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
Yeah, that beast is beautiful, isn't it? Looks almost like a brand-new car. Nice color combination too. And while the seats may have no side bolstering whatsoever to keep your butt in place during spirited driving, they just look sooooo comfortable! I could definitely go for something like that, but dunno about that price!
I also really like that '78 Catalina. Not my favorite color in the world, but I think it wears it well. I always thought the '78 Catalina, and especially the '77, had a really handsome front-end. Back in high school, my 12th grade English teacher had a '78 Catalina sedan she wanted to sell...a 2-tone burgundy, with a Pontiac 400 under the hood. It was in nice shape and she only wanted $500 for it. I would've bought it in a heartbeat, but I was only 17, living with my Mom & stepdad. They both said two words to me...the second one being "NO"! :sick:
The Bonneville's nice too, but I always thought the grille was a bit too fussy compared to the Catalina. And it has the 301 which, rational or not, I still have a fear of.
I always thought the '78 era LeMans coupe was a good looking car in every respect but one...the front end. Now maybe part of it is that I like the '76-77 so much that anything that replaced it would be a letdown, but I just think the front looks kinda clunky. In some ways it looks like a bad copy of an Oldsmobile. The base LeMans had a grille with a finer pattern, and I think the later models toned it down even further. I thought the '81, which went to quad headlights and a sloping nose that almost looked a bit Trans Am-ish, was pretty attractive. Nice color scheme though, that two-tone blue. And that upgraded Brougham interior is really nice. That shows how they were really trying to plush these cars up in later years. I don't recall any '73-77 era LeManses having an interior that upscale. Usually they'd just offer you LeMans and Grand LeMans, in cloth or vinyl...but I think the cloth was cheap and the vinyl was actually the upgrade!
Oh yeah, I think that '75 Royal Monaco fire chief car is way cool, too! I always liked those big '74-77 era Dodges and Plymouths. They were really rare, though. Introduced right in the midst of the oil embargo, and with heavy looking styling, they didn't sell well. In the case of the Dodge at least, I think they actually were slightly shorter overall than the '73 models, but they just looked sort of hulking, even compared to their oversized Ford/GM competitors. They weren't popular with the general public, although they did sell well with police and taxi departments. As a result, most of them were just 4-door sedans. There was a 4-door hardtop offered in '74-75. And I've seen brochure pics of a '77 hardtop coupe, although I think most of them were optioned up with landau roofs and stationary rear windows to go for that cocoon-like personal luxury coupe style.
When I was a kid, I used to hate those little Corollas, and probably any little car of the time. Nowadays when I look at them though, they have a cute, offbeat sort of charm to them.
Mercury Concept Car--- concept and auto show cars bring big money for some reason. Well, they are usually one-offs but hardly driveable and probably dangerous as hell.
67 Buick Connelly -- looks like a stretched Jeep Wrangler with mom's sofa stuffed inside and a plastic chrome grill from a UPS truck. That is truly ghastly.
1980 Olds -- bid is fair enough already. I can hear this guy already "WHAT?!! $4,500?!! Why...why....I'd rather BURN it than sell it at that price!!!"
But I'm sorry, at $4500 that dude needs to take the money and run! And there is no way in Hades that thing only has 2500 miles on it! Judging from the way it's worn, that driver's seat has had a lot more than 2500 miles worth of [non-permissible content removed] time in it! And that gas pedal looks pretty worn, with some on the brake as well. No 2500 mile car would have that. My '76 LeMans has those same pedals, and so did my grandma's '85 LeSabre. The gas pedal on my LeMans looks less used than that. Now Grandma's '85 LeSabre, that's a different story, but it also had about 157,000 miles on it when we got rid of it.
That '80 Ninety Eight looks more like a car with some miles on it, but has been very well maintained. I think Lemko's '89 Brougham has about 157,000 miles on it, but wit the way he's taken care of it over the years, it looks as good as this Olds. Heck, in person, maybe even better!
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Regarding Airflows, the 1934 models are easily the best looking, with their pure front ends. That 'normalized' 37 just doesn't look right if you know how the earlier ones appear.
I loved that Hupmobile - not a car that you see every day...
Also the 20's Oldsmobile - that looked very solid and would be a good car for tootling along to country shows. Not so good in traffic though !
The Airflow was also great, and looked in good condition.
