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
Well in the pilot episode, Mike Brady had a Dodge Monaco. Can't remember now if it was a hardtop or convertible, but it had power windows, so it was pretty upscale. In price/prestige, I'd say that would trump Darren's Camaro or Tony's GTO. Didn't Roger Healey drive a Firebird? Those other cars would be more youthful and trendy, though.
Mike Brady also had the money to get a new car every year. For some reason I can only picture Tony with that blue '66-67 GTO. Did he ever get a newer one?
What did Mr. Douglas on "My Three Sons" do for a living? He always had the money to get a new Pontiac wagon every year, although in later seasons I think they switched to Ford?
He switched from Pontiac to a Ford? Oh oh! Sounds like he got demoted! If I had my own TV show, you'd see me in a new Buick every season!
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Incidentally, the Blue '64 Catalina shown is a two-door or a four-poster sedan. The Four door h/t Catalina and Bonnevilles shared the same windshield as the Grand Prix>
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Is it a 64 or 65? I was thinking 65, but those all blur in my mind. Which is it?
It's a very beautifully styled, my opinion, hardtop.
Everything looked original to me. The paint had a slight dullness to it, so I assume it's original. It is not glossy and a perfect refinish, in any case.
Larger pictures with 1024 pixel width:
link title
link title
link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I agree, that it is a pretty car, although not one of my favorite years. I love the '63 and the '65 Pontiacs, but for some reason, the '64's not as appealing to me. I think it's because of the upright headlights, which just make it look a bit blocky to me. Nice color though. I guess that's the "Yorktown Blue Poly" on this color chart?
http://www.tcpglobal.com/aclchip.aspx?image=1964-pontiac-pg01.jpg
Interestingly, it doesn't look like they offered yellow on Pontiacs in 1964. I thought that was a bit odd. Now I wasn't expecting some loud lemon or schoolbus yellow, but maybe some pale, washed out creamy yellow, like what's on my '67 Catalina? Maybe yellow just wasn't popular that year?
That these cars are all original is a big thing for me. Old memories (not that I'm that old to remember them :mad:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
See though, how the headlights have a slight forward thrust? I think that little touch improves the styling considerably. I think my only complaint about the '65 intermediate Pontiac was that it was just too pretty looking to be a GTO! IMO the 1964 had sort of a rough, tough look about it, while the '66-67 managed to look tough and beautiful all at the same time...if that make sense.
For comparison, here's a '63 Tempest/LeMans:
They were the compact style with the infamous "Slant Four", rope driveshaft, transaxle in the rear, and swing axles. By '63 though, you could get a "326" V-8 that actually displaced 336 inches and put out 260 hp. I imagine that was a pretty quick little car.
That's very kind of you!
Here's a link to a full picture of the Tempest. Its license plate was 1965 so I that is correct. The model and years blur together.
I understand about the forward slant. Those styling details really made the difference in some cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's one thing I really miss about the annual styling changes they had back in those days...the wide variety it gave you. For example, I might prefer the '63 full-sizers with the forward thrust, while some people might prefer the '64 with the more upright lights, and some people might prefer the '65, which was sleeker yet bulkier, but went back to the forward thrusting headlights. So with all that variety, it's easier to endear yourself to a favorite.
How about a 1968? That is my third Blue picture.
This one looks like it has a white top. That was common of convertibles of the midsize GMs that year. It looked somewhat feminine to my younger thinking. A lot of the owners were women at the time. White seats was another common option.
I was pleased by the Cutlass, but the 65 Tempest is the jewel for the day for me. It was a Shriner fund raiser downtown. The cars were all in good shape; no half junk. A higher percentage were original than usual at the cruise ins. For about 80 cars, a really good show for me.
Large Picture
Unless you like RED:
Large picture
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I prefer blue.
You've got to be kidding
One owner, not cherished
MB was making their chic R107, Caddy people fought back with this
This was once a normal color for a car
Rich leather
Go on an adventure
Shame this has been neglected
If you like red
Nice looking, bad spelling
Malaise droptop
Going out on a weird note
Really?
