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

sda

My 87 Horizon SE 2.2 5sp had ac. It was typical domestic cold ac. Much appreciated in the south. With the 2.2, it didn't blunt performance too much. On my 79 Rabbit with ac, different story.

gsemike

Spotted this weird lexus convertible. At first I thought it was a Nissan stanza. Can't even recall what these were called.
Parked all day outside my kids HS but I've never seen it before and as you can see, it's not exactly convertible weather

texases

It's an Infiniti M30 convertible, 1991 or so.

andre1969

They made a coupe version of that M30 as well. Around the same time, Lexus had the ES 250, which I think was only offered as a 4-door sedan with frameless door glass, which gave it the look of a 4-door hardtop at a quick glance.

Both cars did have a similar look to them, with that chiseled, angular styling.

According to Wikipedia, both the M30 and ES 250 were offered as sort of a stopgap car, to give Infiniti and Lexus dealers a cheaper car to sell, until more up-to-date versions were available. Apparently Infiniti only sold about 17,000 M30s total, coupe and convertible, before the J30 replaced it. For such a low volume car though, I do remember seeing a pretty good number of them around back when they were newer, though.

gsemike

D'uh yeah. It's an Infiniti, not a lexus

fintail

Infiniti aka Nissan Leopard, fun name for a car.

Looking at some aerial views today, I spotted the white Continental Mark IV I see cruising around the neighborhood now and then - 70s Ford truck is visible too, this guy has a theme:

fintail

That would be "G-Wagen"

I remember my grandma mentioning she liked those formal roof sedans.

andre1969 said:

All of the G-wagons (I like that, sounds like a Mercedes term ) went away after 1983, being replaced by the A-body wagons for '84. The Regal sedan hung around through 1984. Bonneville-G through 1986. And the Cutlass Supreme sedan actually made it through 1987!

fintail

sda said:

My 87 Horizon SE 2.2 5sp had ac. It was typical domestic cold ac. Much appreciated in the south. With the 2.2, it didn't blunt performance too much. On my 79 Rabbit with ac, different story.

I am pretty sure my dad's Horizon did not have AC - as it was not a loaded model (vinyl, AM radio, etc). As a kid it didn't matter much even in eastern WA, as an adult now, I am not sure I would be so carefree.

tjc78

My Dad’s Horizon had AC with the AM/FM Cassette. Felt loaded at the time.

Then when he got the Shelby Charger with the nice seats, pop up sunroof, alloys and louvers the Horizon felt cheap lol

fintail

I remember my dad test driving a fancier Horizon a couple years after he bought his - velour interior (pretty sure the popular red/burgundy of the time), stereo, etc - seemed much more plush and quiet than his car, pretty sure it was an automatic, too. But for whatever reason, he didn't get replace it with another even though his car wasn't bad.

andre1969

One of my friends in college bought (well, his parents bought it for him) a brand new Plymouth Horizon. I think they still had the "America" badging, but can't remember for sure. Anyway, other than an automatic transmission, it was a total stripper. No a/c, no power steering. I don't know if it had power brakes. I remember putting in a stereo for him, but now that I think back on it, I can't remember if it had an AM radio, or no radio at all? I do seem to recall it still had all the wiring in place, so it wasn't that hard to put in an aftermarket unit.

It was black, with an interior that seemed more silver than gray, somehow. And, for such a stripper car, I thought the interior was actually pretty nice. It was around $6,000, I think.

andre1969

fintail said:

That would be "G-Wagen"

I remember my grandma mentioning she liked those formal roof sedans.

andre1969 said:

All of the G-wagons (I like that, sounds like a Mercedes term ) went away after 1983, being replaced by the A-body wagons for '84. The Regal sedan hung around through 1984. Bonneville-G through 1986. And the Cutlass Supreme sedan actually made it through 1987!

For the most part, I prefer the formal roof, simply because I think it gives the cars better proportions. I always thought the '78-80 Malibu/LeMans 4-door roof just looked too big for the rest of the car, and it makes the rear of the car look a bit stubby. The formal roof gives them a longer rear deck, which makes them look a bit better proportioned.

However, I think one example where that formal roof doesn't quite work is the 1981 LeMans. That slightly Trans Am-ish nose looks perfect on the coupe, and the wagon even carries it well. But on the sedan, it seems a bit at odds with that formal roof. Like the automotive version of a reverse mullet, I guess. Party up front, all business in the back!

