There are a few Couriers still doing duty in my low rust area. They are the later type with the more square front end. They always seem to be a white or light yellow. Last time I saw one I had to think how bad it must perform.
on Saturday, at a used car lot near my house, I saw a bit of an abomination. It was a Mark VI coupe, which I think they made from 1980-83? It had hidden headlights, and fake vents on the front fender. As boxy and upright as those things are though, I have trouble calling them "coupes"...really more of a 2-door sedan IMO. Anyway, this one had been chopped, turned into a convertible. It was sitting with the top down, and didn't look too horrible, although even all the way down, the top stuck up about 4-5 inches. It was white with a red interior.
I wonder how awful the thing looked with the top up? At least it had the hidden headlights, rather than those awful things where it looked like they welded the headlight covers shut and then stuck a single round headlight on each side.
I'm starting to see a lot of the '80s coupes, with chopped tops, and the 24" wheels... A mid-80s Monte Carlo, last week..
I guess the donor cars would be about free, by now.... but, some of these are nicely finished... I'm guessing about $15K in them, by the time they do the conversion, body work and repaint, plus the wheels...
Well, that's a Mark V, and I think it actually looks pretty good as a convertible. Probably because it's longer, lower, and sleeker. The Mark VI coupe looked like this:
They put these coupes on a stubby 114.3" wheelbase, the same as the LTD and Marquis of the era, while the other Panther-bodied Lincolns were on a slightly longer 117.3" wheelbase. I wonder if the conversion would have looked better if they'd used the regular Town Coupe instead of the stubbier Mark VI coupe? Here's about the best pic of one of those I could find...
Still very boxy and upright, and with too much overhang, but I think the extra 3" of wheelbase helps balance it out a bit better.
I'm starting to see a lot of the '80s coupes, with chopped tops, and the 24" wheels... A mid-80s Monte Carlo, last week..
I've seen a few 80's Monte Carlos that were chopped, and they looked awful IMO. With the top up, it was just bulky and ill-fitting, ruining the proportions of the car. Plus, it did away with the rear quarter windows, making for a horrible blind spot. And with the top down, it looked bad because the top stuck out too far, even all the way down. And the fact that the beltline of a Monte Carlo kicks up towards the C-pillar, then tapers down behind the rear window, only made it look more top-heavy.
One of the best examples I've seen of a chopped car from that era was a conversion of the 1980-83 Dodge Mirada. The Mirada was long, low, and sleek to begin with, proportionally similar to that Mark V that Shifty posted. The beltline is straight and the rear deck is fairly low, plus the top went all the way down. The only downside, stylistically, was that with the top up, it had no quarter windows either, just these tiny little slits with clear plastic, and it created a huge blind spot as well.
Another car I've seen converted that doesn't look too bad, oddly, is the 80's FWD Buick Century and Cutlass Ciera. They just seem like they have more effort put into them, with roll-down quarter windows, which help take some of the bulk out of the top. Plus, the top stows more out-of-sight than it did on the Montes I've seen...
I hardly see any difference between the one Mark Whatever floating ice floe and the other. Basically a block of 2 X 10 with chrome and portholes on it.
I hardly see any difference between the one Mark Whatever floating ice floe and the other. Basically a block of 2 X 10 with chrome and portholes on it.
Yeah, but you hate cars of that type from that era, so they're all gonna look the same to you. I'm into that kind of junk, so I'm going to notice the differences.
I guess proportionally, having something 230" long on a 120.4" wheelbase actually give you LESS overhang than something 216" long on a 114.3" wheelbase, but I swear the Mark V looks better balanced. Maybe because it's lower, and the way the rear slopes off helps take away some of the visual bulk normally associated with so much mass. The Mark V probably had bigger tires as well, which might have helped with the look.
I can see where Shifty's coming from, because the pictures don't show the difference that actually existed between the two Marks that are being compared. I'm sure you'd immediately see the difference that andre is describing if you saw the actual cars side by side.
That Mark VI looks silly with that short wheelbase and huge overhangs. That was the pinnacle of malaise - gawky looks and a nice 130hp V8 no doubt. I remember several years ago I saw a lowish mileage one of those at an estate sale...could have picked it up for a song, but I am sure I wouldn't have wanted to.
The Mark V pulls it off better.
That Town Coupe has to be a rarity today. When I was little a friend of the family had the larger Town Coupe based on the mid-late 70s Town Car.
