At least the 70s ones looked like a Lincoln or LTD...this malaisey one doesn't have any aspirations of something better.
When I was little, my mom had one identical to this (but it had a white interior :surprise: ):
She loved the car.
I remember when the aero birds were new, she wanted one too...but for some reason my dad didn't want her to buy one. Maybe some kind of retaliation as he wanted an AMC Eagle or a Colt Vista 4WD, and she didn't.
I think those '80-82 T-birds look better in the lower trim levels. I prefer the larger quarter windows in back to those little padded opera windows. Another area that I don't like on these cars is around the rump area. It just looks like it's too big for the car, and you can really see it in how it seems to hang out over the rear wheels. I wonder if they could have just given the car a wider rear track to take care of that? As it is, the wheels just look like they're tucked in too far, giving the car a tipsy look.
Okay, so that big white monster is kind of an ugly brute, but at least it has presence. It LOOKS like a luxury car!
In their defense, Ford was on the ropes in 1980, almost as bad off as Chrysler. As a result, that 1980 T-bird was probably the best they could do, considering what they had to work with. Unfortunately, Ford didn't have anything better than the Fairmont to work with, unless they wanted to use the full-sized cars as the basis. They did this with the Mark VI, and the results were pretty lame.
You are too kind to Ford. When prompted by their CEO to "build something better than the planned '82 model", they got off their butts and did it.
Once they caught wind of what GM was planning for their 1981 personal luxury coupes, that probably lit a fire under them, too. It may not seem like it today, but that 1981 re-skin that GM did with the Monte, Regal, Cutlass, and Grand Prix was pretty substantial for the time, and helped to make the cars much more modern. These models also saw sales increase in a horrible sales year. In contrast, I think the T-bird fell from 156K units in 1980 to around 80-90K for 1981.
I wonder what the original replacement for the 1980-82 T-bird would have looked like, had they not gone the aero route? I tried looking around online, but can't find any pics. I'm sure they're out there, somewhere.
The internet agrees that the CEO hated the prototype....
"Reputedly, in 1980 following a change in leadership, the new chief designer Jack Telnack was asked by executive Don Petersen "is this what you would want in your driveway?" Telnack's negative response prompted a redesign of the Thunderbird ...."
You know, looking through the Wiki page on Thunderbirds (the source for the quotation above), I'm struck by the hideousness of some of the OTHER model year Thunderbirds.... Say this 59 convertible , for example, although perhaps it has more presence in person.
It looks like a 56 T' Bird that got rock-star syndrome - got old, gained 50 pounds and started drinking too much and taking drugs
Perhaps I loved them because I was blessed to first see them during their sleek years.....
Flatten that '59s nose, get rid of the coving from headlights to rear of front door, get rid of those dumb wire wheels (this is not a sports car for heaven's sake)...you can leave the fins for period, get rid of the gunsights on the fenders. Grille is okay, colors are cool, windshield fine, back end is all right.
The main thing I don't like about those '58-60 T-birds is that bulging lower spear that comes from the back and ends in the door. It just looks tacked on. I don't mind so much that crease that comes from the headlights, into the door, and then jigs down. I think it might have looked better, though, if they could have taken that crease and, instead of having it swoop down, perhaps have it taper off and blend into the start of the fin somehow.
>I'm struck by the hideousness of some of the OTHER model year
What?~!!!!!!!
I can't agree with your blanket condemnation. The years where the Thunderbird was dropped and the name was put on a common model car are ones I don't even consider Thunderbirds.
The name Thunderbird was applied at Ford to many things because of its value. They did similar things with the "500" term. They even named a recent car line with "500."
The Thunderbird in the picture represented what people wanted in the DAY. A four-seater. A car that was powerful, more or less, and was luxurious. The first Thunderbirds were two-seaters and were directly competing with Corvettes. The cars beginning in 1961 (about) started their own line because of being four seaters.
The squarebirds are cool in their own way, although the lower spear is kind of odd, as Andre mentions. Remember, they were made for that year of tasteful years, 1958. In those terms, it is almost a minimalist design :shades:
The fat Elvis Bird is the one my mom had, right down to the color combo.
I remember a friend of the family had a Cougar from that generation of Fairmont Birds. He was a really odd guy though, so maybe that taints my view of them.
