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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Saw this this morning. This is my favorite generation of relatively late-model Mustangs. Styling and proportions look right to me—some retro but not totally. And I like the early Shelby Mustang-like little quarter windows:
On one of the car sites, can't recall which and can't find it now, of course, there was a very nice, original '78 Grand LeMans coupe, something like 49K miles I think. Nice in and out. 301 of course. But it made me remember just how nice I thought the GM midsize coupes, not even the 'specialty' coupes, were then, in my mind. I'll come right out and say that some of the engineering ideas were arrogant and not handled as well as the previous year's full-size GM's, but these '78 mid-sizes were truly a shrunken big car. Decent back seat room even in the coupes. I always thought that for a guy my age back then, would've made a nice daily car. Wish I could find this car now to post here.
Secondly, came across this 9K-mile '80 Bonneville coupe. For whatever reason, I think Pontiac did the full-size reskin better that year than the other divisions. This car is a 301 also (sigh). I really like the seat trim....it's simple, but also luxurious. I like that little 'tuck and roll' thing going on on the seat bottom. I also like the pretty-simple door panels. No 'casket handles', nor real-heavy velour. I think I like the upholstery because it is very close to the cloth inserts used on '64 Studebaker Daytonas, LOL.
BTW, is there a speaker in the grill where the glasses are lying? I don't think my
Cruze has a speaker there. Was it only used for the typhoon or monsoon model radio,
whatever the upscale radio was called?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This car is a base-model LS so it has the standard radio. I do have XM radio in it as I can't live in a car without it.
EDIT: More I think about it, I think all radio sounds come out of the front doors and behind the rear seat.
Of course, styling is a matter of opinion, but I liked the looks of the Impala the best, and the XTS the least, as well.
As for interior appointments though, I imagine the XTS was nicer inside. Probably one of those things where the Impala seems perfectly fine, but then once you actually experience the XTS interior, it's just enough more upscale that if you revisit the Impala, suddenly it doesn't seem so nice? And, in its defense, I think they got more hp out of the 3.6 used in the XTS.
I did like that final-gen LaCrosse. But still, preferred the Impala.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I normall goof on glitzy stuff, but they were proud of the blue lighted line that went across the instrument panel and onto the door panels when the lights were turned on. It was a tiny little 'wow' thing.
I preferred the previous generation LaCrosse to the final one they produced. My 2012 was a great car.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I do like that chrome trim piece on the door panel, though, the way it angles down below the pull strap. It sort of makes me think of the woodgrain trim on the base versions of the Colonade LeMans, that had a similar shape.
As for how that seat pattern holds up? Well, here ya go!
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Speaking of that car, going through my archive, I rented this 10 years ago this coming November:
I think that seat design in the ‘80 Bonneville was also offered in all vinyl, although I’ll have to look at the brochure to check.
I still like it. Different.
I like them in dark colors, black or one year there was a very deep green.
Still, it's nothing that would totally turn me off to the car in general. I can get hung up on minor details, but still wouldn't write off a car that I liked alot, otherwise, simply because I wasn't in love with its seat pattern!
Was the 301 that much worse than the Olds 307 or Chevy 305?
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
If I read the brochure correctly, in 1980 you could option a 350 gasoline Olds 350 in the big Pontiacs, which would have been a good choice. In the Safari wagon you could even get it with a 3.08 rear gear for dizzying levels of power.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
About the best defense of the 301 I've ever heard was years ago, from someone selling a 1980 Bonneville at one of the Carlisle PA swap meets. He said it can be a decent engine, if you don't abuse it or push it too hard. Basically, don't let it overheat, get low on oil, go too long between oil changes, constantly stomp on it, etc. Essentially, things that aren't good for ANY engine, although some engines can tolerate more abuse/neglect than others.
I seem to recall it tended to be a bit low on torque, compared to the 305, and definitely the 307. But it wasn't by a huge amount. I think the Olds 307 usually had around 255 ft-lb, even if it only had 140 hp. The Chevy 305 was usually good for around 245, but I think the 301 was around 240.
