it was better than the previous year's 229, and then went on to say the 4-speed automatic upshifted too harshly, and was overly sensitive to throttle changes at low to medium speeds.

That first year, it probably was a bit sluggish, as the TBI only put out 130 hp and 210 ft-lb of torque. It also used a somewhat tall 2.56:1 axle. Interestingly, the 4.3 4-bbl, used in trucks, put out a fairly healthy 147 hp, and 225 ft-lb.

The TBI was boosted to 140 hp for 1986. And then for '87-88, according to my auto encyclopedia, it was "140/145"...probably 140 in the Monte Carlo and 145 in the Caprice.

Consumer Reports gave the Caprice, as tested, a "Best Buy" rating in 1985. Oddly, the Parisienne they tested, with a 305, did not get a "Best Buy" rating, although it scored higher overall (74 points vs 71, out of a theoretical 100). But then they said the Parisienne was "Literally a lot of car for the money".

As for more conflicting text...of the Caprice they said "body roll is marked in tight turns, even with the inexpensive F-41 suspension" which sounds to me like they're saying the F-41 isn't worth it. But then of the Parisienne they said "spend a few more bucks for the inexpensive F-41 suspension option, which provides better handling and a less queasy ride." So, which is it...get it on the Pontiac, but not the Chevy? Seems a bit odd to me!

It's kind of weird to think that by '87, if you got a base Caprice V6, you had 145 hp, but then if you went all the way and got a Fleetwood Brougham, you only got 140 hp, from its 307! Alfred Sloane would be spinning in his grave!

sda

Adam on his Rare Classics channel just did a piece on the 79-85 Eldorado. I find it odd, perhaps a miss on his part, the diesel option was not discussed yet he did say to avoid the 4100 for lack of power, torque and reliability. He said the best models to get were the 79 with the Olds sourced 350, the 80 with the Cadillac based 368 and surprisingly the 81 368 V8-6-4. I assume with the variable displacement disabled?

uplanderguy

It's kind of weird to think that by '87, if you got a base Caprice V6, you had 145 hp, but then if you went all the way and got a Fleetwood Brougham, you only got 140 hp, from its 307! Alfred Sloane would be spinning in his grave!

I know. Weird.

uplanderguy

I still love the looks of the '79-85 Eldorado. I absolutely tip my hat to Lincoln for doing the Mark VII, which took that type car to a totally different level, but it lost (deliberately and to the pleasure of many) the traditional American luxury features. I never liked opening the doors of those and navigating that big thick door frame around the side windows.

I like the non-Biarritz Eldos and agree with Adam; I'd stick with '79 or '80 though.

texases

I mentioned this once before, but image how good these various GM cars would be with a modern SBC. 20+ mpg, 7-8 seconds 0-60.

fintail

This obscure thing popped up in a group - a final run end of the line fintail. This is a 1968 model year car - by then, the styling was quite passe:



Note the sidemarkers, to comply with 1968 regs. These cars also had a slightly different steering wheel and column and switchgear (apparently the same as W114/115) than earlier cars, along with some items once chrome now in black plastic. This is an untouched 32K mile car:

sda

One story I just remembered, after dad bought his 79 Eldo diesel, his branch operations manager bought an 80 Eldo diesel, and a broker about 2 years later an 82 DeVille diesel. Dad’s blew head gaskets initially at 60k then again at 90k. Thankfully an extended warranty took care of the issue at 60k not so at 90k. His had other issues as well such as an alternator belt that tended to jump the pulley. Perhaps bad repairs from the mechanics, who knows. The other two Cadillac diesels held up better and only had minor issues that were not engine related. Dad’s patience worn out he traded it at 105k and received a small settlement thru arbitration with GM for the thousands of dollars of repairs he experienced keeping the car on the road. He got $1500 trade in for a beautifully clean car but the fatal blow to its value is it was a diesel.

roadburner

explorerx4 said:

There is still a nuc in the ground from a plane crash decades ago in North Carolina.

And the other bomb was only one low-voltage switch away from detonating.

uplanderguy

andre, Consumer Reports, inconsistent?! Well, bowl me over with a feather!

