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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think Cadillac HAS a positive meaning.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Today I saw an '80-82 T-bird, in a pale baby blue. I absolutely love this color on a '75 LeSabre convertible, but it just didn't look good on this car. I blame the car more than the color, though! :P
And I saw something even more odd than a fintail driving in the dusting of snow - a Mini Clubman - the original version, and this one looked to be from the 60s. I can't imagine driving something in the snow with such a propensity for rust is a good idea.
I also got an approving nod from an older guy in a 63 Riviera.
I love 30s futurism, with the Buck Rogers style fin and all.
A MB "Autobahn-Kurier" is also a fastback too I suppose...same styling ideal, an aerodynamic future vision that didn't pan out.
It's a bad movie, but I can still enjoy it, mainly because of Jackie Gleason. I just don't try to compare it to the original.
As for those Bonnevilles, I'm sure they have no redeeming qualities whatsover...plus those damned stationary rear door windows that send me into a tizzy! But for some reason, I still kinda like 'em. I guess one with a 305 and the 4-speed automatic wouldn't be too bad...essentially a 4-door version of the '86 Monte Carlo I briefly owned. If I had the mechanical knowhow and the talent, I'd be tempted to get one and re-engineer those back doors, to get the windows to roll down, even if it's just half way. I don't know why those stationary windows bug me so much, but they do. Maybe it's because it just makes the car feel unfinished to me, like they were trying to pass an incomplete car off onto the public.
I can almost excuse Chrysler when they did the same thing with the 1981 Aries and Reliant. At least with Chrysler, they changed them to roll-down in mid 1982, in response to customer complaints. They also discovered that, over a large volume, that making the back windows stationary really didn't save them any money. Plus, an Aries/Reliant was a much cheaper car.
I can't blame you about those windows...that was a very lame move by them, just another that contributes to the image issues of today. Come on guys, it's a window regulator...not a luxury item.
EV enthusiasts just don't get it. We need to get there AND get home again. :P
Still, for a little around town hauler, it would be pretty nifty... for maybe $8k.
(I live in a small town. A 30 mile range would get you pretty much anywhere AND back)
I drove a converted Ford Escort around for a few days, and like you say, for short hops it was fine. But I live in a very temperate climate. Problem with an EV is that when you "run out of fuel" you are stranded, that's it. Tow Truck time.
I read that in the San Francisco Bay area and other places, such as Israel, Denmark and Hawaii, there are plans to soon build a network of stations for recharging EV batteries. For those in a hurry, the discharged batteries could be swapped for a newly charged one, in a short time. This would extend the range of EVs, and make them more practical.
According to what I read, the operating cost-per-mile for EVs with this service station network would be competitive with conventional IC vehicles. Of course, the plans could prove to be too optimistic or premature, but it's an interesting concept.
Petroleum makes a wonderful fuel. Just because it is momentarily cheap doesn't mean that it will be for our children's future, (or even next year). But that's a topic for another thread.
You must have forgotten the "Chevette" transmission fiasco with that combo. I had a 79 Monte with a 305 4Barrel. You wouldn't expect a Chevette tranny on that that combo as it was the most powered of their options that year. The dealer said "no way". You guessed it, several years later I received court papers indicating there was a lawsuit and my car was one of them. I had already traded it because it was a piece of crap, leaked wind noise and water everywhere, constant electrical issues - none of these problems could be resolved by the dealers. Unfortunately, I traded it on a 4 cyl 83 Olds Ciera and it was an even bigger POS.
The 4-speed version of that transmission, the THM200R4, came out for 1981, and was terrible at first. I think they got most of the kinks worked out after a couple years, though. I had a 1985 LeSabre 307-4bbl and a 1986 Monte Carlos 305-4bbl with that 4-speed unit. The Buick was bought new by my grandparents and was at 157K miles when I got rid of it. The Monte was bought new by my Mom, and had 192K on the clock when I got t-boned in it. None of them ever had any transmission problems. However, both my Granddad and stepfather were pretty anal about maintenance. Both cars would get their transmission serviced every year, whether they really needed it or not.