I must have a little soft spot for the big bloated Bird...as some of my earliest automotive memories are in that car - specifically playing with the power seats, and sleeping in the back seat,
It's amusing to think back what was in all of our family garages or driveways during the high malaise period, maybe roughly 1979-83 or so. In 1981, the fintail family fleet was these:
The forward-looking spear was the design of the future. It was a jet plane influence. The ornaments on top of the fenders were a mark of a high line car. Even the taillights are jet-influenced representing exhausts of the "jet" engines.
For the era, that was tasteful and, flame suit on, good design.
It was a lower cost, sportier, answer to the luxury of this
I suggest reading the Continental pages on Wiki and noticing the mention that the 1961 was actually a design meant for Thunderbird, but modified and enlarged to become the then Continental which from 58 to 60 had been just a large Lincoln.
I'd have to put my two cents in and say that the Square Birds are very unattractive cars. I'd take a baseball bat to them myself. I think it is the worst of the open T-Birds by far. Their sales success only amplifies to me at least how often the majority is wrong. Remember, these might be the same people who voted for Reality TV and Wayne Newton. :P
In the collector car market however, there seems to be little discrimination between 58-60 and 61-66. This erodes my faith in humanity somewhat.
Those '58-60 T-birds pretty much invented the personal luxury coupe market, cars that would be popularized later on by the likes of the Riviera, Toronado, Eldorado, Monte Carlo, Cordoba, etc. And yes, the '58 T-bird was definitely the right car at the right time.
1958 was a disastrous sales year for the American auto industry. The market had been oversold in 1955-57, a recession was setting in, and a lot of people were getting tired of the horsepower race, and ever larger cars. Yet the 1958 T-bird managed to move around 38,000 units, compared to 1957's 21,000. This, despite the fact that the '58 only had a 9 month model year, versus 15 for the '57, and the convertible wasn't even offered until June of 1958! It was a pretty expensive car, too. The '58 hardtop had a base price of $3630. The convertible was $3913. That was a lot of money back then, especially for a Ford. In contrast, a '58 Impala convertible base priced at $2841.
For 1959, the T-bird sold even better: ~67,000 units. And another 92K for 1960. They handled almost as well as many cars twice their size, and probably had a hefty appetite for tires and suspension components, and weren't exactly easy to work on, but they were what the public wanted!
Oh, those 1981-era Regals and Cutlass Supremes were BEAUTIFUL!!! Heck, I wanted a new Regal coupe so bad when I was in high school! The 1981 T-Bird looked like the box the Regals and Cutlasses came in. My Dad was so blindly loyal to Ford it wasn't funny. He was actually proud of that Travesty-Bird!
I had to run by Motor Vehicles, and since my mechanic's shop is out that way, I stopped off on the way back to say hi. His main fetish is full-size 1960-64 Mopars, with a heavy emphasis on the '60 Dodge. Yesterday though, I noticed a couple '61 Plymouths sitting around, and also a 1961 Dodge Dart Phoenix 2-door hardtop that belonged to a customer. Y'know, the Plymouths from that year actually aren't TOO hideous, if they're parked facing a wall. :P The '61 Dodges actually aren't too bad, except for those weird backwards fins.
One of these days I need to make sure I have my digital camera with me when I go out there.
I also spotted, out on the road, a beige '81-85 Impala sedan that looked like it had been lovingly preserved. That must be a pretty rare sight nowadays, since by that time Impalas were mainly taxis and police cars. And nowadays kids like to get ahold of them and donk them up, pimp them out, or whatever.
I also saw a good looking dark blue '86 Caprice wagon, and a beige '87-90 Caprice sedan that had some minor body damage up front.
Spotted a beautiful 69 Porsche..... 912... last night
It was exactly this color of red, and in immaculate condition. I followed it in local traffic for several minutes, so I confirmed that it was a 912.... and it had its original Texas 1969 plates to give me the year.
There was just a puff of delicious smelling blue smoke on the upshifts to 2nd.
I wanted one badly last night, but today, I'm back to being a loyal Alfisti!
I just saw a clip on YOUTUBE, showing one of these. Quite interesting!Unlike modern 3-wheelers, the DEAN design used the single wheel in front, with the two powered wheels in back. This must have made for some fast steering! Anyway, is a three-wheeler a valid design today? can these things ever meed Federal crash requirements?