No peers
Oddity
Big money follows these
1984 Audi with a $19,500 starting bid: "Dear eBay.....I think there is something wrong with your website....I started and auction and nobody even......"
1980 Seville Chop Top with manual top and Holley Carburetor: "Dear eBay....I think there is something wrong with...."
Corinthian Leather---well they got the seats and the top covered, but really I prefer leather doors and fenders as well.
420 SEL -- good parts car
Messerschmitt KR 200 -- bids will go higher, too. Don't ask me, I don't know why.
1961 Desoto---apparently met the reserve -- seller hit a home run on that one.
65 Benz 220S --- not bad, but looks like the compensator and the gas tank are leaking. Starting bid is way too high for the car. Start at $2500 and put a $5000 reserve on it.
58 Packard Wagon -- a rare albeit hideous car, and not one speck of Packard in it. It's a Studebaker. Bids are about right---take the money!! :surprise:
1980 Toyota Wagon --- I'd like to have this car, but really the starting bid is silly. $3500--$4000 should do the job.
1920 Peerless --- fine old car, very well built, but 1920s vehicles are not an easy sell anymore. I'm thinkin' $20K is about right on this one. Reserve seems too high. Everyone who loves these cars is now dead.
You won't pay 20 grand for an Olympic Edition Audi 5000?
Actually, I think a Seville convertible, if kept at its normal length and wheelbase, would look pretty sharp. But you can't just take a couple feet out of a car's wheelbase and expect it to look tasteful.
I like that '60 DeSoto Adventurer. One thing I always thought odd, though was how the 383 cross-ram, which had two 4-bbl carbs, only put out 8 hp more than the 383-4bbl...333 hp versus 325. I guess the dual quads gave it more hp over a much broader rpm range, though? With the 4-bbl, it probably just peaked out at around 4400 rpm and then it was all over.
The '60 Saratoga is cool too, even in the Mary Kay color scheme. Now I wouldn't be caught dead in a modern car that color, but somehow, those old cars could wear it with some dignity. Plus, you don't see too many Saratogas around, it seems. I know they offered them in the early 50's, but then they went away for awhile and only came back from 1957-60. It was only offered as a 4-door sedan and 2/4-door hardtops, but no convertible and no wagons. Model for model, it sold about as well as the New Yorker, but I guess the NYer was a lot more desireable over the years. For one thing, it was more luxurious, and it also had bigger engines. In '57-58 the NYer had a 392-4bbl Hemi, compared to the Saratoga's 354-4bbl poly. In '59-60 the NYer had a 413-4bbl, while the Saratoga just had a 383-4bbl.
That '73 Olds 98 is nice, too. Seems like with these, the 2-door hardtops don't show up too often. They started offering coupe with a landau roof and stationary opera windows in 1974, and then in '75-76 dropped the hardtop coupe completely. The 4-door hardtops seem to have a pretty good survival rate though.
"-this ....automobile ..... far exceeds the design efforts of anything Audi had previously attempted"
Ummm, all it has is 4 different headrests, a bunch of bulky electronics from the 80s that are obsolete and take up a ton of space, and a different paintjob. What design is the seller talking about?
Caddy Seville convertible: hahahha, looks like one of those funny cars clowns would ride in. The ultra short body and the very long hood gives it bad proportions.
The 420SEL is a parts car I'd think.
The Omega conv is located in my province. It's rare but I don't think anyone cares.
The Cressida wagon may be in decent shape but the seller's head isn't. All he has is a miled up import that nobody really cares about. Even if it had only a 1000 miles I don't think he'd get his $10k. Actual value I'd say $2k-$3k max.
Messerschmitt: I saw one on the road about 6 months ago. Really funky looking thing.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
The Gremlin's bidded up to over $6000. Could you imagine telling your friends you just paid 6 grand for a Gremlin? :P
I could almost....ALMOST....see paying $4K or so for a pristine PACER, but a Gremlin? Was it one of those V-8 ones? That might be fun with a Tremec 5 speed attached. (and a St. Christopher medal).