I also had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme with the 231 V-6. Oddly, that one had the beefier THM350C transmission in it. The same unit that's in my '85 Silverado pickup, which has a 305-4bbl. Also the same unit that's in my '76 LeMans, just without the lockup torque convertor, and that sucker has a 350-4bbl in it. So you'd think it would have no trouble in that light, weak little Cutlass. But nope, that was the one that it failed in! In its defense though, I bought that Cutlass used, 11 years old, 61K miles, for $800, so it had plenty of time for neglect to set in. The pickup was in the family since new, and was always taken care of. I just bought the LeMans 3 years ago. It has a shift kit in the transmission, so I'm guessing it might have been rebuilt along the way, too.
Now this isn't a car that I'm going to go on a quest to seek out, but if I found a nice '85-86 Bonneville with the 305-4bbl and 4-speed automatic...and I really needed a car at the time, I think I could be happy with one.
For 1960, I like the entire Chrysler lineup, with the exception of the Plymouth. And the Dart was a little weird with that grille that looked like something out of the "Outer Limits" or "Futurama". I thought the bigger Dodges, the Polara/Matador, were nice looking. DeSoto was on life support by that time, but I thought they were really nice looking. Looked a bit TOO much like the Chryslers that year, but it was probably intentional, so that when DeSoto did get dropped, people wouldn't whine as much.
Most people probably find it garish, but I think the 1960 Imperial is a gorgeous car!
The '58 Bird is kind of formal, more "continental-ish" and that's probably its appeal.
I'm not sure you can even DRIVE a stock '58 T-Bird on modern roads without better tires and a good set of stiff shocks (easily done). In stock form the car is downright treacherous. Those squishy bias-ply tires didn't help, and I pity the restorer who insists on absolute originality.
No wonder we have fewer traffic fatalities than in 1958!
The '61 GM cars are the first pure Bill Mitchell models I believe. Harley Earl's last hurrah, or swan song, were the out of style 57's and garish 58's. I'm not sure who gets credit for the '59's?
Mitchell went on to give us the Stingray and original Riviera and Toronado models which were all head turners.
I'm thinking two things hurt Imperial sales:
Back in those days a lot of people stayed within a corporation and traded up. Unfortunately Chrsyler was dwarfed by GM and Ford.
The torsion bar suspension, while it handled well, didn't have that luxury "float". Jets were replacing propliners back then and people equated jets with smooth and quiet while floating in the air so the better ride and handling of the Imperiual may not have been appreciated in its time.
Let me think... why wouldn't this sell?
Even by 1961 standards, it is U-G-L-Y !!!
:sick:
However, when the new Lincolns came out for 1961, they really outclassed Imperial, and they started to really pull out in sales. And Cadillac in the 1960's seemed one success story after another, almost as if they could do no wrong.
I think the Imperial did see a slight boost in sales for 1964, with cleaned-up, squared-off styling that was actually the result of the same guy responsible for the '61 Lincoln...Elwood Engle. He did what he could with the basic 1957 body shell, and all things considered, the car came off pretty nice. The wraparound windshield was really the only blatant cue that the car was a holdover from the '50's.
I think one thing that hurt the Imperial was its engines. In some years, the thing probably weighed almost a half-ton more than a New Yorker, but they used the same engine. In 1957, it was a 392-4bbl Hemi with 325 hp. I think it boosted to 350 hp for 1958, and then they went with the 413 Wedge for 1959. IIRC, when the 440 came out, the New Yorker actually got it a year before the Imperial. So how do you explain to the customer that your flagship only has a 413, while the cheaper New Yorker has a 440?
Seeing the cars, side-by-side, at dealerships probably was a hinderance to Imperial sales. The car never could fully shake its image as a CHRYSLER Imperial. Heck, in some years it had badges that read "Imperial by Chrysler", which makes it sound like just a model, such as "Monte Carlo by Chevrolet" or "Grand Ville by Pontiac".