So, Andre, your mechanic suffers from the Mopar obsession as well?
Yeah, he definitely does! And one of the cars he has is a DeSoto...a 1959 Firesweep station wagon. Last I saw it, it was tucked in the far corner of his garage at home, and looked pretty far gone to me. I think he said it had dual a/c or something like that, that made it pretty rare. I guess ANY '59 DeSoto wagon is gonna be pretty rare these days, though!
Now that I think of it, he has a '59 Firedome 4-door sedan out in front at his shop. It's pretty shot though, and I think he's gonna just strip parts off of it and then junk what's left.
Saw a few oddities on my drive today...RR SCIII, AMC Hornet sedan, a couple of MGs, Lambo Diablo, Riley version of the BMC Farina (kind of a British fintail), 3 W116 300SDs, none of then close to each other, 70s Volvo 2-door flying down a highway at 85, 80s Riviera convertible in brand new condition that made me think of andre for some reason...
I suspect the deathtrap ATVs have as much to do with design flaws as the demographic who buys them. My childhood was spend in a couple of podunk towns where a lot of kids had those things...family trees that don't fork much...
brought out a few old cars. I even got my '67 Catalina out and drove around for awhile. I saw one Corvette convertible of the '63-67 generation, and another 'Vette that was of '61-62 vintage. Also a '65 Riviera with oversized, blingy wheels. Green '67-68 Caddy 4-door hardtop parked beside a carport in a driveway. Mid-60's Continental 4-door, dark green, again with the blingy rims.
Also got to see one of these, and I'm guessing the owner really wanted a convertible and not a hardtop, because it was wedged under a tractor trailer! :surprise: As near as I can tell, the semi was making a right turn, cut it wide like they have to, and the Benz tried to make that same right, on the shoulder, and ended up getting wedged under the trailer. It was hard to tell if there was much damage, because it wasn't easily visible because of the traffic jam that ensued. It didn't look like it went very far under, though. Luckily, the truck driver probably stopped immediately after impact.
I have to imagine big blingy stupid wheels on a 60s car really accelerates wear and tear on front end parts - already not a strong suit of many cars of that era.
Shame about the C126 - strong cars though, so hopefully it protected its errant driver.
I'm ready for cruise ins to start. But today it's 38 and dropping. Slight snow flurries with the drizzle.
It's raining here, too, although temps are holding around 60-62. It's supposed to clear up tomorrow, but only get up to around 49. And looking at the 10 day forecast (which probably changes every 15 minutes :P ) we'll be lucky to see 60 degrees again anytime soon. So I guess I should count myself lucky that I was able to get in what little convertible-time that I could!
Went to an old vehicle show yesterday, mostly old buses and commercials, but with some old cars. It was on the edge of London, so no prize for guessing the predominant colour of the buses, but among the cars were a couple of prewar Austin Sevens, Riley Kestrel - the pre-war type, and a Pathfinder, a Jowett Javelin, Bentley S2, various Ford Zephyrs and Zodiacs, a couple of Triumphs Herald/Vitesse/Spitfire, and a Ford Popular from about 1956. Also passed a nice MGA on the way home. Passed two more Heralds today, on my daily commute.
big wheels also increase braking distances and drops acceleration times. Also increases chances of rim damage. What's not to like about them?
This could just be in my mind, but I swear my '67 Catalina feels slower with its new wheels and tires. Before, I had 215/75/R14 tires, and I think they were on a 6" wide steel wheel with hubcaps (when the car wasn't throwing them, that is ). Now I have 225/70/R15 tires on 15x7 Rally 2 wheels.
Would that really be enough of a change to make a noticeable difference? I swear it feels like it, but it could just be all in my head.
Try going round a corner in one - they soon take off... Never had one myself but travelled in more than one owned in the day by fellow impecunious students... They were good for more than 65 - I think the Reliant Robin and the last of the preceding Regals could just about top 70, but the stability in a crosswind was an issue - I followed an old Regal across the Severn Bridge once, which is a major motorway crossing the Bristol Channel at the mouth of the Severn river near Bristol - it's about a mile and a half, and prone to strong gales. The Regal basically changed lanes as it passed the main columns of the bridge, and even though I was in a small car myself - a Mini - I always found that could be skittish there, but not like the Reliant - it looked like it would tip over as the wind caught it. That wasn't just due to the 3-wheeler itself, though - they had to be under 7 hundredweight unladen weight (I think that is 784 pounds), for fiscal reasons, so they were incredibly light.