I also don't think that formal roof would have worked as well on the '78-79 Malibu. To me, those cars still seemed to retain just a touch of youthful sportiness about them, so that roof might not have worked as well. I think it would have worked well with the 80 though, which was styled a bit more conservative/upscale.

And then, those Olds/Buick Aeroback sedans were a story, in and of themselves! When they went to the formal look for 1980, sales took off, despite the recession and high gas prices/fuel shortages. I wonder, if that roof had come out for those cars in 1978, how well it would have sold? Definitely better than the Aerobacks, but I wonder if it still would have been a hit? I think the main reason the 1980 Century and Cutlass Supreme sedans did so well, is that they gave buyers who wanted to move down from a bigger car, into something that still looked upscale and substantial a choice. But in 1978-79, buyers were more than content with their downsized big cars.

kyfdx

I didn't get a car with A/C until 1990.

My first two new cars ('77 and '82) didn't have it.

roadburner

The only cars I've owned without A/C were my SPL311 and my 2002.

andre1969

The only car I've ever owned with no a/c is my '57 DeSoto. Everything else has had a/c. Now whether or not it was functioning a/c, that's a different story!

uplanderguy

My first new car, '81 Monte Carlo V8, had no A/C. I was trying to keep the price down. With posi, two-tone paint, tinted glass, whitewalls, AM-FM radio, rear speaker, intermittent wipers, the sticker at the bottom including destination was $8,192.00. I drove some regional VP's for the company I worked for then, out to dinner when we were out-of-town, and the one guy said, "Billy, turn the A/C on". I said there wasn't any. He looked over the front seat and said, "Did (fill in the blank) order this car?" (a fellow regional VP). I had to laugh.

The car was stolen at 35K miles in September '82 and was never found. My next car, my hometown dealer's '82 Monte Carlo demonstrator, had A/C and every single car I've owned since had had it.

My parents' '84 Monte Carlo was their first car with A/C.

In my largely working-class hometown, it was not at all unusual to see Chevelles, Monte Carlos, Impalas, and even the occasional Caprice Classic, without A/C into the late '70's.

sda

I've shared these before. 84 Horizon SE 2.2 5sp, ac, ps, pb. I found the interior to be very nice overall and comfortable. The 2.2 was peppy and rather fun to spur.

uplanderguy

I rented Omnis/Horizons pretty often in that time period. I far, far preferred them to Reliants and Aries K-cars. I thought they were peppy, had nice seats overall (as shown in your pic) and were better than the general public's perception of them. I know CR said the first ones handled poorly and they got their very rare "NOT RECOMMENDED" rating, but I'll guess something was done to subsequent model years. I don't remember ill handling at all.

The rentals I hated the most were Alliances and Encores. When I look back, I see they were an automotive press darling, but that was lost on me. I remember dorky styling (OK, subjective), and feeling very slow. One rental Encore I had had the right hatch strut just laying in the channel there.

I used to get various Japanese low-end cars (I guess back then, that would be Toyota and Nissan), with tiny wheels that look like the hub caps fell off, unique vinyl smell inside, very thin doors, and buzzy but zippy engines. Never converted me, shocker.

uplanderguy

andre, I remember at least one magazine ad and one magazine road test, where Chevy was marketing the '81 Malibu as a 'sport sedan'; in fact, in ads I think it was called just that. The cars I mention were blackwalls on Rally Wheels.

I'm in total agreement on the rooflines of the '78 and '79 Malibu and LeMans sedans looking too big for the car. As much as I love a '78 Malibu Classic coupe with the 50/50 seats and gauge package, I hate the standard linear speedometer in those cars, and while I like the 'dimples' for lack of a better word, in the Classic's seat backs, the car loses something when it doesn't have the center armrests.

I like that formal roofline. I have a bit of a problem with the vent window vertical divider not being parallel with the rear of the door, but I could live with that I guess. I used to feel similarly about the '77-79 Fleetwood Brougham's B-pillar, but I grew to like it, I think after I saw a car from the '30's that feature was inspired by.

sda

uplanderguy said:

I rented Omnis/Horizons pretty often in that time period. I far, far preferred them to Reliants and Aries K-cars. I thought they were peppy, had nice seats overall (as shown in your pic) and were better than the general public's perception of them. I know CR said the first ones handled poorly and they got their very rare "NOT RECOMMENDED" rating, but I'll guess something was done to subsequent model years. I don't remember ill handling at all.

The rentals I hated the most were Alliances and Encores. When I look back, I see they were an automotive press darling, but that was lost on me. I remember dorky styling (OK, subjective), and feeling very slow. One rental Encore I had had the right hatch strut just laying in the channel there.