GM at least had the advantage of having Cadillac in its own dealerships. So if a Caddy DeVille really wasn't that much of a step up from a Buick Electra or Olds 98, the cars weren't sitting there side-by-side, making it blatantly obvious. Heck, some years, the Electra had a bigger standard engine than the Caddy!
In the end, Chrysler just couldn't invest the money to keep Imperial unique. For 1967, it went to a unitized platform, and while it was bigger than a Chrysler, it really didn't look that different, at least to me. And by 1969, the Imperial was basically just a Chrysler with a longer front-end clip. Although I gotta admit, I think the '69-73 Imperials are gorgeous, whereas most of those fuselage cars just don't excite me that much.
Consumer Reports, rarely a tester of luxury cars in those days, pitted a 1957 Cadillac against an Imperial. Unfortunately, it's been about 20 years since I've seen that article, and I can't remember which one they picked as the winner!
Interestingly, it costed about the same to drive a Cadillac as a large Buick or Olds because, for whatever reasons, Caddys retained a greater percentage of their original value than the luxury models of the other GM brands.
This, of course, begs the question of why did Cadillacs depreciated less than Lincolns and Imperials, as well as Buicks and Oldsmobiles, in percentage terms, at least, in the case of the two upper middle market (today's near luxury) GM models? I don't know the answer to that question, but maybe some of you do.
As for resale value, I think Cadillac just had better marketing and a more prestigious image, and that created a desire for people to want them. For the most part, I think they were viewed as more prestigious than a Lincoln, at least up until around 1957. They were bigger, more impressive looking cars (IMO, at least). Interestingly, in 1957, the Cadillac was actually the smallest of the luxury brands. The Lincolns were something like 227" long that year, while the Imperials were 225". Cadillacs were 216" for the 4-door models, 221" for the coupe/convertible. Eldorados were a bit longer, at 222.1". Even the Fleetwood 60 special was "only" 224.4" long, although the Series 75 limo was 236.6".
I was a bit surprised when I found out that the '57 Cadillacs were that "small". They certainly have a more substantial look to them in pics and even in person! In contrast, the '57 Lincoln's always looked small-ish to me. Maybe there's just something in the clean, simple styling that hides their true bulkiness?
I think those bloated '58-60 Lincolns bombed on the market when new, so resale probably suffered from that. I'm sure the '61 and newer models were much better received. I've heard that they could be troublesome with age moreso than a Cadillac. In the 60's, Cadillac became more of a mass-produced luxury, whereas the Lincoln seemed a bit more hand-crafted. That probably didn't bode well when it came time to find replacement parts, work on them, etc.
I wonder how the pockets in the metal above the headlights fared with salt from roads splashing up there. Does anyone have an experience with those? Did they rust away like an 82 Honda?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't know how these cars held up with regards to rust. The 1957 Mopars in general were bad, but I've heard that they were less bad the higher up you went. Plymouths were horrible rusters, but Imperials may not have been too bad.
I know with the lower ranks, rust resistance improved considerably for 1959, but Imperial might not have had as much room for improvement. The Imperial stayed body-on-frame for 1960 while the rest of them went Unibody, but I've heard there was a lot of internal bracing and such added to the Imperial that year. I've heard it referred to as body-on-frame, but with some unit-body techniques applied, and that beefing up is what made them start banning Imperials from demolition derbies.
With that scalloped out area on the '61 Imperial, behind the headlights, I'd imagine it wasn't too bad for rusting. While salt and mud could get splashed up in there, that's also an area that would dry out pretty quickly. However, a bigger concern would be how well-lined the wheel wells are. It was common back then for mud, salt, etc to fling forward off the top of the tires and end up caking the inside of the fenders, around the headlight area, because they didn't always fully line the wheel wells. My '57 DeSoto has some rust damage in this area.