The Toyota - the second one, I couldn't get the first to open - was a model which differed from those we got here, somewhat - different grille etc. Porridge in it's day, but it would be rare enough to turn heads now...
Also I liked that Catalina - it looked an honest car, somehow
The fintail continues to create my admiration. I hadn't driven it for 4 weeks - and as usual it started on the first turn of the key and ran like a dream all day. That little I6 is such a smooth unit, especially for its age. I drove to a local park to take a walk in the nice weather, and as I was leaving an older lady approached me. She's seen me there several times and had to mention how she admires the car and is happy to see it is cared for. Then she mentioned she has an old MB - a 220S (ponton). She inherited the car and claims it to have 70K miles, her aunt was the original owner. She was talking to me about it like she was trying to see if I was interested in buying it, she admits she doesn't drive it enough as she's getting too old to drive a stick. She said it runs and drives fine and is in similar condition to my car. She's realistic of the value, she said she heard it was worth about 7K. I'd almost be tempted to look at it (as she said it is green, unusual color) but I couldn't think to buy another car. If I run into her again and she is serious about selling, I might try to help her find a buyer. If it is a genuinely good car, it's worth that money and some people do like those.
What, if anything, do you do to preserve your battery's cranking power between infrequent starts? Do you disconnect the battery, or does it hold the charge reliably for four weeks?
My questions are directed to anyone who starts their cars infrequently. Thanks.
My questions are directed to anyone who starts their cars infrequently. Thanks.
I don't do anything special with my batteries, but if one of my old cars won't start, I'll either try to jump start it with something else, or pull the battery out and put it on a charger. My garage is about 150 feet from the house and I haven't had the electric hooked up yet, so it's not that easy to just run a battery charger out there.
My '57 DeSoto is still in my grandmother's garage, which has electricity, so I've used the trickle charger on it.
As for my old cars, it seems like my '79 5th Ave will always start, no matter what. I've let it sit for up to a month at a time, and even in cold weather it will fire up. Now it won't fire up on the first try, but will usually catch by the second.
My '76 LeMans will usually start after sitting for a few weeks, but not as easily as the 5th Ave. Usually takes 2-3 times, sometimes 4. I'd guess that crankiness is due more to the carb/fuel delivery system than the battery, though.
It's been at least a month since I fired up my '67 Catalina, and it's a safe bet it won't start. That car has always seemed hard on batteries. Current battery is only about 2 1/2 years old. It'll jump start with no trouble, though, and then if I run it long enough, it'll probably start up again after sitting overnight.
My questions are directed to anyone who starts their cars infrequently. Thanks.
Since my year is divided between Arizona and New Hampshire I must leave cars sitting for months on end. Since most modern cars have a significant voltage drain even while sitting I use a trickle charger or simply disconnect the battery. If all of the current is drained from a battery it cannot be recharged and must be junked (found out the hard way).
Pre 1980s cars without ECUs may be more tolerant of sitting for longer periods.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I've always wondered about that, whether the electronics of today's cars might put more of a drain on the battery. I'm guessing some modern cars have some kind of permanent internal storage, though? I remember changing the battery on my Granddad's '94 Taurus awhile back, and I was impressed that it didn't lose any of his radio presets. I think the clock even kept time! But when I changed the battery in my 2000 Intrepid, it lost the time and the radio presets.
I wonder how much of a drain a digital clock puts on a car battery? Both of my '79 New Yorkers have digital clocks. Now the display turns off when you turn the car off, but it still has to draw battery current to keep the time. I guess those old clocks with the sweep hands, or the 70's types that had the rollover numbers, probably used more current?
The Intrepid is the only truly modern car I've ever owned, but I don't think it's ever sat unused for more than a week.
it does have a computer. one good thing about not driving it over the winter is that i don't have to change the clock. :P
Interesting use of resources
The car from a madman
Interesting, but the worst color
Can't be many of these nicer than this
Italian cuteness
A new car
French style
Now this is a Buick
This is cool too
If one wants a W126 SEC, it is best to go overboard like this
Ah the 70s
I could see Andre in this
Lancia Appia -- these are very neat cars, very well made, little jewels. I'd love to have one. Price so far isn't bad at all. But UGH, why screw up that lovely interior with a Kragen under-dash gauge?