...nice silver-gray metallic 1972 Pontiac Catalina two-door hardtop with white top. ...yellow 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass two-door hardtop with black top. ...silver Austin-Healey with top down.
Couldn't find a source to compare same tires, but on tire rack found goodyear tire in 215 x 14 that is only for trailers at 781 rev/ mi and found 225 x 15 tire at 761 per mile in a continental tire. If your older tire was worn in depth of tread that increases the revs per mile. That's 2.6% larger diameter/circumference exclusive of the extra power due to wear of the old tires' tread.
I usually use Micheliin's website to compare but they don't offer a 215.75.14 tire.
While waiting for the bus (one of my passtimes, apparently), I saw a four-door 'late' (it had a third brake light) Chevette, in remarkably good condition (sounded fine, no visible dents or rust). Those cars were quite scary to drive, at least with an automatic (my friends grandmother had one while I was in high school).
Also, after my bartending gig, there was a recently-purchased (temp tags) '79-ish two-tone blue and metallic beige Cadillac Seville, in exceptional condition. I know those aren't super-valuable, but I don't think I'd leave it sitting on Pulaski Road in Chicago overnight.
If I had to pick one car from that era, it might be that Seville, especially with the vinyl top delete option (finally one that fits):
Admittedly, there's a lot from that era that I like, but I think the Seville is one of the best looking cars from that time. I like the clean, smooth lines and the good proportions, and the fact that it seems to have decent-sized wheels and tires. In those days, most cars that "small" only ran on 14" wheels, so the 15's on that Seville help balance it out better. Those cars had a fairly wide track, too, so the wheels didn't have that tucked-under look that can make a car look tipsy.
I was out for a walk in a park earlier today, and I noticed these 80s relics parked side by side. Must be a west coast thing that either are still on the road, from what it sounds like, cars of this age (and esp if the Mercury is a 3.8) are uncommon elsewhere.
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I prefer the '80-85 Seville. However, I do have a good reason. The '75-79 feels cramped inside to me. At least, the last one I remember sitting in did. It could just be that the seat was losing its range of motion, but I was disappointed by the lack of legroom, and the way the steering wheel crowded me. I wonder though, if that's just a result of the car's Nova underpinnings. I've always found the Nova and its clones to be tight inside, as well.
In contrast, the '80-85 has more of a big-car feel to me. Even though they're about the same with respect to shoulder room (around 56"), legroom and the steering wheel position just feels better. Now if I was to choose one of these "beauties", I'd make sure to get the '80, with its Caddy 368. The '81 had the V-8-6-4, which I hear isn't too bad if you disable the cylinder deactivation, but then the '82-85 had that awful little 4.1 V-8. I hate to think of 125 hp moving one of these 4,000 lb mini-monsters.
I will admit I never minded the bustlebacks too much - if they are equipped right. As you say, it has to be an 80 or 81, and I have no tolerance for vinyl tops, fake RR grilles, continental kits, gaudy colors, etc. I would want one in a non-period color combo, maybe silver or blue or black. No vinyl top, no gaudy grille or wire wheels. I know there were some alloy looking wheels available on period Eldos, I would want these on the Seville. Then maybe it would be an interesting car.
My preference is for the car of this era, 75-79. They have clean lines. They are not pretentious. They fit the same clean, efficient styling of the early 90s Accords, although I don't care for them, but the car does what it was designed to do. It is not something other than what it is; the extreme example being a lamp with a hula girl and skirt that moves as part of its base. Is it a lamp or entertainment?
Comments
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
At least the 70s ones looked like a Lincoln or LTD...this malaisey one doesn't have any aspirations of something better.
When I was little, my mom had one identical to this (but it had a white interior :surprise: ):
She loved the car.
I remember when the aero birds were new, she wanted one too...but for some reason my dad didn't want her to buy one. Maybe some kind of retaliation as he wanted an AMC Eagle or a Colt Vista 4WD, and she didn't.
Okay, so that big white monster is kind of an ugly brute, but at least it has presence. It LOOKS like a luxury car!