Curbside Classic has a review of a 1977 Bonneville Brougham:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-1977-pontiac-bonneville-brougham/
They're listing the 301-2bbl at only 135 hp for that year, and 245 ft-lb of torque. I think in later years, they did boost the hp a bit, especially with the 4-bbl, but torque dropped a bit. 0-60 was a lethargic 14.8 seconds, but the test weight was like 4400 lb! And it was stuck with the ultra-loafy 2.41:1 axle. It also used the lightweight THM200 transmission.
I've theorized this is one reason downsized big Pontiacs seemed to disappear from the roads quicker than equivalent GM models. Sure, Chevy and Olds built a lot more to begin with, but the Catalina/Bonneville combined would usually outsell the LeSabre. A lot of Pontiacs used the 301, plus the lightweight THM200, so failure of one or the other probably sent them to an early grave when they were just cheap used cars. The LeSabre also used the 301, from '77-80, but I think the Buicks were more likely to use a 350, or even the Olds 403 (77-78). While Pontiac did offer their own 350 in '77, and then the Buick 350 in '78-79 (with the occasional Olds 350 substituted), and even the 400 and 403, I think an overly extreme percentage of them were stuck with the 301.
I've heard the Buick 350 wasn't so hot itself when it came to durability, but I don't think it was as bad as the 301. At least, it never seemed to get the notoriety that the 301 did. Chevy and Olds did run the risk of getting stuck with the THM200 transmission, but the Chevy smallblocks were reasonably durable (although I've heard the 305 had weak crankshafts/bottom end, or something like that), and the Olds V8s were rugged.
However, looking at it, why does that steering wheel make me think of a Chevy? I remember uplanderguy mentioning the steering wheel being one thing he didn't like about the Buick interior, but I'm too lazy to scroll back.
I looked at a few pics online, and while, say, a '76 Chevelle steering wheel looks similar at a quick glance, I swear the '72 Impala steering wheel looks just like it!
That steering wheel is the same wheel used in our 1977 Impala, other than that car had "CHEVROLET" in the center instead of "BUICK". The Chevelle Colonnades had a different-style wheel cushion in the center.
I've seen those seats before, but not a fan!
The '72 Impala wheel was all black in all cars, and was the hard-plastic wheel. Did not have a fake woodgrain strip on it.
In Chevys in the late '70's, the 350 was the way to go; it also got you the 350 transmission. I've seen that since in reading stuff, but I knew it at the time too. The brochure didn't mention that but someone at the dealership, either parts or service, must've told me that back then.
In '78 you could get a Malibu wagon with 350. Don't recall ever seeing one, but that would've been mildly interesting.
I'm still amazed that the V6's had the heavier-duty transmissions. That makes no sense to me at all. They thought the 200 wouldn't hold up behind a V6 but would behind a V8? But andre proved me wrong on that!
When we bought our '77 coupe, in the showroom was a Firethorn coupe equipped almost exactly as ours, other than it had the 350. It was $200 more than our car. I lobbied hard for it. Dad thought the 4-barrel would 'suck gas' and to him, a $200 savings was not insignificant in purchase price.
Still, it seems to me that if they could boost the economy of the V8s by using the lighter weight transmission, wouldn't it make sense to use it with the V6 engines as well, as their economy would get a boost, as well?
Maybe there was some other factor at play, as well? For instance, I wonder if the THM200 might have been more expensive to manufacture than the THM350?
Seems to me that, presuming it had been durable enough at least, the THM200 would have helped performance a bit, as well. It had a 2.74:1 first gear, while the THM350 had a 2.52:1 and the THM400 had a 2.48:1. Of course, they most likely countered that with even taller axle ratios. My 1985 Consumer Guide tested a Cutlass Supreme with the 307 and a 3-speed automatic, rather than the 4-speed overdrive, and had the axle ratio listed as a 2.14:1. I used to think that was a transposition error, that it was actually a 2.41:1 but nope, they really did have ratios that tall!
As for the weak crankshafts and such, I don't know if the 305 had that problem in the 80's as well, but the 305 in Granddad's '85 Silverado, and the one in Mom's '86 Monte Carlo never had any issues. The truck had around 145,000 miles on it when I sold it back in 2017, and as of a few years ago, was still on the road. The Monte Carlo had 192,000 on it when I got t-boned delivering pizzas, in 1998.