Michaell

When my aunt and uncle and cousins moved to CA in the summer of 1978, they owned a gigantic early to mid 70's Pontiac wagon (there were 4 kids, and they owned a trailer to camp in). My uncle had a 200SX as his commuter, and the wagon was traded in for a Suburban.

However, my aunt must have convinced my uncle to get her an Eldorado, as "her" car. I remember it was the '79-'85 range. IIRC, it was champagne colored. She worked at a public high school, and, now that I look back on it, that car must have stood out in the teacher parking lot.

ab348

sda said:

Adam on his Rare Classics channel just did a piece on the 79-85 Eldorado. I find it odd, perhaps a miss on his part, the diesel option was not discussed yet he did say to avoid the 4100 for lack of power, torque and reliability. He said the best models to get were the 79 with the Olds sourced 350, the 80 with the Cadillac based 368 and surprisingly the 81 368 V8-6-4. I assume with the variable displacement disabled?

They were really struggling with engines back then. The Caddy version of the Olds 350 was problematic when it first came out but by ‘79 I think the fuel injection problems were sorted out, though I wonder how well those electronics will have aged. The ‘80 Caddy 368 would be OK and as you suggest, ‘81 would be also once the V8-6-4 system is disabled. I think Adam has a rule to never recommend anything with the 4100. Probably wise on his part.

uplanderguy

Back to that plane crash--my partner in my college roommate's wedding--and in fact, they had tried earlier to fix us up, but she (probably rightly) wasn't much interested in me--was killed on US Air Flight 427 from Chicago to Pittsburgh in 1994. That is a weird feeling to know someone on a fatal flight.

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

Back to that plane crash--my partner in my college roommate's wedding--and in fact, they had tried earlier to fix us up, but she (probably rightly) wasn't much interested in me--was killed on US Air Flight 427 from Chicago to Pittsburgh in 1994. That is a weird feeling to know someone on a fatal flight.

IIRC, I was on a business trip in Chicago when that occurred.

uplanderguy

She was 32 years old.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

andre, Consumer Reports, inconsistent?! Well, bowl me over with a feather!

Oops, sorry, that was me being consistent, too! It was Consumer Guide. But I accidentally typed "Consumer Reports" once or twice in that post. D'oh!

Consumer Guide isn't perfect either, but they traditionally seemed quicker to recommend a domestic back in those days than Consumer Reports would have.

Consumer Reports sometimes practically fell over themselves, trying to dis the domestics. I remember one issue where they were comparing a Prelude to an '86 or so Toronado, the one that was downsized too far. They came up with some kind of word salad, to the effect of saying the Toronado had more legroom in the back than the Prelude, but was still tight, so that meant tall passengers would feel as cramped as short ones would in the Prelude.

Now I've never been in the back seat of any Prelude, but as I seem to recall, weren't they usually more of a 2+2? As in, there was the suggestion of a back seat, but you wouldn't want to put any adult in it? Now a Toronado isn't going to let you stretch out like a Fleetwood Talisman, but I'd still imagine the back seat of a Toro was in a whole different league from a Prelude.

uplanderguy

I know Prelude buyers aren't concerned with rear-seat legroom, but a young, thin, well-dressed, moussed-up coworker of mine, two years younger, bought a new '82 Prelude, navy blue. First car I ever saw where the back of the front seat actually was touching the rear seat cushion.

It had the radio antenna running alongside the A-pillar I think I remember....or was it at the top of the center of the windshield like a '50's Hudson? Not sure now but at the time I thought that looked goofy.

uplanderguy

I think, accent on 'think', that Consumer Guide would release those magazines in the early summer, with drawings of that fall's new models. Comical how 'off' some of those drawings ended up being, LOL.

I'll admit that I signed up to be able to have access to Consumer Reports' website when we were looking at appliances or the like a year or so ago and it keeps renewing. Their website is clunky to use IMHO. I swear searching something that worked last month doesn't work this month, etc.

sda

I have read CR since 1969 when my parents first subscribed. Of course my first interest was cars. CR used to list the number of defects they found on each car. Typically workmanship flaws, rattles, squeaks, performance issues. I assume with the improved manufacturing processes introduced over time defects are minimal for the most part and are rarely called out. I enjoy their podcast of ‘Talking Cars’ but like so many sources they are putting too much emphasis on EVs IMHO.

andre1969

When GM's downsized big cars came out for '77, in their "Disadvantages" sum up, Consumer Reports simply said "None significant enough to mention." Or something like that. Probably the last time Consumer Reports couldn't find something bad to say about a GM car!