Our neighbors had a new 62 Imperial when I was kid. Unfortunately it wasn't a convertible like the one shown above :-(
I remember thinking that the styling was way over the top... and I was just a little kid. Yeah, it was impressive, but it sure wasn't elegant or beautiful. Particularly compared to another neighbor's Lincoln Continental. I probably rode it it a few times, but I don't really remember any of the details of the ride, so I couldn't comment.
Our neighbors only kept it a year or two and then replaced it with a REAL UFO - a Citroen!
In short, people didn't know what to make of them. They didn't "say" anything.
The '62 above is a great example. Look at the front end and then the rear end--they could have been designed by two teams living in different states, and welded together at the last minute. The dog is well-designed however.
And up front, I always hated the free-standing headlights, a neoclassic throwback (we call that "retro" today) If they hadn't scalloped out that area, making the lower fenders the same shape as the upper part, and incorporated the headlights better, either just into the fender fronts or bringing the grille all the way out to the edge, I think it would have been a better effect.
Actually, if you could have found a way to do away with those headlights completely, that front-end would be kind of neat. For instance, if they made some kind of hidden treatment that would show itself only when in use. That would've added to the complexity though, and we know full-well the mechanisms would have gotten stuck on a regular basis!
Now I think overall the car looks too stubby, and the rear deck is too short. But if this front-end was applied to a stock-size 1957-59 era Imperial, I think it would look pretty neat.
The roofline actually makes me think a bit of GM's 1973-77 midsized "Colonade hardtop" sedans.
I was thinking the same thing when I saw it, especially the C pillar quarter windows.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Norseman
Click on first two picturse for larger versions
from http://imperialclub.org/Articles/GhiaStory/Page04.htm
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
click on the picture to see the larger picture
This site is full of info...
This page is about the relationship with the Ghia coachbuilders
http://imperialclub.org/Articles/GhiaStory/Page01.htm
I sure can't say much about the front end. The front and back look like they were designed in two different worlds.
The front was a model and in the 50s, but Aztek beauty comes to my mind. And not all Azteks are difficult to like, some colors and some without cladding are neat enough, but others... hurt.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Stylists were very bold in those days. Many of the designs were downright homely but I must admit they had VITALITY, as opposed to many of today's "harmless", unoffensive designs.
Bold. Aggressive. Jet plane emulation.
Some of the styles were attempts to move car styling to match the thrill of watching fast jet fighter planes.
While looking for advertisements by Plymouth with jets accelerating on the runway behind the "forward looking car" with the fins, I found this instead. Check the rear design. There were 50 of these built and used by consumers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I remember reading a blurb from the 70's though, that said they should bring the turbine car back. By that time, a 2-ton car that could hold 4 people in comfort, do 0-60 in 11 seconds, and get 14 mpg on the highway was something to be proud of! :P
This is probably why there wasn't much of a "collector car market" and why it was quite common to see elegant 30s and 40s era Packards and Cadillacs turned into tow trucks, and to see many old cars scrapped.
It was considered something of a put-down to be caught driving around in a dowdy pre- WWII automobile. Or for that matter, in a dowdy late 40s, early 50s automobile.
Although there were pre-cursors, the '55 Chevy was really the first modern, mass-produced American automobile as we understand it today IMO. Clean, reasonable size, great engine, affordable, attractive, fast, easy to fix. Some might say "oh no, the '53 Studebaker!" Not really. Nice body but a 1935-era flathead engine in it and suspension to match.
Harley Earl's leSabre Concept in 1953 was shown in 1953 and presaged the GM styling themes of '54-'57, including fins and wraparound windshields.>
Every 10 y/o kid in 1953 (like me) was in love with they awesome F-86 Sabre and we all thought the LS looked like GM had put one on wheels>
By contrast Chrysler Turbine of a decade later looked rather derivative looking more like a 1960-61 "Bullet-bird" than it does a jet fighter IMO>
Note that MoPar stylists even used the chrome "hash marks" seen on the T-Bird and moved them to the rear fenders.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Looks like a 1950 Studebaker
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,