The Monte Carlo also had the 4-speed overdrive version of the THM200, as did my Grandmom's '85 LeSabre. The only issue I can remember, is that at one point on the LeSabre, as you were slowing down, coasting to a stop, etc, sometimes it would start to shudder, and occasionally stall out. I think the lockup torque converter was having issues unlocking, or something?
Reminds me of a magazine review I remember reading about a '97 Lumina LS (top-level trim). They complained how the gray cloth upholstery had places of color that resembled (their words), wet tea bags left to lay on the seats. I agree, that interior was horrible.
:
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
The 'Special Custom' interior on the Monte Carlo in '76 could be had with all-vinyl, knit cloth with plaid inserts (yuck), or velour with corduroy inserts. Ahh, the days of choice in not only color, but upholstery.
I know from being a 'husky' kid, that corduroy pants didn't last long, so my guess is corduroy car seats might not have, either.
Considering it's 1 of 10 in that color, I wonder if it's the same car.
Back in the early 1990's, I looked at a 1960 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight hardtop coupe that was for sale about 45 minutes away, that caught my eye for whatever reason. I saw it in the auto trader magazine, and in those pre-internet days, all you had to go by was a little black and white picture, and short description. I remember talking to the seller on the phone, and they said it was "silver" and described it as looking sort of like a giant Coors beer can. I went to look at it, and just couldn't get over that mental image!
Although oddly, I have some Coors in the fridge right now, and the cans are sort of a pale, washed out yellow, somewhat akin to the color on my '67 Catalina, so I've gone from one analogy to another!
That Olds was a cool car though. I ended up not buying it, mostly because common sense kicked in. I was 23, living with my grandmother, and sort of in limbo between finishing college and getting a full-time job. At that point I had the DeSoto, my '68 Dart, a '69 Bonneville, and '82 Cutlass Supreme in the fleet...all at Grandmom's house. She would have killed me if I brought something else home!
They must have meant Coors light. Those are the silver cans.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I've said this before, but the strato-bench seats in that car looked great, but the backs, especially, seemed thin and hard. You did have a bit of bolster on the sides unlike typical 'bench' seats, but they didn't FEEL luxurious.
Still, a Brougham back then, especially a two-door like that silver '66, was not often seen where I lived and still not now. In fact, I couldn't even find a '68 Brougham two-door online.
I always thought it was a bit odd that the sail-panel "Brougham" nameplate said "Brougham By Fisher".
But from 1970 and earlier, off the top of my head, I can only think of one that I've seen in person. It was a '66 Bonneville Brougham 4-door hardtop, at one of the Carlisle PA car shows. Probably the GM Nationals. I'm sure I've seen another here and there, but just can't recall it.
Now there was a Catalina Brougham for 1971-72. Possibly later, even? My old car book breaks out production for 1971-72 and lists it, but it's possible that the "Brougham" got demoted to being an option, rather than a trim level, and when that happens they usually don't list separate production.
I think the Catalina Brougham was just the Catalina with the Bonneville interior. Which, to me, makes the Bonneville seem a bit redundant? Although the Bonneville got you a bigger standard engine. And, for a couple years, a longer wheelbase, even if it all went ahead of the cowl.
Seeing pictures now, though... it was a space ship!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
In (I think) '69, on the Brougham, the coupe no longer had a rear-seat center armrest for some reason. I've seen a brown '70 Brougham coupe online--beautiful upholstery but no rear seat center armrest. I think the coupes had them through '68.
In my hometown about 20 years ago, a couple had a creamy (seemed beige in my memory as opposed to bright white), '66 Bonneville Brougham two-door with the eight-lugs. Black vinyl top. I thought it was pretty special.
In '66 they even added a Brougham convertible, which was dropped in '67 no doubt due to the one-year Grand Prix convertible, and was brought back for '68 and '69. In the Brougham convertible in '68 and '69, you got leather upholstery. In '66 you could even get that panty cloth on a Brougham convertible, pretty unusual for a convertible.