By the time the '79 models rolled around though, they had plenty to say. That year they tested a Caprice, LTD, and a St. Regis. It's been so long since I've read that test that I can't remember if they preferred the Caprice or the LTD, but I do remember they preferred both, by a wide margin, over the St. Regis. The St. Regis, BTW, was delivered with a cracked torsion bar! Oopsie!

In 1985 they tested a 5th Avenue, Electra, and Grand Marquis. They liked the Grand Marquis the best. However, in their summary they said that they would also take a Caprice over the other two, if it weren't for that car's slipping reliability ratings.

sda

And it was that review that influenced dad to trade his 79 Eldo for a dark metallic blue, dark blue padded half vinyl top, and dark blue velour interior 85 Grand Marquis LS. I found it amusing dad would gripe the GM was underpowered especially after coming out of his Eldo diesel. Perhaps lack of torque at lower revs? The LS served him well, certainly more reliable than the Eldo but not without problems as it got older.

ab348

andre1969 said:

Consumer Reports sometimes practically fell over themselves, trying to dis the domestics.

I remember reading years ago that their main automotive editor was well-known for hating the Detriot mfrs for reasons that I no longer recall. The point of the article was to call out CR for being anything but unbiased. True or not I do not know. I do remember they loved Volvo though, and most of the early Japanese cars (except the Subaru 360!).

Their defect count was often high back in the day. I remember they tested a '69 (I think) group of midsize intermediate sedans and called out the Ford Torino for having a piece of outside B-pillar trim attached with what they said was a piece of masking tape.

uplanderguy

I think we talked about this before, but I don't think I ever remember more defects than the 46 they found in a 1973 Buick Electra 225. Opening the RF door resulted in a dent in either the hood or upper fender, can't recall which.

uplanderguy

Car and Driver often had witty writing, but they were hardly unbiased either--although they didn't pretend to be a consumer magazine.

I recall them goofing on the high-mounted corner lights of the dustbuster vans, but soon after praised the identical set up on Volvo wagons.

It all reminds me of the nauseatingly-yuppie/preppie couple Michael and Stephanie on 'Newhart'. One time Michael's "Turbo Z" was in the shop and Stephanie had no car to drive. Bob Newhart's character said she could use his car. She looked at Michael with a pout and Newhart's character said "What's the matter?". Michael replied, "Dick, your car is American". LOL

fintail

uplanderguy said:

I know Prelude buyers aren't concerned with rear-seat legroom, but a young, thin, well-dressed, moussed-up coworker of mine, two years younger, bought a new '82 Prelude, navy blue. First car I ever saw where the back of the front seat actually was touching the rear seat cushion.

It had the radio antenna running alongside the A-pillar I think I remember....or was it at the top of the center of the windshield like a '50's Hudson? Not sure now but at the time I thought that looked goofy.

The antenna on the first gen Prelude was at the front driver's side A-pillar, retracting into the roof/pillar. Kind of a slick design. I think the rear seat in those early cars especially was just for show - those cars were marketed towards a young single demographic. In areas where those cars didn't dissolve via winter weather, they were around forever, and late model ones were almost an attainable status symbol.

fintail

Not to mention probably exactly zero people cross shopped a Prelude with a Toro, the average customer of the latter probably being twice the age of the former.

I have but one old Consumer Guide, 1981 - at least at that point in time, I didn't see any real bias. They praised some domestics, especially Ford products, for build quality, and called out some cheap materials in lower line Japanese cars. The biggest diss was to the TR-8, which had numerous issues.

andre1969 said:

uplanderguy said:

andre, Consumer Reports, inconsistent?! Well, bowl me over with a feather!

Oops, sorry, that was me being consistent, too! It was Consumer Guide. But I accidentally typed "Consumer Reports" once or twice in that post. D'oh!

Consumer Guide isn't perfect either, but they traditionally seemed quicker to recommend a domestic back in those days than Consumer Reports would have.