That Mark VI looks silly with that short wheelbase and huge overhangs. That was the pinnacle of malaise - gawky looks and a nice 130hp V8 no doubt.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Either C&D or MT did a comparison test in 1980, of the "flagships" of the Big Three. They rounded up a New Yorker 5th Ave, Seville, and Mark VI.
0-60 times were something like: Seville: 10.6 seconds Mark VI: 11.0 seconds 5th Ave: 14.1 seconds.
I think the Mark VI actually had a 351 pumping out a mighty 139 hp, rather than a 302 and 130 hp, though. :P All things considered, 11 seconds probably isn't bad for something like that. They had a standard 4-speed automatic that year, and used a 3.00:1 axle ratio, which no doubt helped. The '79 Lincolns, which used a 159 hp 400-2bbl, had a 3-speed automatic and a 2.50:1 axle, and considering their bulk must have really been dogs.
The Seville's 0-60 time is almost muscle car-esque, for 1980! It too, only had around 150 hp, but the 368 had a lot of torque. The 5th Ave really couldn't compete, because it just had a 318-2bbl cut to 120 hp that year. A 360-2bbl was optional. It only had 130 hp, but I'm sure a lot more torque, so it probably would've made for a more even match.
I don't think the reviewer actually picked a clear-cut winner in that comparison. IIRC, they liked the Chrysler for its styling, interior room and low price, and even admitted themselves that the engine match was unfair...but that was all they were able to get from Chrysler at the time. I can't remember what they picked as the pros and cons of the other two.
As for that downsized Town Coupe, according to Wikipedia it was only offered in 1980-81, and only sold around 3,000 units. The Mark VI was much more popular, and pretty much killed interest in it. So, a rare beast indeed.
I was going to post a picture of a beautiful 12 cylinder Lincoln Zephyr to clear the taste of that 80's monstrosity from our (asthetic) mouths. During my search, I stumbled across this advertisement. I found this very interesting. It seems that Lincoln was really already a "cheap luxury brand" by 1936... and judging by these ads, not that pretty then either. Sometimes the golden years turn out to be gold-plated tin, I guess....
The text will be too small to read after I've sized it to fit the page so here're some links.. 1936 Lincoln ad 1937 Lincoln ad
Here are some of the highlights from the ad if you don't feel like clicking "The new 12 cylinder car brings Ford and Lincoln standards of value to the medium-price field."
Base Price $1275 (What cost $1275 in 1936 would cost $19606.01 in 2008.)
110 hp 122 in wheelbase 122 in body length 14-18 mpg
There was a divorced lady in my neighborhood who obviously got a great settlement as she drove a new one when I was a kid. Her teenage older son had a newish 1970 Ford Galaxie XL convertible.
Well, that is why the 60's and 70's muscle cars have remained popular for so long. I wonder how long it will be before these cars start to fall by the wayside and are replaced by the next generation of classic cars.
Well, that is why the 60's and 70's muscle cars have remained popular for so long. I wonder how long it will be before these cars start to fall by the wayside and are replaced by the next generation of classic cars.
I dunno if there ever will be a "next generation" of classic cars. A lot of that 70's stuff remains popular for its tackiness, outlandish size and hedonistic trappings, and nostalgia in general, but it simply pales in comparison to the musclecar era. And by the time things started to improve in the 1980's, cars really started losing their identity, and becoming more and more alike.
Likewise, moving on into the 1990's and 2000's, I just don't see a whole lot that people are going to want to collect, years from now. Most of the desireable stuff from the old days was hardtop coupes and convertibles, and the bigger the engine, the better. Nowadays though, most of what we have is just 4-door cars, or some variant of the hatchback/wagon. And even though cars perform much better today...a V-6 Accord would probably embarrass most musclecars of the 60's, somehow, the magic just seems gone.
Look who is in that Ciera convertible...pretty much sums up that era :shades:
I am sure one of those is a blast to drive on a rough road.
Tops that stick up are huge visual distraction, and they scream "chop job".
When I was in grade school the family of a very wealthy (for the small town anyway) girl had a fleet of cars, among them a Mark V convertible. Those must be uncommon.
Packard was moving a considerable amount of its volume in its lowline cars then too, and of course Caddy had a whole brand for that market. The Zephyr might have been the most interesting, but from what think I have read they were not trouble free.