In their defense, Ford was on the ropes in 1980, almost as bad off as Chrysler. As a result, that 1980 T-bird was probably the best they could do, considering what they had to work with. Unfortunately, Ford didn't have anything better than the Fairmont to work with, unless they wanted to use the full-sized cars as the basis. They did this with the Mark VI, and the results were pretty lame.
Once they caught wind of what GM was planning for their 1981 personal luxury coupes, that probably lit a fire under them, too. It may not seem like it today, but that 1981 re-skin that GM did with the Monte, Regal, Cutlass, and Grand Prix was pretty substantial for the time, and helped to make the cars much more modern. These models also saw sales increase in a horrible sales year. In contrast, I think the T-bird fell from 156K units in 1980 to around 80-90K for 1981.
I wonder what the original replacement for the 1980-82 T-bird would have looked like, had they not gone the aero route? I tried looking around online, but can't find any pics. I'm sure they're out there, somewhere.
"Reputedly, in 1980 following a change in leadership, the new chief designer Jack Telnack was asked by executive Don Petersen "is this what you would want in your driveway?" Telnack's negative response prompted a redesign of the Thunderbird ...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Thunderbird
You know, looking through the Wiki page on Thunderbirds (the source for the quotation above), I'm struck by the hideousness of some of the OTHER model year Thunderbirds.... Say this 59 convertible , for example, although perhaps it has more presence in person.
It looks like a 56 T' Bird that got rock-star syndrome - got old, gained 50 pounds and started drinking too much and taking drugs
Perhaps I loved them because I was blessed to first see them during their sleek years.....
Flatten that '59s nose, get rid of the coving from headlights to rear of front door, get rid of those dumb wire wheels (this is not a sports car for heaven's sake)...you can leave the fins for period, get rid of the gunsights on the fenders. Grille is okay, colors are cool, windshield fine, back end is all right.
What?~!!!!!!!
I can't agree with your blanket condemnation. The years where the Thunderbird was dropped and the name was put on a common model car are ones I don't even consider Thunderbirds.
The name Thunderbird was applied at Ford to many things because of its value. They did similar things with the "500" term. They even named a recent car line with "500."
The Thunderbird in the picture represented what people wanted in the DAY. A four-seater. A car that was powerful, more or less, and was luxurious. The first Thunderbirds were two-seaters and were directly competing with Corvettes. The cars beginning in 1961 (about) started their own line because of being four seaters.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The fat Elvis Bird is the one my mom had, right down to the color combo.
I must have a little soft spot for the big bloated Bird...as some of my earliest automotive memories are in that car - specifically playing with the power seats, and sleeping in the back seat,
It's amusing to think back what was in all of our family garages or driveways during the high malaise period, maybe roughly 1979-83 or so. In 1981, the fintail family fleet was these:
Were the good old days so good? :P
The forward-looking spear was the design of the future. It was a jet plane influence. The ornaments on top of the fenders were a mark of a high line car. Even the taillights are jet-influenced representing exhausts of the "jet" engines.
For the era, that was tasteful and, flame suit on, good design.
It was a lower cost, sportier, answer to the luxury of this
I suggest reading the Continental pages on Wiki and noticing the mention that the 1961 was actually a design meant for Thunderbird, but modified and enlarged to become the then Continental which from 58 to 60 had been just a large Lincoln.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
In the collector car market however, there seems to be little discrimination between 58-60 and 61-66. This erodes my faith in humanity somewhat.
1958 was a disastrous sales year for the American auto industry. The market had been oversold in 1955-57, a recession was setting in, and a lot of people were getting tired of the horsepower race, and ever larger cars. Yet the 1958 T-bird managed to move around 38,000 units, compared to 1957's 21,000. This, despite the fact that the '58 only had a 9 month model year, versus 15 for the '57, and the convertible wasn't even offered until June of 1958! It was a pretty expensive car, too. The '58 hardtop had a base price of $3630. The convertible was $3913. That was a lot of money back then, especially for a Ford. In contrast, a '58 Impala convertible base priced at $2841.
For 1959, the T-bird sold even better: ~67,000 units. And another 92K for 1960. They handled almost as well as many cars twice their size, and probably had a hefty appetite for tires and suspension components, and weren't exactly easy to work on, but they were what the public wanted!
Looks like two of a kind with that barftacular maroon Thunderturd a few posts up. :sick:
One of these days I need to make sure I have my digital camera with me when I go out there.