I used to get various Japanese low-end cars (I guess back then, that would be Toyota and Nissan), with tiny wheels that look like the hub caps fell off, unique vinyl smell inside, very thin doors, and buzzy but zippy engines. Never converted me, shocker.

IIRC, the test that the Omni/Horizon failed is one that few would ever attempt. While underway they (CR) jerked the steering wheel violently and it started to oscillate back and forth which they found unacceptable. I never tried that, and I always found that it drove fine and tracked straight when driven on the interstate.

fintail

Aha, that interior brings back memories, that has to be the same as the one my dad test drove, funny that the pic triggers a memory from probably almost 40 years ago. It seemed like luxury compared to his car, but maybe because of being frugal at the time and bonding with the existing car, he didn't go for it. I know I have mentioned it before, he was fond of that car, as I think it handled well for the time and its price point, and it was excellent in snow. The S10 Blazer that eventually replaced it didn't have him nearly as pleased.

sda said:

I've shared these before. 84 Horizon SE 2.2 5sp, ac, ps, pb. I found the interior to be very nice overall and comfortable. The 2.2 was peppy and rather fun to spur.

fintail

I remember when I was a kid, for some reason I liked the 6 window 78-80 style cars, and kind of liked the Aerobacks too. The rear quarter window pleased me for whatever reason. I've always thought the formal roof came about for an upscale look, riding on the coattails of the 70s Seville, as there seemed to be a movement for that in the very early 80s (also think 81 Granada).

Thinking of AC, my first car with it was the W126, which I got shortly after Y2K - having started driving in a 66 Galaxie and then the fintail gave me two cars where AC is uncommon. I always grinned and beared living without it, but it was a revelation to have it in the more modern car (period MBs have a rep for HVAC quirks, but my car never had an issue, and I remember when selling it, the buyer was pleased with how the AC functioned - not like a period GM car, but more than adequate).

andre1969 said:

fintail said:

That would be "G-Wagen"

I remember my grandma mentioning she liked those formal roof sedans.

andre1969 said:

All of the G-wagons (I like that, sounds like a Mercedes term ) went away after 1983, being replaced by the A-body wagons for '84. The Regal sedan hung around through 1984. Bonneville-G through 1986. And the Cutlass Supreme sedan actually made it through 1987!

For the most part, I prefer the formal roof, simply because I think it gives the cars better proportions. I always thought the '78-80 Malibu/LeMans 4-door roof just looked too big for the rest of the car, and it makes the rear of the car look a bit stubby. The formal roof gives them a longer rear deck, which makes them look a bit better proportioned.

However, I think one example where that formal roof doesn't quite work is the 1981 LeMans. That slightly Trans Am-ish nose looks perfect on the coupe, and the wagon even carries it well. But on the sedan, it seems a bit at odds with that formal roof. Like the automotive version of a reverse mullet, I guess. Party up front, all business in the back!

I also don't think that formal roof would have worked as well on the '78-79 Malibu. To me, those cars still seemed to retain just a touch of youthful sportiness about them, so that roof might not have worked as well. I think it would have worked well with the 80 though, which was styled a bit more conservative/upscale.

And then, those Olds/Buick Aeroback sedans were a story, in and of themselves! When they went to the formal look for 1980, sales took off, despite the recession and high gas prices/fuel shortages. I wonder, if that roof had come out for those cars in 1978, how well it would have sold? Definitely better than the Aerobacks, but I wonder if it still would have been a hit? I think the main reason the 1980 Century and Cutlass Supreme sedans did so well, is that they gave buyers who wanted to move down from a bigger car, into something that still looked upscale and substantial a choice. But in 1978-79, buyers were more than content with their downsized big cars.

andre1969

I think this might be that road test, with the '81 Malibu:

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-review-1981-malibu-versus-omega-speak-of-the-devil/

It does look good with those Rally wheels and the 205/70/R14 blackwalls, and it has the F41 suspension. That 14.0 second 0-60 time sounds horrible by today's standards. But for comparison, I remember seeing a quick take of a 1981 Grand Prix with the Pontiac 265, and they got 14.9 seconds. And Consumer Guide mentioned a 1981 or 82 Cutlass Supreme with the 260 clocking in at something like 18.0 seconds!

stickguy

And yet somehow we all survived and even managed to merge into a highway.

sda

The Olds 260 always puzzled me. It was a smooth, quiet, reliable engine that would go the distance. It was also pretty economical with fuel. I think it was around 110hp, very similar to the 231 V6, but it just didn't provide much umph. I remember test driving a 75 Omega hatchback before I bought my Sunbird V6. When I accelerated to merge onto a highway, and this was 55mph america, I was surprised how slow it accelerated. No ac in that car to drag it down.

uplanderguy

And yet somehow we all survived and even managed to merge into a highway.