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Still had the chrome on it, but the body was down to primer... On the move, with the top down..
I always think of Darts as being crummy little cars (early '70s?), but this had the look of a nice mid-'60s Chevelle (well.. sort of)
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
The Kaiser sedan (it looks like a convertible, but isn't.....right?) is the most interesting car out of that bunch. The price seems quite reasonable, compared to other luxury cars of that era. Plus, it's rare. I don't suppose finding parts for that thing is too much fun, though.
That 420SEL looks older somehow....I dunno if it's the Euro front end and small bumpers, or the crank windows, it just looks more 1980 than 1990 to me. Either way, no great loss.
Those Kaisers always stuck in my mind for the little rectangular window between the front and back door windows. I think it comes out to give the car a hardtop feel, but it's not a convertible.
And there's a Gremlin X web site, of course
Still had the chrome on it, but the body was down to primer... On the move, with the top down..
That sounds like it might be a '67-69 Dart. The '63-66 was kind of rounded, and started off with sort of a bug-eyed look around the headlights, probably inspired by the Turbine Car. but for '65 they tried to make it look more conventional.
I always thought a Dart convertible would be cool to have, but after dealing with Darts for 20 years now (it was September 1989 when I bought my '69 GT hardtop), I'm kinda Darted out.
The Dart was the same car from 1967-76, but in the 70's they started screwing them up, IMO. But I guess you could say the same for just about anything back then. :sick: In 1970, the Dart lost the convertible body style, as well as the GT and GTS trim levels, and was reskinned with a slight bit of "shark nose", I guess, where the grille stuck out just a bit and it was angled back at the headlights. They also gave up on trying to put big-blocks in them. And that was also when they started sloping off the rear-end, which made the car give up about 2 cubic feet of trunk space. They did still have the Swinger 340 though, which packed quite a punch for the time. I think it only came with a 4-bbl though
I think they were still kinda cool from '70-72 though, although in '73 they put the blocky bumpers on, and made it look a little pretentious with a gaudier grille that had a bit of a peak in the center.
They started cheapening the interiors in the 1970's, as well, with cost-cutting moves such as cardboard headlines, heavier use of plastic, and some of the cheapest, fakest-looking woodgrain yet known to mankind.
In 1973 I somehow found a '73 Dart Swinger, in pale blue, for sale at a used car lot for $1995. It had a 318 V-8, and was in really good shape. Looking back I probably should've bought it. I pulled up in my '82 Cutlass Supreme, which had just had a transmission rebuild. The saleguy said "What if we could do an even trade?". In retrospect, I shoulda done it, ad the Cutlass blew its engine within a year. And for all I know, I'd probably STILL be driving that '73 Dart!
But, at the time, I had my '68 Dart 270 as well, and it just seemed a much better car in every respect. It had sort of a musclecar look and feel to it, whereas this '73 seemed like the stereotypical little-old lady car.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I never did like the Gremlin, but thought the later AMC Spirit was pretty nice looking. I guess it doesn't have the vulgarity and kitsch factor to achieve the level of interest that the Gremlin seems to get. Maybe the 4wd versions might have their fans, though?
DIrt cheap, and you could fix anything on there with a crescent wrench, hammer, JB weld, and duct tape. :P
And let's not forget that the Gremlin beat the Big 3 to market against the VW Beetle.
While Gremlins were especially popular in Wisconsin, they sold in pretty good numbers nationally too. According to Wikipedia, the Gremlin was introduced on April Fool's day, 1970, six months before the Pinto and Vega. From April 1970 through 1978, a total of 671,475 were built in the United States and Canada. Not too bad for a quirkyl model.
Insofar as the quality, I guess it's a stretch to include quality and Gremlin in the same sentence, but it was less bad than the Vega, and more or less on a par with the Pinto. Chrysler imported its crummy subcompacts (the Cricket had more gremlins than the Gremlin) in the '70s.