57 Desoto---$27,000 for a 4-door Desoto? What, are you NUTS??? You could buy many very tasty old cars for that price.
'55 Buick Roadmonster -- not a bad price if it's halfway decent. I'd love to have this car.
55 Buick 4-door --- CLUNKY. Blech!
90 AMG -- very surprised at these bids. Usually you can't give these things away. I may need to examine my extreme prejudice.
to get mine in the color I wanted for only $500 over MSRP. We had the car for 12 years and it was in good shape when we sold it..
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I think that Buick sedan in black when the red interior accents is pretty sharp. A battleship, but it has some style.
i always liked that.
also saw 4 newer lincoln navigators, which i thought was pretty strange.
'76 Cosworth Vega... at a dealership.. asking $8500..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
A similar proportioning problem happened with the 1957 Mopars. The 4-door sedans all used the same passenger cabin, from Plymouth on up to the Chrysler New Yorker. Well, what looks well-proportioned on a 218" long car with a lanky 126" wheelbase isn't necessarily going to look as good on something that's only around 205" long, with a 118" wheelbase. Now the hardtops, both 2- and 4-door, had smaller passenger cabins than the sedans, and were more low-slung, so they looked better proportioned even on the small cars.
As for that 1957 Firesweep ad, this line in particular cracks me up... "With the introduction of the Firesweep in 1957, it would become DeSoto’s final must-have offering." Now I've always considered the '57 Firesweep to be a bit of a [non-permissible content removed] child, and that coming from a '57 DeSoto enthusiast! It was an early form of badge engineering, and IMO diluted the DeSoto name. It used the same 325 poly-head V-8 as the Dodge Coronet, with 245 hp. A 4-bbl version with 260 was the same as what was in the Dodge Custom Royal. The interiors on them were pretty cheap. The car cost about $180 less than a comparable Firedome, but I guess that was a lot of money back then. You could get the Firedome's interior as an extra cost option, and that did dress them up a bit.
I also never liked the single headlights with the heavy chrome "eyebrows". It looked better on the Dodge. And these cars used the same grille as a real DeSoto, but it didn't fit quite right with the Dodge front clip, so it jutted out too far. For an attempt at a smaller car, the Firesweep still came in at 216", only 2" shorter than a real DeSoto, and, believe it or not, longer than a '57 Buick Roadmaster!
For 1958, I think the Firesweep improved considerably. Interiors were dressed up a bit, they went to more modern wedge-head 350's, and the quad headlights and new grille just seemed to work better with that Dodge front clip.
For 1959, the Firesweep looked even more like a real DeSoto. Instead of using a Dodge front end clip with a DeSoto grille slapped on, they actually went through the effort to use a shortened version of the DeSoto front clip, so finally, up front, the Firesweep was indistinguishable from the "real" DeSotos. Although an observant eye would notice the shorter hood, and less space between the front tire and the front of the doors.
Now I think a '57 Firesweep hardtop coupe or sedan would be okay to have. But if it was going to just be a workaday 4-door sedan, gimme a REAL DeSoto Firedome or Fireflite!
I kinda like that '72 Catalina. A nice period piece, indicative of what the masses drove in those pre-fuel crisis days. Looks like it's in nice shape, too. One thing I noticed though...seems like the GVWR is kinda wussy for something that big. 5827 lb. The sticker on my '76 LeMans reads something like 5620. Only 207 lb less. And I'm sure the difference in weight between my LeMans and this Catalina is more than 207 lb! Kinda weird to think that my LeMans would have a higher load capacity than this big mastodon!
Really interesting interior on that car, too. I don't think I've seen that color combo before, and for good reason.
Actually, I don't mind that interior, except for one thing. It clashes horribly with the exterior IMO. I think if the exterior was either all white, white with a green top, or even green with a white top, the interior would be more complementary.
I remember about 10 years ago, there was a '76 Omega Brougham for sale locally at a park and sell lot. It was a 4-door, light blue, and had a velour interior. This one was getting a bit worn, but it looked like it was a nice little car in its day.
Strange to see so much 70s metal. How time flies...I guess those cars are now 30-35 years old.
Nice to see a 66 Galaxie 7 Litre, those are uncommon and I can't recall the last one I saw. The Olds clamshell wagon and the older Olds wagon are also cool to see...I will admit I have an odd attraction to those gigantic clamshell rigs. And there was even a nice DeSoto wagon for you. The Corolla ragtop is also really an oddball.