Yep.

For some reason, that reminds me on FB old-car pages, the inevitable guys who say, "Gee, my (modern-day bottom-of-the-barrel econobox) beats that thing's acceleration".

Sometimes I actually reply, "Gee, who'da thunk technology improved in forty years?!", LOL.

uplanderguy

Andre, yes, that's the review I remember. To my anachronistic eyes, that Malibu sedan looks halfways upscale.

Just personal taste of course, but I always thought the Omega of that era was the worst-styled, in general, of all the X-cars, and I even prefer the Citation's instrument panel to the Omega's. (People goof on the vertical radio, but they're A-OK with that in a C2 Corvette! LOL.) Some of the Omega's sports appearance packages are really huge graphics/stripes/two-toning too.

That Malibu they tested, shows that in '81 to get the optional instruments, you got that ridiculous overload of the world's worst fake woodgrain on the panel; also, in '80 and '81, the 'Special Custom Interior' option was a pretty underwhelming striped material. Starting in '81 they offered that Monte Carlo option on the Malibu Classic, as is on the test car. I much-preferred the '78 and '79 Monte Carlo heavy-velour Special Custom Interior. And I hate the dopey stand-up hood ornament that was added in '80 and stuck around.

I questioned the availability of the 305 engine that year in that car, as noted by the Curbside Classic author, but when I looked online at the brochure, it was an option. I remembered only a 267 V8 optional when I bought my '81 Monte Carlo new. I checked the brochure and that is right too--the 305 was available on the Malibu but not the Monte, but the Buick Turbo was optional on the Monte and not the Malibu.

UPDATE: Brochure shows the 305 available on on Malibu wagons, not sedans and coupes. CC author also mentions the 350 being available on wagons. Tsk tsk, didn't do his brochure homework! P.S., I look only at 49 states. I was never in California until I was 52 years old. LOL

fintail

An Omega in that spec has to be rare - uncommon then and probably about extinct now, not sure if I recall ever seeing one like that in person. It seems most X car survivors are Citations that survived via luck or care, or Skylarks that were driven by grandma to the store and church.

andre1969

I know I've said it before, but I actually wouldn't mind an Aeroback Cutlass Salon 4-door, if it was well-equipped, a nice color, and at least a 260 or a 305. I think it has a certain charm to it. Not because I find any beauty in it, but just that offbeat quirkiness of it. Some cars I like because I find their styling to be pleasing, but others I like, because of their weirdness.

Other than at a car show, and usually just the GM show at Carlisle, I can't remember the last time I've seen any FWD X-body. Last year, the Malaise Motors facebook club had a small gathering at the GM show, and I seem to recall someone had an Omega 4-door, under a tent. And out on the showfield, I believe there was an Omega coupe that someone was in the process of customizing.

Oh, as for the 350, after that brief stint with the wagons, where it got choked down with California emissions, no matter where you bought it, I think the only way you were getting a 350 in a Malibu was if you got a police car. And oddly, it wasn't as quick as you'd think. I seem to recall that in 1982, the Malibu police package offered a 305 or 350, and there wasn't a whole lot of difference. And in '83, it was only a 305, and surprisingly, a bit quicker than the '82 had been, even with the 350.

fintail

I can't recall when I last saw an X Omega in person - I think I have seen more 70s Nova style than 80s models.

I'd unironically drive an Aeroback 442. I think the shape works better on a 2 door, and it and the 4 door are so obscure now that maybe nobody under 40 will even know what it is. The "buttless Cutlass" name also amuses me.


Oh yeah, out on the road today among some of the dumbest drivers in recent memory, spotted a pop up lights Accord and a 2nd gen 2 door Jetta.

Michaell

On my FB feed, I’ve seen pix of an 80’s Omega that has been restomodded. Someone slipped the engine, drivetrain (4wd!) and 6-speed transmission from a Saab 9-3 underneath it.

Pretty cool donor car, and I suspect fast as heck.

stickguy

Fin, you see so many cars that have long since returned to dust around here.

fintail

stickguy said:

Fin, you see so many cars that have long since returned to dust around here.

The land that rust (mostly) forgot. Sun eventually bakes the cosmetics, but things rot slowly - couple that with no state inspections, and here we are.