I recall a guy who chopped the top off his early '80s Mustang. He made a very crude manual folding top out of an old canvass tent and its tubular aluminum supports. It looked abominable. Judging by his poor workmanship, he probably failed to brace up the frame and the car twisted like a pipe cleaner.
Let's rephrase that then, what will the next generation of classic car collectors' want to collect? I believe that the 60's and 70's cars will remain popular, but the kids today will eventually wax nostalgic and want to drive something from their youth (when life was simple...). Will a non-modded CRX or Acura become a collectible...maybe....maybe not. I hope we are all around to find out.
Personally, I will always have an affinity for 60-80s cars because I have a connection to those cars because they were the ones on the road when I was growing up and in college, so they will generally remind me of the happy days of my misspent youth.
"what will the next generation of classic car collectors' want to collect?"
If you're curious about what might become collectable, click on the 'Classic Cars' link on the 'You are here' line at the top of this page. There are a number of discussions that touch on different aspects of that issue.
Whoops, thanks Texases, I guess I did stray a bit from topic... To get back on topic, I drove by the Tesla dealership and saw a boatload of Teslas on the lot. I also say a very curious looking 3 wheel "car", it was white, had 2 wheels in front and a single wheel in the rear. There were 3 of them "orange coned" off in the Stanford Shopping Mall. Never saw anything like them before, very unusual.
I just had to throw in my $0.02. The cars that are surprising head turners for me now are the late '70's to early '80s econoboxes. Every time I see a chevette, hyundai pony, or k-car (or like cars from that era) in nice condition, it triggers that memory button for me. These cars were abominations at the time, but now, the few survivors always turn my head and get me talking.
Every time I see a chevette, hyundai pony, or k-car (or like cars from that era) in nice condition, it triggers that memory button for me. These cars were abominations at the time, but now, the few survivors always turn my head and get me talking.
That reminds me, I saw one of the higher-ups in my company the other day driving, of all things, a Plymouth Horizon! This was at a big employee appreciation luncheon our company threw at a snooty banquet hall. I pulled up in my '85 Silverado, which is looking a little rough around the edges, so I actually found comfort in seeing someone else drive something that old. It looked like it was in pretty good shape, too.
This guy has always had funny tastes in cars, too. I remember in the past, he had an AMC Hornet, and I think he had a Gremlin at one time, too! And this would've been in the 1990's or 2000's, not when they were new...so he must derive some masochistic sort of pleasure out of driving these cars. I guess I can't talk though, since I get a cheap thrill out of driving a 1979 New Yorker!
My Mom had a 1987 Dodge Omni and she loved that homely little car. Heck, that higher-up driving the Plymouth Horizon probably has a greater net worth than the big shot pulling up in a Mercedes S550!
I've heard a lot of people say that the cars were good in wet and snowy weather. However, I wonder how good they REALLY were? Maybe at the time, their owners were coming from RWD cars, and amazed by the different characteristics?
I only drove one once, back in college. A friend of mine got a real stripper of a Horizon. I think it was one of those "America" packages and was a 1990 I believe, which I think was the last year. Cost about $6,000, out the door. It was a really slow car, which I thought was interesting, considering it had no a/c, and I'd think a 96 hp 2.2 would actually be pretty gutsy in something like that. But it was a dog.
I wonder what it would be like in retrospect, getting ahold of one of those and driving it, after being used to modern cars?
When I took my '67 Catalina out on that road trip last Sunday, I'll admit it wasn't quite what I remembered. I didn't remember it handling so bad at higher speeds, wandering around so much in its lane, and I also don't remember it being so cumbersome on tight, twisty roads. But it's also been ages since I've driven this thing regularly, and for any real distance. And over those years, I guess I've gotten used to cars that are much more nimble.
It would be torture even compared to a lowline Korean car or a base Versa etc. I remember the one my family had being driven flat out - maybe 80-85mph, so the speedometer was pegged. My dad sometimes drove it that way on empty highways. Even as a little kid I could tell that was about all the steam the car had. I remember that car, medium blue with blue vinyl seats, no AC.
When my dad had a Horizon, we lived in a snowy area, and he claimed it was able to go where others couldn't. This was in the early-mid 80s, so there should have been other FWD cars to compare it with. I too have read others who had good snow experiences in those caes - maybe the weight distribution or power was just right to handle snow.