I mention this car because I rarely see a Dynasty these days, much less one in absolute pristine condition. I would have wanted to speak with the owner, who, because the driver's portion of the split bench seat was very close to the steering wheel, I envisioned as a...as a...no, I'll refrain from gender and age profiling.
The straight six would keep on ticking, though. (now that I think about it, those engines did tick all the time.)
Also see the other videos by this youtube user, the same as who made the I Dream of Jeannie Pontiac clips. Very interesting stuff, especially for how the cars looked when new, and the prices.
1) I don't think there was 1 car in the entire bunch (not counting the mini motorhome) that had 4 doors. Even the Vega wagons had 2 doors!
2) options were expensive, especially as a % of the price. They added (along with tax and license, so I guess tht was a chunk of it?). The 74ish Vega was MSRP 3,000, and total price of 4,900.
3) the eraly Vegas looked almost identical to the Camaro from the front.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Along with sunvisors for the passenger?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Heck, I will just link them for everyone....fun way to kill time.
There's the Chevelle
Vegas Vegas everywhere
Firebirds were popular
Buick still had dignity...that period light blue is nice
The Caddys had some presence...or bulk...and price
Mopar was represented too...didn't know they made boats
You could win something worse than a Vega....a Renault!
Built to a price, yes. Crude, perhaps, but were most of the European counterparts that much more refined. I would agree with you if the comparison is with Lancia, Alfa, Mercedes and BMW, but how about most Renaults, Pugeots, OHV Fiats, for example? As for no different form the '30s, I'd tend to disagree. I'll elaborate on this last point more below.
The Gremlin was a compact that was converted into a subcompact by chopping off the trunk, and was essentially AMC's cost-effective response to the import subcompacts of the day, whereas the Vega and Pinto were true subcompacts. As compacts, the Falcon, Valiant, Lark, etc. were in a different category than the Gremlin, Vega and Pinto.
At Ford, the Falcon was really the predecessor to the Maverick, which was followed by the Fairmont, with badge engineered versions of these for Mercury. GM and Chrysler followed similar business models for their brands, except that Chrysler didn't introduce a domestically made subcompact. Its variations on the HornetGremlin theme were the Valiant/Duster and Dart/Demon. Unlike the Gremlin, though, the Duster and Demon remained compacts, albeit with very tight rear seat leg room, like the Gremlin.
I think the engines of most of the domestic compacts, except for the Lark and Rambler American, were from the '60s rather than the '30s. For example, OHVs were the exception rather than the rule in the '30s, and I believe all were narrow bore, long stroke designs. By contrast, the new for '60 Falcon, '60 170 c.i. Slant Six, '62 Chevy II, '63 AMC and various GM small car engines were all new, with short stroke designs. The Pinto, except for the base flathead 4, and Vega were all new too.
One could argue that the domestic engine designs of those years were generally less advanced than many of the European ones, but I would also contend that, other than for some of the exceptions noted, they were more modern than the engines of the '30s. And, talk about modern, the Vega 2300 was an aluminum OHCammer. It even self destructed, making it environmentally friendly, decades before serious environmental concerns were in vogue. What more could one ask for?
The Jag V12 converts and, to a lesser degree, the Triumph Stag, were lookers but the contestants who won those would have done well to dump them shortly before the warranty expired.
If by crude you mean "build quality" rather than technology, you can't confuse a light car with a crude one. A VW bug or a Peugeot 403 was a little well-built jewel compared to a Valiant, which was typically carelessly slammed together as was the mode in 1960 American cars. Lots of cheap stampings, crude welding, plastic, and indifferent assembly. The 1940s and 50s were probably the high water mark for American build quality. Check out a 1949 Chevrolet sometime and then check out a 59 Chevrolet.
60s American compact cars are pretty disappointing in terms of build quality. The higher lines, like Cadillac and Lincoln and Imperial, were a good deal better.
Probably the worst European small cars of the 60s were the British ones--equal to American compacts in cheesiness IMO