On that note, this winter the powers that be appear to be using grit and sand instead of chemical de-icer - the roads are reminiscent of dirt paths in some area, dust clouds and all, and I think the wagon will need its first real paint correction once the sludge washes away.

uplanderguy

I noted several '80's and '90's cars and trucks that looked like three-or-five-year-old cars when we were out there visiting our daughter last Oct.

Our plan is to drive out there this summer, stopping at maybe Yellowstone (not my choice, LOL), Mt. Rushmore, and the Truman home, museum, and library on the way home. I'm telling myself that if we're dropping down through Nebraska and Kansas City, I ought to be able to get a great steak someplace, and I won't even care what it costs!

uplanderguy

Here's a '78 Cutlass Salon Brougham coupe that was for sale a year or more ago, and I'm thinking we did discuss it here a bit. It's begging for whitewalls IMHO, but I even like the color scheme. I'd rather have the bench or split-bench seat with center armrest, than these buckets with column shift. Whenever I see a GM product of the '70's with buckets and column shift and no console, I think that the customer was expecting a console shift when they ordered the bucket seats, and the ordering salesman was probably clueless.

A college friend of mine, female, lived in room 442 in her dorm and as such wanted a 442. She liked the cars with the huge '442' graphics--'76 and later. Her Dad bought her a '68 442, which she still owns. She was disappointed at the time!

https://journal.classiccars.com/2022/11/24/pick-of-the-day-1978-oldsmobile-cutlass-salon/

uplanderguy

I've long-thought the '77 GM full-size cars were overall better cars than the mid-sizes introduced the next year, which took the downsizing and new-idea things even further. That said, I loved the size and frameless coupe door glass. If I could find a Malibu Classic equipped even close to what I'd have wanted when new, I'd probably jump on it. But there weren't even many with that seat and instrumentation new, that I ever saw.

My friend's parents traded in a '76 Malibu Classic sedan for a '78 Malibu Classic sedan. First time I rode in it, what struck me was the light blue interior showed a distinct color mismatch between the glovebox door and rest of the instrument panel. I have never liked blue interiors--although it would be a nice addition to the boring color palette available today.

andre1969

That's a pretty nice car. I keep forgetting that the 305 actually started offering a 4-bbl in 1978, but only on the Century/Cutlass. Oddly, according to the EPA's website at least, it was not offered in California. Odd, because I thought 4-bbls tended to do better with emissions? At least with Mopar, 2-bbl versions of the 318 and 360 got banned, but the 4-bbl didn't.

andre1969

Yeah, I think GM's goal was to push the envelope further, with each successive wave of downsizing, so the '78 midsized cars went through a more extreme transformation than the '77 big cars, and the compact cars for 1980 (well, April '79) were more extreme, still.

I guess the '79 E-body personal luxury coupes would be more extreme of a downsizing than the '78 midsize cars as well, but I tend to forget those, partly because they're low volume, but also partly because they were expensive enough, that GM didn't seem to cut corners when it came to quality. At least, the Eldorado/Toronado were pretty extreme with the downsizing. The Riviera, not so much, since it when to the downsized B-body for '77-78 as sort of a stopgap.

fintail

How rare must a 2 door non-442 aeroback be today - seems most I see are 4 doors.

I too like the 77 big downsized cars more than the 78 intermediates - the 2 doors are handsome with their sharp rooflines and window openings, but GM had a home run with the big cars, and people still like them today - that says something.

Speaking of E-bodies, I saw Adam's video about the bustleback Seville apparently also intended to be a 2 door as an Eldorado, I think that would have been cool. I think the Eldo that made production is also a fine looking car, but the bustleback is something - I know many don't like them, but I have always thought they were interesting.

fintail

uplanderguy said:

I noted several '80's and '90's cars and trucks that looked like three-or-five-year-old cars when we were out there visiting our daughter last Oct.

Our plan is to drive out there this summer, stopping at maybe Yellowstone (not my choice, LOL), Mt. Rushmore, and the Truman home, museum, and library on the way home. I'm telling myself that if we're dropping down through Nebraska and Kansas City, I ought to be able to get a great steak someplace, and I won't even care what it costs!

Around here, we call 90s cars "traffic" 80s cars are more thin on the ground, but a normal drive through town will spot some, and often even older cars.

On that note, out again and saw a late 80s Camaro convertible - looked rougher than most as the convertibles seem to have attracted more careful ownership, but it seemed to be moving fine, top down in slightly chilly weather,

uplanderguy

andre, good point about the E-bodies. That was a drastic downsizing.