Consumer Reports sometimes practically fell over themselves, trying to dis the domestics. I remember one issue where they were comparing a Prelude to an '86 or so Toronado, the one that was downsized too far. They came up with some kind of word salad, to the effect of saying the Toronado had more legroom in the back than the Prelude, but was still tight, so that meant tall passengers would feel as cramped as short ones would in the Prelude.

Now I've never been in the back seat of any Prelude, but as I seem to recall, weren't they usually more of a 2+2? As in, there was the suggestion of a back seat, but you wouldn't want to put any adult in it? Now a Toronado isn't going to let you stretch out like a Fleetwood Talisman, but I'd still imagine the back seat of a Toro was in a whole different league from a Prelude.

ab348

fintail said:

The antenna on the first gen Prelude was at the front driver's side A-pillar, retracting into the roof/pillar. Kind of a slick design.

Same antenna design was used on my '85 MR2 (and I believe the remainder of that generation). It actually failed on my car and allowed water into the A-pillar. That car had a surprising number of problems and wasn't a paragon of the much-vaunted Toyota reliability.

stickguy

out driving yesterday (probably trying to beat today's snow for one last drive before hibernation) a dark red Porsche 356 coupe (not sure what model). looked like the real thing.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

It all reminds me of the nauseatingly-yuppie/preppie couple Michael and Stephanie on 'Newhart'. One time Michael's "Turbo Z" was in the shop and Stephanie had no car to drive. Bob Newhart's character said she could use his car. She looked at Michael with a pout and Newhart's character said "What's the matter?". Michael replied, "Dick, your car is American". LOL

LOL, I remember that line! Another one I always remember was from "Mama's Family" where some talent scouts come to Raytown looking for potential Jeopardy contestants. It's memorable to me partly because there's a scene where this old coot tries to hit on Iola and says "Hey toots. Wanna go for a spin in my Dee-Soto?" But, once they cast Mama as a contestant one of the scouts says to the other "Thank GOD, now we can get out of this one horse town. I've never seen so many American made cars in my life!"

Oh, and I actually remember that CR test of the Electra! I think it was the fender that bent. With GM's '71-76 big cars in general, I always thought there was a bit of awkwardness, in that spot where the hood, fender, door, and A-pillar base would all come together. If those panels didn't line up perfectly, the whole thing looks sloppy. They seemed to give the divisions a lot of leeway in their sheetmetal styling, to where the panels didn't always meet up at the exact same spot. I wonder if the Buicks, having those lower fenders, and "power bulge" hood, gave more clearance/gap problems because of the extra curvature that carried over into the doors?

sda

andre1969 said:

uplanderguy said:

It all reminds me of the nauseatingly-yuppie/preppie couple Michael and Stephanie on 'Newhart'. One time Michael's "Turbo Z" was in the shop and Stephanie had no car to drive. Bob Newhart's character said she could use his car. She looked at Michael with a pout and Newhart's character said "What's the matter?". Michael replied, "Dick, your car is American". LOL

LOL, I remember that line! Another one I always remember was from "Mama's Family" where some talent scouts come to Raytown looking for potential Jeopardy contestants. It's memorable to me partly because there's a scene where this old coot tries to hit on Iola and says "Hey toots. Wanna go for a spin in my Dee-Soto?" But, once they cast Mama as a contestant one of the scouts says to the other "Thank GOD, now we can get out of this one horse town. I've never seen so many American made cars in my life!"

Oh, and I actually remember that CR test of the Electra! I think it was the fender that bent. With GM's '71-76 big cars in general, I always thought there was a bit of awkwardness, in that spot where the hood, fender, door, and A-pillar base would all come together. If those panels didn't line up perfectly, the whole thing looks sloppy. They seemed to give the divisions a lot of leeway in their sheetmetal styling, to where the panels didn't always meet up at the exact same spot. I wonder if the Buicks, having those lower fenders, and "power bulge" hood, gave more clearance/gap problems because of the extra curvature that carried over into the doors?