I remember before the car was replaced he test drove another one, I think an Omni. It was some kind of plush model and had a fancier velour interior and seemed much quieter than the one my dad had. But, he really wanted something with 4WD, so the shoddy S10 Blazer became his choice.
I always have a fun shock after driving my fintail for a few hours and then getting immediately back in the E55 - as the fintail lives a few miles from where I live, so I drive to and from it, The steering and braking differences are very amusing.
"When my dad had a Horizon, we lived in a snowy area, and he claimed it was able to go where others couldn't. This was in the early-mid 80s, so there should have been other FWD cars to compare it with."
I imagine the 'others' might have been RWD. Given the Horizon/Omni was little different than a Rabbit, it was probably no better or worse, I never got my '83 GTI stuck in Anchorage in 12 years...
Funny thing is, the New Yorkers actually do seem more nimble than my Catalina. Technically, the NYers are longer cars, around 221.3", whereas the Catalina is around 215". However, the NYers have protruding bumpers, both front and rear, and the front has a slight vee shape to it. In contrast, the Catalina's 215" are all car, and no real bumper protrusion. Well, there is the beak that the Catalina has, but the front of the car also juts out at the edges, so the beak really doesn't stick out all that much.
The Catalina's also a few inches wider, and on a slightly longer wheelbase, 121" versus 118.5". Weight-wise, I actually don't think there's much difference. I believe the base weight of my '67 Catalina is listed at 3910 lb, while the NYer is around 3850. I'm surprised they're that close together.
The New Yorkers ride rougher, but handle better. The Catalina is smoother, but also a bit more bouncy. Those R-body NYer's I have, as well as the old '79 Newport I used to own, actually felt more nimble than the '89 Gran Fury copcar I had. The Gran Fury would handle and corner much better, but it had a wide turning circle, and just felt like a bigger car than it really was. It also had kind of a heavy, "firm feel" steering wheel. With the NYer's, getting behind the wheel, it doesn't feel like you're piloting 221" of car around. I guess that might not be a good thing though, because it can encourage you to get cocky and push the car beyond its limits.
If every single Dodge Omni on earth went to the crusher, would a tear be shed?
Doubt it.
Not all 80s FWDs are worthy of scrappage however---the VW GTi is worth saving and I rather liked the Renault R16, because you could remove the rear seat, hang it from the roof (I'm not making this up) and convert the car to a flat bed station wagon.
Comments
I saw an 80s Toyota 4WD van yesterday.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
I wonder how awful the thing looked with the top up? At least it had the hidden headlights, rather than those awful things where it looked like they welded the headlight covers shut and then stuck a single round headlight on each side.
I guess the donor cars would be about free, by now.... but, some of these are nicely finished... I'm guessing about $15K in them, by the time they do the conversion, body work and repaint, plus the wheels...
I'd rather have a Yaris or a Fit... lol.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/422411
It's pimpy.
They put these coupes on a stubby 114.3" wheelbase, the same as the LTD and Marquis of the era, while the other Panther-bodied Lincolns were on a slightly longer 117.3" wheelbase. I wonder if the conversion would have looked better if they'd used the regular Town Coupe instead of the stubbier Mark VI coupe? Here's about the best pic of one of those I could find...
Still very boxy and upright, and with too much overhang, but I think the extra 3" of wheelbase helps balance it out a bit better.
I've seen a few 80's Monte Carlos that were chopped, and they looked awful IMO. With the top up, it was just bulky and ill-fitting, ruining the proportions of the car. Plus, it did away with the rear quarter windows, making for a horrible blind spot. And with the top down, it looked bad because the top stuck out too far, even all the way down. And the fact that the beltline of a Monte Carlo kicks up towards the C-pillar, then tapers down behind the rear window, only made it look more top-heavy.
One of the best examples I've seen of a chopped car from that era was a conversion of the 1980-83 Dodge Mirada. The Mirada was long, low, and sleek to begin with, proportionally similar to that Mark V that Shifty posted. The beltline is straight and the rear deck is fairly low, plus the top went all the way down. The only downside, stylistically, was that with the top up, it had no quarter windows either, just these tiny little slits with clear plastic, and it created a huge blind spot as well.
Another car I've seen converted that doesn't look too bad, oddly, is the 80's FWD Buick Century and Cutlass Ciera. They just seem like they have more effort put into them, with roll-down quarter windows, which help take some of the bulk out of the top. Plus, the top stows more out-of-sight than it did on the Montes I've seen...