That '66 Galaxie 7 Litre actually lives in my neighborhood! About a mile away. The same guy has a '59 Dodge Coronet D500 hardtop. I really liked getting a chance to see that Olds Clamshell up close. One thing that I thought was really interesting was that the mechanism for stowing the rear window didn't seem to take up any ceiling room at all. Someone at the show mentioned that GM had a really tight clearance with those things, and told a story of someone dropping something heavy on the roof, and it flexed in just enough to break the window. I guess the tailgate probably took away a good chunk of that under-the-floor storage that station wagons usually had.
That '72 Impala hardtop coupe had a 250 inline-6 and a 3-on-the-tree! I looked up production figures in my old car book, and Chevy only built 289 6-cyl Impala hardtops. I imagine most of them had the automatic. So there couldn't have been more than a handful of these things built! I know, rare doesn't equal valuable, but it was still kinda cool.
Oh, as for that BMW 5-series? Well, believe it or not, of all those old 70's mastodons out there, that was the car I rode up in! This is the same guy who has the two 1978 Mark V's, but he bought this thing when he turned 40, sort of a "mid-life crisis" toy, I guess!
I can't imagine a car as big as a bloated Impala with a 6 and a 3 on the tree. Couldn't have been fun to drive. They probably made 10 of those.
I spotted (of ALL things) a VW pickup truck! I haven't seen one of those in 10 years. This is the pickup version of the hippie van, not the Rabbit version.
Must have been...what....an early 60s vehicle? Not in too bad shape. Looked like it was being used for work. Probably rated as a 1/8th ton pickup.
I can easily see myself in either of those 1955 Buick Roadmasters.
I had a roommate in college who drove a green 1972 Pontiac Catalina. He also had a 1977 Pontiac Bonneville.
Good God, fintail! Seeing that beautiful Caddy limo on it's roof really makes me sad. What idiot managed to do that? Car looks to be a 1971 or 1972 model.
I don't think I've ever seen one in person, but I've seen pics of them. I actually kind of like the look where they paint the wheels the same color as the body. But IMO, a car like that is too downscale for what a DeSoto should be. It's not the same slap in the face that, say, a Cadillac Cimarron was, but it still represented a cheapening IMO. Still, it sold well for DeSoto that year. I've always wondered though, if it actually brought in much in the way of new sales, or if it just cannibalized sales from the Firedome?
DeSoto sold about 110,000 units in 1956, and 117,000 in 1957, which is something of a feat considering the market contracted considerably in 1957 compared to 1955 and 1956.
The Firesweep started at $2777, while the Firedome started at $2958. A $181 difference doesn't sound like much these days, but adjusted for inflation, that's about $1370!
Just to show how far cars have come, $2777 in 1957 adjusted for inflation comes out to $20,966 in 2007 dollars. The inflation calculator I found doesn't have 2008 numbers yet. Just think what kind of car you could get for $20,966 nowadays though! That could get you a decent midsize, although it would just be a 4-cyl. However, I imagine most 4-cylinders would still be quicker than the Firesweep's 325 CID V-8. It had 245 hp in 2-bbl form. Consumer Reports did a test of a similar 1957 Dodge Royal, and got 0-60 in about 13 seconds. I think the biggest achilles heel was the 2-speed Powerflite tranny. Or maybe CR just didn't know what they were doing! I've seen quotes of 9.5 seconds thrown around for the 260 hp 4-bbl version, but I dunno which tranny that would have.
Way back in 1957, that $2777 included just a bare-bones car with a 3-on-the-tree. Power steering was optional. So were power brakes. Even a heater and AM radio were extra-cost!
My '57 Firedome hardtop base priced at $3085. I priced it out one day with an American Standard catalog, and as equipped, it probably stickered for about $3800. In 2007 dollars, that's about $28,700!
As much as we might gripe about car prices nowadays, they're actually quite a bargain compared to back in the day. I guess it's just that we have so much other stuff to spend money on these days. Plus, housing costs have gotten out of hand, and other prices have gone up more than inflation would have you believe.