This all reminds me in a sideways way, that on a Pontiac FB page about a year ago, someone had a '66 (I think) Bonneville Safari with bucket seats and console. I posted that it most-likely was added at some point as Pontiac brochures then NEVER showed that as an option on any Bonneville but a hardtop coupe and convertible. NEVER. LOL. Of course I got remarks, "this was factory" and "not every option is shown in a brochure". Why would they hide options, LOL? Year-in, year-out? Especially upholstery and interior choices, shown in brochures and Pontiac's own little interior brochures at the time, as well as the huge wall poster showing interior choices for each model that hung on our town's Pontiac dealer's wall?
Well, to be fair, the guy showed me the PHS document. It did show, lower on the page than the other options and at a cost about the same as Turbo-Hydramatic. Buckets and console on a Bonne generally wouldn't have been that expensive. Anyway, the car was delivered in Muncie, IN, a GM factory town. I have to believe someone in Muncie knew somebody in Pontiac. I still don't believe if you or I went into a dealer then we could've gotten one. I asked the current owner if the seat backs folded, like a coupe. He said 'yes', another thing that makes me think they were never intended, on a regular scale anyway, to go into any Bonne with four-doors.
If I could've had my way at GM/Pontiac, for '71 I would have still gotten rid of the Executive, but kept the Bonneville at its same price point in the hierarchy, and then made the Grand Ville something a bit more luxurious, more of a true C-body contender.
But, who knows? My little fantasy might have been doomed to failure, vs the way Pontiac's history actually played out. And at the very least, I guess if the Grand Ville had become a true C-body, it might have stolen a few Electra and Ninety Eight sales? I imagine the folks in charge of Olds, Buick, and Cadillac had something to say about the Grand Ville, and keeping it from going too far upscale.
Agree. They look great on that car.
About the only other car that quickly comes to mind that to me looks like it was designed for skirts, even though they were optional at extra cost, was the '70-72 Monte Carlo.
But I think it helps that the Electra's sculpting makes it seem a bit slimmer in general, for a car that size. And the skirts don't jut out like they do on the Olds. And it may be the angle, but the Electra looks like it shows off a bit more of the wheel.
It's weird, but I always thought of the Electra of this generation as a bit more youthful and sporty (well, as much as a car this size can be) than the Ninety-Eight, which I think of as more conservative, and aimed towards an older crowd. But I seem to recall some of the magazine testers of the period preferred the handling of the Ninety-Eight! Maybe it's like comparing the Titanic to the Andrea Doria but I'm pretty sure I remember them saying it handled rather well for a car its size, whereas the Electra was typical 70's Love Boat.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
RE.: Youthful--I always have thought that the '77 Caprice Classic seemed styled the 'youngest' of all of the B-bodies. I think it's the big, round wheel openings and especially on the coupe, the wraparound rear window. I would LOVE, LOVE, to have a black '77 Caprice Classic coupe equipped just like the sedan that MT tested--black, F41, bigger tires, 350, pinstripe whitewalls, Sport wheel covers (not wires), gold pinstripe, no vinyl top, no body side molding, no bumper guards. I like the '77's simple grille and simple taillights best of the '77-79 years too. I never saw one like that in person though.
The MT test car had the optional gauges which gave you four round pods which I like the looks of, although Chevy offered only fuel economy and coolant temp gauges, duh. I've said this before of course, but I always really liked the gloss black decorative panel with gold pinstripe outline above the glovebox. I remember the first '77 Caprice Classic I saw and I thought that was novel and original, compared to just putting another piece of fake woodgrain there. When the Parisienne came out in the '80's, it got that piece but Chevy started using just a piece of pretty-flat black plastic there. Yuck.
It always irked me that MT photographed the car with dirty whitewalls, LOL.
As for fit and finish, I think it was a '73 Electra that Consumer Reports tested, where it actually bent either the hood, or the fender, when they opened the passenger door! There's just something about the way the hood, door, and fender meet up on the Buicks, that it seemed difficult to get the alignment right, and when it was off, you really noticed it.
That impala is still a barge to me. I get a kick out of people calling it downsized or small but I guess compared to the mastedon prior models it could seem that way.
Still about the size of a midsized pickup (2” longer and about 2” wider than a frontier or ranger).
Looks like the 75 vintage had about the same footprint as a standard bed Ram.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.