Yeah, but you hate cars of that type from that era, so they're all gonna look the same to you. I'm into that kind of junk, so I'm going to notice the differences.
I guess proportionally, having something 230" long on a 120.4" wheelbase actually give you LESS overhang than something 216" long on a 114.3" wheelbase, but I swear the Mark V looks better balanced. Maybe because it's lower, and the way the rear slopes off helps take away some of the visual bulk normally associated with so much mass. The Mark V probably had bigger tires as well, which might have helped with the look.
The Mark V pulls it off better.
That Town Coupe has to be a rarity today. When I was little a friend of the family had the larger Town Coupe based on the mid-late 70s Town Car.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Either C&D or MT did a comparison test in 1980, of the "flagships" of the Big Three. They rounded up a New Yorker 5th Ave, Seville, and Mark VI.
0-60 times were something like:
Seville: 10.6 seconds
Mark VI: 11.0 seconds
5th Ave: 14.1 seconds.
I think the Mark VI actually had a 351 pumping out a mighty 139 hp, rather than a 302 and 130 hp, though. :P All things considered, 11 seconds probably isn't bad for something like that. They had a standard 4-speed automatic that year, and used a 3.00:1 axle ratio, which no doubt helped. The '79 Lincolns, which used a 159 hp 400-2bbl, had a 3-speed automatic and a 2.50:1 axle, and considering their bulk must have really been dogs.
The Seville's 0-60 time is almost muscle car-esque, for 1980! It too, only had around 150 hp, but the 368 had a lot of torque. The 5th Ave really couldn't compete, because it just had a 318-2bbl cut to 120 hp that year. A 360-2bbl was optional. It only had 130 hp, but I'm sure a lot more torque, so it probably would've made for a more even match.
I don't think the reviewer actually picked a clear-cut winner in that comparison. IIRC, they liked the Chrysler for its styling, interior room and low price, and even admitted themselves that the engine match was unfair...but that was all they were able to get from Chrysler at the time. I can't remember what they picked as the pros and cons of the other two.
As for that downsized Town Coupe, according to Wikipedia it was only offered in 1980-81, and only sold around 3,000 units. The Mark VI was much more popular, and pretty much killed interest in it. So, a rare beast indeed.
The text will be too small to read after I've sized it to fit the page so here're some links..
1936 Lincoln ad
1937 Lincoln ad
Here are some of the highlights from the ad if you don't feel like clicking
"The new 12 cylinder car brings Ford and Lincoln standards of value to the medium-price field."
Base Price $1275 (What cost $1275 in 1936 would cost $19606.01 in 2008.)
110 hp
122 in wheelbase
122 in body length
14-18 mpg
There was a divorced lady in my neighborhood who obviously got a great settlement as she drove a new one when I was a kid. Her teenage older son had a newish 1970 Ford Galaxie XL convertible.
I dunno if there ever will be a "next generation" of classic cars. A lot of that 70's stuff remains popular for its tackiness, outlandish size and hedonistic trappings, and nostalgia in general, but it simply pales in comparison to the musclecar era. And by the time things started to improve in the 1980's, cars really started losing their identity, and becoming more and more alike.
Likewise, moving on into the 1990's and 2000's, I just don't see a whole lot that people are going to want to collect, years from now. Most of the desireable stuff from the old days was hardtop coupes and convertibles, and the bigger the engine, the better. Nowadays though, most of what we have is just 4-door cars, or some variant of the hatchback/wagon. And even though cars perform much better today...a V-6 Accord would probably embarrass most musclecars of the 60's, somehow, the magic just seems gone.
I am sure one of those is a blast to drive on a rough road.
Tops that stick up are huge visual distraction, and they scream "chop job".
When I was in grade school the family of a very wealthy (for the small town anyway) girl had a fleet of cars, among them a Mark V convertible. Those must be uncommon.
Personally, I will always have an affinity for 60-80s cars because I have a connection to those cars because they were the ones on the road when I was growing up and in college, so they will generally remind me of the happy days of my misspent youth.
If you're curious about what might become collectable, click on the 'Classic Cars' link on the 'You are here' line at the top of this page. There are a number of discussions that touch on different aspects of that issue.
New to the site.