The strong 1957 sales have been attributed to the fact that Chrysler Corp's dramatically restyled '57 models, across the brand spectrum, stole styling leadership from GM, and were very popular. Well, the exception may have been the '57 Chevy, but that model wasn't as wildly popular when new as it became after it aged. In addition to the all new styling, Chrysler introduced torsion bar suspension and the three speed TorqueFlyte transmission in '57. Unfortunately, quality problems, and greater vulnerability to rusting than its GM and Ford counterparts, contributed to Chrysler's sales declines in subsequent years, but regardless of industry sales for '57, Chrysler enjoyed its (metaphorical) 15 minutes of fame that year.
I'm sure you knew all of this, but it explains why DeSoto sales increased in 1957 over 1956, albeit modestly.
1957 was also the year that DeSoto came as close as it ever would to surpassing Chrysler in sales. Chrysler sold about 124,000 1957 units, which I think actually was down slightly from 1956. IIRC in calendar year 1956, which would include part of the 1957 model year, DeSoto either outsold Chrysler, or came close enough that it was practically a tie.
Chrysler sales used to count Imperial up through 1954, but in 1955 they let Imperial fly as its own brand, so that reduced the Chrysler sales total a bit. And in 1957, they sold a record number of Imperials, something like 37,000. So I imagine that cut into Chrysler's market a bit, perhaps stealing some sales that would have otherwise gone to New Yorkers.
As for Chevy/Ford/Plymouth, well usually Ford or Chevy would outsell Plymouth by at least 3:1. The '57 Plymouth was popular enough though, that it reduced that ratio to 2:1. It wouldn't be long, however, before that ratio would stretch out again.
Even though DeSoto had that brief moment of fame in 1957, for some reason the '58 downturn seemed to hit it worse than other divisions, even those within Chrysler. From 117K cars, DeSoto fell to about 49K units in 1958. I think Dodge fell from around 280K units to 137K. Chrysler went from 124K to around 63K. And I think Plymouth dropped from around 760K to 460K.
It was a bad year for everybody except Rambler and the imports, and it seemed like the middle-priced market, which was getting over-saturated, got hit the hardest. Strangely though, Oldmsobile had a pretty good year in 1958. I always thought that out of all the '58 models, Oldsmobile took the biggest plunge stylewise, when compared to its 1957 counterpart. Yet the public seemed to like it.
I wonder what would have happened if Chrysler had held off on its '57 redesign and instead come out with them in 1958, giving them more time to work out the quality control issues. On one hand, they'd have cars in their third model year going up against all-new Mercurys, Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and Cadillacs, so that would probably have cost them some sales unless they could have come up with one heck of a convincing 3rd year facelift. And having a 3-year old Plymouth on the market would have probably ensured that the all-new Ford would have walked away with an even bigger lead over Chevy.
And then Chrysler would have had the problem of launching an all-new design in 1958, a recession year. Therefore, the models wouldn't have been as successful as the '57's. However, Chrysler would also be going into 1958 with a much stronger reputation for quality, so in the end, Chrysler might have had a less successful 1957, but a better 1958. And 1959 and later might have been better years as well, if they would have been able to keep the quality up.
I have a feeling though, that DeSoto would have eventually gone away, anyway. Chrysler was trying hard to make Imperial fly on its own, and that involved moving Chrysler downscale, into DeSoto and even Dodge territory.
Yesterday south of Seattle there was also a bad crash, a double fatality where a guy in an old Ferrari Testarossa smashed into a bus. The 80s icon didn't hold up very well.
One of those 124,000 was my dad's white '57 New Yorker 4 door sedan. It was a stunning car, with class leading looks, performance and road holding ability. The ride was considerably firmer than its GM and Ford luxury car counterparts, but it took corners with little body lean, and little squat when braking, which more than compensated for the former ride.
Chrysler Corp. quality, and lack of rust protection, began to slip big time with the '55 models, and took a further hit with the '57s. Innovation and boldness were the priorities back then, so I don't know that waiting another year to introduce the '57 makeover would have made a significant difference, in terms of quality. How the car looked in your driveway seemed to trump reliability and how the body looked after three snow belt winters. Knowing what we know now, greater attention to quality would have done wonders for customer retention and brand equity over the long term. I guess Chrysler management over reacted to the tepid reception of the '53s and '54s, which, while somewhat stodgy, were excellent cars.
If the downward trend in housing prices continues, residential real estate will soon become a bargain in certain areas also.
Plus side they replaced the wiring harness in the process.