Look at those awful first year 5mph battering rams. For GM, only Olds and Cadillac made an effort to minimize the look. Olds with the grille that curved into the bumper and was hinged to move away and return to the original position upon minor impact and Cadillac with the grille incorporated as part of the bumper and moved in unison upon impact.

ab348

andre1969 said:

Oh, and I actually remember that CR test of the Electra! I think it was the fender that bent. With GM's '71-76 big cars in general, I always thought there was a bit of awkwardness, in that spot where the hood, fender, door, and A-pillar base would all come together. If those panels didn't line up perfectly, the whole thing looks sloppy. They seemed to give the divisions a lot of leeway in their sheetmetal styling, to where the panels didn't always meet up at the exact same spot. I wonder if the Buicks, having those lower fenders, and "power bulge" hood, gave more clearance/gap problems because of the extra curvature that carried over into the doors?

Adam at Rare Classic Cars has done interviews with retired GM designer Wayne Kady, who mentioned that while the division was responsible for the design of the cars, when it came to engineering those designs for production, GM back then had a strange system. The division was responsible for the body engineering of the front end of the car ahead of the cowl, while Fisher Body was responsible for the remainder. I can imagine that when it came time to mate those two pieces together, you could get some odd problems.

uplanderguy

I like that subdued color on the Electra 225. Chevy called it 'Taupe' that year but I'm sure Buick named it something more dramatic.

I never liked the clipped corners on the '73 Buick, nor did I like them on '75 Caprice Classics or all '76 full-size Chevys.

Give me a '72 Centurion built in the last half of the model year, when they had an optional wider rocker and sill molding. The Centurion did not have the 'porthole' trim and I like that it didn't. Sacrilege I know. I like the hardtop coupe but on the other hand, I did like that the hardtop sedan had center armrests in both the front and rear seats.

andre1969

Speaking of Electras...or their lineage at least, facebook gave me a reminder that 13 years ago today, this happened to me...
The 15th of December was a Tuesday in 2009 though. I bought the car on a Saturday, so it would've been the 12th. Must have been a couple days late posting it at the time.

tjc78

That’s car was pretty good to you right? I seem to remember a few expensive things going all around the same time that didn’t make sense to fix.

uplanderguy

I liked those cars better than the previous Park Avenues. I remember they were distinctly taller.

texases

I always like that model's style. Clean, distinctive.

andre1969

It was okay. I used to joke that my old Intrepid was a better car at $20K than the Park Ave was at $40K. Of course, it was 10 years old and had 56,372 miles on it when I bought it, for $7500. The engine, transaxle, and air conditioning were trouble free, but it tended to have a lot of suspension problems, brakes, the tensioner pulleys, and so on. Oh, and some emissions work (MAF sensor and such).

I remember the last time I took it to the mechanic, and he started going over what all it needed, once he got to about $3,000 in estimated repairs, he asked me if I wanted him to keep on going, or if that was enough. At that point I said nah, I get your point! I do remember that, among the things it needed by then were rear shocks (some expensive LevelRide or MagnaRide or something like that), more suspension work, and brake work. On top of that, it was about due for your generic maintenance stuff...tires, belts, hoses, coolant flush, transmission flush, and so on. The leather on the driver's seat base cushion was ripping. The paint was fading in some spots, and one of the headlights was not only hazing up, but actually deteriorating. The check engine light also came and went at random, and it was just dumb luck that it passed the last emissions test that it went through. I remember the check engine light going off on its own, and I ran it to the emissions test that afternoon, and it managed to pass.

Oh, almost forgot. The brake and fuel lines were both rusting, and on borrowed time.

Reliability-wise, I wasn't overly impressed with the car. But I think part of that might be perception. GM's mid and full-sized FWD cars are usually held in pretty high regard, so in my mind I was probably holding it ot a higher standard. Plus, no matter how good a car may have been when it was newer, eventually old age will take its toll.

andre1969

I like the style and size of my Park Ave better than the previous version. But the earlier version seemed higher quality, somehow. The interiors definitely seemed nicer on the earlier version, to me.

I seem to recall an Edmund's Review that said this car would have been more suited to being de-contented, moved to Chevy, and called a Caprice.