I thought the '71 Eldo was cool when new, but soon cooled off on it. I thought the last few years of that body were so bloated, I had no interest whatsoever. However, I loved the '79, and still like that body a good bit.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I've long-thought the '77 GM full-size cars were overall better cars than the mid-sizes introduced the next year, which took the downsizing and new-idea things even further.

The downsizing of the B/C bodies for the '77 model year was less of a challenge I think. Those retained many of the same/similar suspension parts as the'73-'77 A-bodies, with some lightweighting here and there. The bodies were boxier and more space-efficient and also had some lightweighting, but they were building essentially the same car. For the downsized A-bodies the next year, there was nothing else they had been building like that - a separate body-on-frame, which in retrospect I find odd, but I guess they were trying to retain as much NVH control and ride quality as they always had which in that era was hard to do with a unit body. But they made the chassis frame on those very light and thin which led to problems as they aged. The bodies were not as well-made as the bigger cars either, and it seemed they took too much cost out of interior materials. They didn't seem to hold up nearly as well.

andre1969

For some reason, I actually prefer the '75-78 Eldorado, style-wise at least. The '71-74 models somehow seem fatter to my eye, although that could partly be because of the fender skirts. And the rear ends seem a bit too stubby, but that could just be a styling trick. The '75-78 somehow manages to look longer, yet at the same time sleeker. I'd imagine it did get longer, because of those 5 mph bumpers, but I'd think most of the inflation in length would have come for 1974?

I have a soft spot for those big Toronados, too. I like the '71-73, because they're still hardtops. The '74 Toronado was, too, but there was an option package that year that gave them a landau roof with opera windows, and I think most of them were equipped that way. And while the hardtop went away for '75, I still find the styling attractive. And those XS models with the wraparound rear window were cool.

texases

I'd prefer the late '60s Eldorado:

uplanderguy

As do I. I thought the '79 was styled with one of these in the corner.

I remember looking at a used one at our local Chev-Cadillac dealer on a weekend. The keys were still in it. That's where I learned that those small quarter windows retracted back into the roof, instead of down. For some reason, that struck me as cool.

fintail

I can believe shades of the 67 in the 79. I suspect the 67 style was already thought of as a modern classic by 1980 or so. In reading ads of that era, a number of 60s cars were already being called "classic" although were only maybe ~15 years old - I think people knew things had changed and were not going back.

tjc78

@fintail said:
I can believe shades of the 67 in the 79. I suspect the 67 style was already thought of as a modern classic by 1980 or so. In reading ads of that era, a number of 60s cars were already being called "classic" although were only maybe ~15 years old - I think people knew things had changed and were not going back.

The difference between a 65 and an 80 is worlds away from say 2010 to 95. Cars today don’t seem to change like they did in the past.

Quite honestly the biggest change or thing that makes a car seem outdated is the lack of a screen in the dash. The exterior styling is more or less very constant over the last 15 years at least

uplanderguy

For me, this '78 Eldorado Custom Classic Biarritz is the most-over-the-top Eldo made. Factory pimpy. I think it's mostly the big padded top that makes me think that. Not at all a fan of the car.

https://www.pedigreemotorcars.com/vehicles/176/1978-cadillac-eldorado-custom-classic-biarritz

uplanderguy

The interior of the '67-70 Eldos was pretty subdued. I remember being wowed with the completely flat floor, but the seating was the strato-bench variety in '67 and '68, pretty thin backs, and no rear-seat center armrest. I still like the cars a lot. In hindsight, to my eyes the Mark III was baroque in comparison, and while the interior would probably be considered more luxurious, it was also more 'busy'--door panels, etc. But I believe they outsold the Eldo, so what do I know.

fintail

tjc78 said:

@fintail said:

I can believe shades of the 67 in the 79. I suspect the 67 style was already thought of as a modern classic by 1980 or so. In reading ads of that era, a number of 60s cars were already being called "classic" although were only maybe ~15 years old - I think people knew things had changed and were not going back.

The difference between a 65 and an 80 is worlds away from say 2010 to 95. Cars today don’t seem to change like they did in the past.

Quite honestly the biggest change or thing that makes a car seem outdated is the lack of a screen in the dash. The exterior styling is more or less very constant over the last 15 years at least

Or even better, 2009 to 2024. Funny that by the early 80s, plenty of 60s stuff was becoming "classic" (if not still quite cheap), but I doubt much late 200s material is doing the same - some of it doesn't look too old at all, and some will even have small screens.