I just had to throw in my $0.02. The cars that are surprising head turners for me now are the late '70's to early '80s econoboxes. Every time I see a chevette, hyundai pony, or k-car (or like cars from that era) in nice condition, it triggers that memory button for me. These cars were abominations at the time, but now, the few survivors always turn my head and get me talking.
That reminds me, I saw one of the higher-ups in my company the other day driving, of all things, a Plymouth Horizon! This was at a big employee appreciation luncheon our company threw at a snooty banquet hall. I pulled up in my '85 Silverado, which is looking a little rough around the edges, so I actually found comfort in seeing someone else drive something that old. It looked like it was in pretty good shape, too.
This guy has always had funny tastes in cars, too. I remember in the past, he had an AMC Hornet, and I think he had a Gremlin at one time, too! And this would've been in the 1990's or 2000's, not when they were new...so he must derive some masochistic sort of pleasure out of driving these cars. I guess I can't talk though, since I get a cheap thrill out of driving a 1979 New Yorker!
Seems a lot of people liked their Omnirizons. My dad had one back in the day, and he was very fond of it.
I only drove one once, back in college. A friend of mine got a real stripper of a Horizon. I think it was one of those "America" packages and was a 1990 I believe, which I think was the last year. Cost about $6,000, out the door. It was a really slow car, which I thought was interesting, considering it had no a/c, and I'd think a 96 hp 2.2 would actually be pretty gutsy in something like that. But it was a dog.
I wonder what it would be like in retrospect, getting ahold of one of those and driving it, after being used to modern cars?
When I took my '67 Catalina out on that road trip last Sunday, I'll admit it wasn't quite what I remembered. I didn't remember it handling so bad at higher speeds, wandering around so much in its lane, and I also don't remember it being so cumbersome on tight, twisty roads. But it's also been ages since I've driven this thing regularly, and for any real distance. And over those years, I guess I've gotten used to cars that are much more nimble.
When my dad had a Horizon, we lived in a snowy area, and he claimed it was able to go where others couldn't. This was in the early-mid 80s, so there should have been other FWD cars to compare it with. I too have read others who had good snow experiences in those caes - maybe the weight distribution or power was just right to handle snow.
I remember before the car was replaced he test drove another one, I think an Omni. It was some kind of plush model and had a fancier velour interior and seemed much quieter than the one my dad had. But, he really wanted something with 4WD, so the shoddy S10 Blazer became his choice.
I always have a fun shock after driving my fintail for a few hours and then getting immediately back in the E55 - as the fintail lives a few miles from where I live, so I drive to and from it, The steering and braking differences are very amusing.
I imagine the 'others' might have been RWD. Given the Horizon/Omni was little different than a Rabbit, it was probably no better or worse, I never got my '83 GTI stuck in Anchorage in 12 years...
Yeah. like 1979 Chrysler New Yorkers! :P
Funny thing is, the New Yorkers actually do seem more nimble than my Catalina. Technically, the NYers are longer cars, around 221.3", whereas the Catalina is around 215". However, the NYers have protruding bumpers, both front and rear, and the front has a slight vee shape to it. In contrast, the Catalina's 215" are all car, and no real bumper protrusion. Well, there is the beak that the Catalina has, but the front of the car also juts out at the edges, so the beak really doesn't stick out all that much.
The Catalina's also a few inches wider, and on a slightly longer wheelbase, 121" versus 118.5". Weight-wise, I actually don't think there's much difference. I believe the base weight of my '67 Catalina is listed at 3910 lb, while the NYer is around 3850. I'm surprised they're that close together.
The New Yorkers ride rougher, but handle better. The Catalina is smoother, but also a bit more bouncy. Those R-body NYer's I have, as well as the old '79 Newport I used to own, actually felt more nimble than the '89 Gran Fury copcar I had. The Gran Fury would handle and corner much better, but it had a wide turning circle, and just felt like a bigger car than it really was. It also had kind of a heavy, "firm feel" steering wheel. With the NYer's, getting behind the wheel, it doesn't feel like you're piloting 221" of car around. I guess that might not be a good thing though, because it can encourage you to get cocky and push the car beyond its limits.
Doubt it.
Not all 80s FWDs are worthy of scrappage however---the VW GTi is worth saving and I rather liked the Renault R16, because you could remove the rear seat, hang it from the roof (I'm not making this up) and convert the car to a flat bed station wagon.