As expensive as it was getting to keep it on the road though, I imagine newer cars, as they age, are even worse.

ab348

Back in the summer we had some discussion here about the "plucked chickens", the downsized '62 Dodges and Plymouths, and all of the executive suite intrigue that led to that. Here is an entry from Mac's Motor City Garage from yesterday on the subject. It includes more detail on all of this than I had seen previously. Remarkable.

https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/the-1960-scandal-that-nearly-took-down-the-chrysler-corporation/?fbclid=IwAR2-UXd00q-VtdbLvZykBM3Xdsvto7awFkQMMi2ib5N2uQzZAwGTgmrO0nU

explorerx4

@ab348,
That was very interesting.

andre1969

One thing I hadn't noticed before, until watching one of those youtube videos where they mentioned it, but the 1962 Plymouth/Dodge models were one of the earlier designs to start going for that long hood/short deck look. It's downright subtle, compared to the Mustang, and the typical personal luxury coupe, but I can see it as sort of a baby step in that direction.

For not being that big of a car, it looks to me like the seating position on a '62 Plymouth/Dodge might be further back than it is on my '57 DeSoto, despite a 10" reduction in wheelbase.

sda

Mom's 98 Aurora and my 01 Aurora had the battery located under the right rear seat and I know other GM cars that shared that platform did the same. At the time I owned the 01 the battery was pretty much a dealer item. AutoZone et al didn't carry them. I wonder how hard they are to come by now.

uplanderguy

One thing I hadn't noticed before, until watching one of those youtube videos where they mentioned it, but the 1962 Plymouth/Dodge models were one of the earlier designs to start going for that long hood/short deck look.

I'd agree with that. The only postwar domestics with a back seat that I think beat everybody else to that look, were the '53 Studebaker Loewy coupes and subsequent Hawks (the tall grille of the Hawks made it seem more so), and the '56 Continental Mark II, which was pretty exclusive.

uplanderguy

My Cobalts had the battery in the trunk. Honestly, I'm not sure about my '17 Cruze, LOL.

I got long life out of both batteries in my Cobalts, and I think the battery being away from underhood heat probably helped.

kyfdx

Most BMWs have the battery in the trunk. Originally, it was for weight distribution. Later it was just for underhood packaging issues.

I do agree that being away from heat is a positive. The negative is if your trunk ever loses it's watertight seal, your battery is sitting in a little swimming pool.

andys120

kyfdx said:

Most BMWs have the battery in the trunk. Originally, it was for weight distribution. Later it was just for underhood packaging issues.

I do agree that being away from heat is a positive. The negative is if your trunk ever loses it's watertight seal, your battery is sitting in a little swimming pool.

Having owned several BMWs I can tell you that that's pretty unlikely.

ab348

My ATS has the battery in the trunk (left rear, though I think right rear would have made more sense). No problems to date.

andre1969

My 2000 Intrepid's battery was in a nightmare location. It was low in the fender, ahead of the right front wheel. I've heard rumors it could be accessed from under the hood, but I'll be damned if I could ever figure that out. I had to jack it up, take off the wheel, and take off a little access panel in the front of the wheel well. And then, getting in there to disconnect the battery was pretty much done by feel, as it was hard to see. I also remember connecting something I shouldn't have with the wrench and getting some sparks.

At that point, I'd had the car about 5 1/2 years, and it had a bit over 100,000 miles on it. The battery was still acting fine, but I was going on a trip to Florida, and wanted to change the battery out of precaution.

After doing that, I swore that I'd either trade the car before it was due for another replacement, or pay someone to do it!

Also, I know this is flirting with the Devil at this point, but the battery in my Ram has got to be around 10 1/2 years old now! At least, the truck has a 6/2012 build date, and I'd presume the battery was put in at the time it was built. Of course, the battery could be older than that, as I'm sure it wasn't minted on the same day! It's under the hood, but it has this insulating wrap, that sort of makes it look like one of those insulated lunch boxes you can use as a little cooler for your beer.

sda

10.5 years, wow. I think the battery in the 16 Q5 is original and the car has a 15 build date. It is located deep in the cargo well under panels that need to be accessed. I looked at it once but did not see a code. When I take it to Audi for service I mention my concern it may need replacing but it tests out ok. Of course my fear is I am going to get an SOS call from an unhappy wife. I may just bite the bullet at the next service and have it replaced. Of course it has to be programmed to the electrical system so the car recognizes it.

andre1969

I'll confess, I've been keeping one of those portable jump start thingies with me, for when the inevitable does happen to that Ram. Just gotta remember to keep that thing charged up!