I also spotted, out on the road, a beige '81-85 Impala sedan that looked like it had been lovingly preserved. That must be a pretty rare sight nowadays, since by that time Impalas were mainly taxis and police cars. And nowadays kids like to get ahold of them and donk them up, pimp them out, or whatever.
I also saw a good looking dark blue '86 Caprice wagon, and a beige '87-90 Caprice sedan that had some minor body damage up front.
I want one! :shades:
It was exactly this color of red, and in immaculate condition. I followed it in local traffic for several minutes, so I confirmed that it was a 912.... and it had its original Texas 1969 plates to give me the year.
There was just a puff of delicious smelling blue smoke on the upshifts to 2nd.
I wanted one badly last night, but today, I'm back to being a loyal Alfisti!
Keep your 912 and give me a boat tail, please.
Yeah, he definitely does! And one of the cars he has is a DeSoto...a 1959 Firesweep station wagon. Last I saw it, it was tucked in the far corner of his garage at home, and looked pretty far gone to me. I think he said it had dual a/c or something like that, that made it pretty rare. I guess ANY '59 DeSoto wagon is gonna be pretty rare these days, though!
Now that I think of it, he has a '59 Firedome 4-door sedan out in front at his shop. It's pretty shot though, and I think he's gonna just strip parts off of it and then junk what's left.
I also saw a Chevette and a Euro spec W124 with correct lights and sidemarkers - and period Lorinser wheels. Japanese import I'll wager.
The British tried the 3-wheel route with the 'Reliant' brand...never took off.
So.. now they just have 4-wheelers... which has cut the fatality rate down to just ridiculously high (from absurdly). :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Also got to see one of these, and I'm guessing the owner really wanted a convertible and not a hardtop, because it was wedged under a tractor trailer! :surprise: As near as I can tell, the semi was making a right turn, cut it wide like they have to, and the Benz tried to make that same right, on the shoulder, and ended up getting wedged under the trailer. It was hard to tell if there was much damage, because it wasn't easily visible because of the traffic jam that ensued. It didn't look like it went very far under, though. Luckily, the truck driver probably stopped immediately after impact.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Shame about the C126 - strong cars though, so hopefully it protected its errant driver.
It's raining here, too, although temps are holding around 60-62. It's supposed to clear up tomorrow, but only get up to around 49. And looking at the 10 day forecast (which probably changes every 15 minutes :P ) we'll be lucky to see 60 degrees again anytime soon. So I guess I should count myself lucky that I was able to get in what little convertible-time that I could!
Also passed a nice MGA on the way home.
Passed two more Heralds today, on my daily commute.
This could just be in my mind, but I swear my '67 Catalina feels slower with its new wheels and tires. Before, I had 215/75/R14 tires, and I think they were on a 6" wide steel wheel with hubcaps (when the car wasn't throwing them, that is
Would that really be enough of a change to make a noticeable difference? I swear it feels like it, but it could just be all in my head.
...yellow 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass two-door hardtop with black top.
...silver Austin-Healey with top down.
I usually use Micheliin's website to compare but they don't offer a 215.75.14 tire.
Is that enough to feel?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Also, after my bartending gig, there was a recently-purchased (temp tags) '79-ish two-tone blue and metallic beige Cadillac Seville, in exceptional condition. I know those aren't super-valuable, but I don't think I'd leave it sitting on Pulaski Road in Chicago overnight.
Admittedly, there's a lot from that era that I like, but I think the Seville is one of the best looking cars from that time. I like the clean, smooth lines and the good proportions, and the fact that it seems to have decent-sized wheels and tires. In those days, most cars that "small" only ran on 14" wheels, so the 15's on that Seville help balance it out better. Those cars had a fairly wide track, too, so the wheels didn't have that tucked-under look that can make a car look tipsy.
In contrast, the '80-85 has more of a big-car feel to me. Even though they're about the same with respect to shoulder room (around 56"), legroom and the steering wheel position just feels better. Now if I was to choose one of these "beauties", I'd make sure to get the '80, with its Caddy 368. The '81 had the V-8-6-4, which I hear isn't too bad if you disable the cylinder deactivation, but then the '82-85 had that awful little 4.1 V-8. I hate to think of 125 hp moving one of these 4,000 lb mini-monsters.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,