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
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
it was dark green with titanium lower accent paint and a tan convertible top.
the interior was a tan with a dark gray weave in the seats.
that night, i had a nightmare that i would hate that combination after a while.
parked behind the car i bought, was a white gt with black top and interior.
i called the salesman back an split the difference between the 2 cars, which cost me some more, but i have never regretted buying my oxford white mustang.
the colors are just classic.
Of course I drove out that way. Turned out to be a nice looking '67 Camaro SS. White with black double stripes. Seemed to have aftermarket oversized (wider) wheels and tires, but it was hard to get a look at it parked in a slot. Also, from the lumpy (and loud) idle, I don't think it was quite stock. Definiately sounded like a big block, but I didn't see the badging.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I think this car is a stunner, though...and I know enough about those cars from back then that I totally believe the mileage.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Time-Capsule-Immaculate-4-670-original-mi_W0QQite- mZ160393648096QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item255834d7e0
Bill
One thing that I thought was a step down was when they went to those two-piece door panels where you had the vinyl upper and plastic lower. Probably cheaper to manufacture, since the armrest is built into the plastic, and easy to dress up for the nicer models by gluing the carpeting to the lower part, and insterting the fabric into the upper. But I just thought the older styles, where the whole door panel was one vinyl piece, and then the nicer models would add carpeting at the bottom, fabric at the top,etc. It just had a less plasticky look.
I wonder if GM took any flak for those generic black steering columns? At some point, they did start matching them to the interior again, as my '76 Grand LeMans has a burgundy column, and my 1980 Malibu had a blue one. My '85 Silverado, though, has a black column and a burgundy interior. I guess people didn't care as much, with trucks?
Too bad the original owner didn't order the Custom Deluxe Seat Belt option. Color-keyed belts with brushed-metal, small buckles.
The '73 Caprice had a color-keyed wheel and column. The '75 and later Impalas and Caprices had a color-keyed cluster.
There is also a '73 light yellow Caprice convertible on eBay with 3,270 miles. But I dislike the '73's bumpers, and that they ran the bodyside molding up over the front wheel opening that year ('74 too). Plus, for some reason, Caprice convertibles had Impala seats and door trim. Not sure why, because Caprice coupes and sedans could be had with vinyl Caprice seat trim...just not the convertibles.
I think this '71 is beautiful.
Bill
That was a good year for sure, but I actually preferrerd the less formal Impala coupe roofline.
Sometimes, you would mistakenly leave some item in the engine bay, like a plastic funnel or the dipstick, and it would be smashed as if Godzilla were stepping on a car.
I actually like both of the rooflines, so with me it would be hard to pick a favorite. I think my favorite of that generation is the 1972 Impala. Probably partly because my grandparents had one when I was a kid and I really liked it, but I just like the clean, smooth front-end that year. Not as pretentious and wanna-be-Caddy as the 1971 (although I can see the appeal of that, too), but not as fussy as the '73, which was also a bit marred by the big front bumper.
Yeah, that observation is probably valid, but I just liked something about its C-pillar and the backseat windows. I was never as keen on the formal coupe look GM did starting in the mid to late 60's. Maybe I'm just prejudiced because I thought the 66 Caprice ruined the fastback 65 Impala coupe lines! I think Chevy was smart though, because more buyers liked the formal, vinyl roofline on the coupe which did make it look a tad more upscale. Hek, I wouldn't kick it out of the garage!
An interesting design feature is the vents on the trunklid. Did these have an actual purpose? They look like something that could be related to a prehistoric 40s-50s AC system.
I don't see the vents on the trunk lid. I see a CB antenna type mount in the middle of the front edge of the lid.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I certainly wouldn't kick it out of the garage! BTW, did the Impala Custom give you any kind of interior upgrades, or just the different C-pillar?
I can see the point about the sport coupe's roof looking a bit too small for the overall body, but I think that's because I'm used to seeing the Custom coupe. I guess by 1971-73, it was the more common of the two roofs? For some reason though, when I see that roof on an even bigger car, like a Delta 88, LeSabre, Catalina, or Bonneville, it just doesn't seem out of place to me...
The Bonneville was on a lanky 126" wb that year, compared to the Impala's 121.5, and overall length was something like 226.2" versus 221".
Here's a 1972 LeSabre sporting that same roof...
Now that I look at those three pics above, I think I see why the Impala is a bit awkward. The beltline under the rear quarter windows kicks up a bit to meet the C-pillar on the Impala, while it comes back more level on the other cars, before kicking back forward. Maybe that gives the illusion of more length?
Amen brotha!
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I'm old enough to remember riding in one on a long trip...and not feeling cramped or exhausted when you got there. And the center seating position was for real people, not preschoolers.
Personally, although I liked our '77 Impala better than our '74, I miss those days.
'
That's the thing...back in those days, these big cars had to be a jack-of-all-trades. A car, minivan, SUV, and half-ton pickup all rolled into one. Those things had to be able to carry 6 people and their luggage, plus pull a trailer. Nowadays, it's much more common to have a multiple-car family so you can buy a variety of vehicles to fit assorted niches, but in those days, often one car had to do everything.
Personally, although I liked our '77 Impala better than our '74, I miss those days.
One problem with downsizing was that it often increased the measurements they use to calculate interior volume, but it caused other problems where it really counts...intrusion of the driveshaft/transmission hump, which can render the center spot useless. Less foot room under the seats for back seat passengers. How far the wheel wells cut into the car. How badly the sides curve in, the dash juts out, etc. All those things affect how you fit in the car, but don't have any bearing on shoulder room, headroom, or legroom...the components they use to calculate interior room.
Plus, these days a lot of cars get a good deal of their volume from the headroom measurement. In fact, that's how the Taurus became a "full sized" car back in 2000. In that restyle, car gained about an inch of headroom up front, a few inches in back, and a foot of trunk space. I think it was just enough to bump interior volume from 101 cubic feet to 105, and trunk space from 16 to 17. Well, if a car has more than 120 cubic feet combined, it gets classified as full-sized. So even though the Taurus didn't get any more shoulder room, for better 3-across seating, or more legroom, the EPA still ended up putting it in the same league as some of the biggest battlecruisers to ever roam the streets. And that headroom increase? Well, personally I didn't have a problem in the front seat of the 1996-99 Taurus to begin with. And in back, the sides curve in so bad I have to lean inward or else the my head hits, so they must have taken that headroom measurement in some useless spot!
I guess it can be argued that 3-across seating isn't really that critical these days. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I had 3 people across in any one of my cars. I did it in my 2000 Intrepid years ago for a family get-together, and I remember everybody remarking at how roomy it felt. And these days, I'd really rather just take two cars instead of jamming everyone into one car. But still, I do miss the stretch-out room of those older cars, and the nice, soft fabrics and vinyls and such they used. Frankly, some people may not give a damn, but it's sorta like having your own personal Tara on wheels! :P
**Edit: As for sales back in those days, Chevy combined sales of all their full-sized models, under the heading of simply "Chevy". So in that sense, the big Chevies were the most popular cars in the early 1970's. If you go just by individual models and trim levels, I think the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme hardtop coupe took top honors. I think the Cutlass lineup (everything from Salon to Supreme in coupes, sedans, and wagons) was the top seller for 1975-76, but the big Chevies took over again for 1977-79. The Citation got it for 1980, the Cutlass lineup again for 1981, and then I think it was the Escort for 1982.
The big Chevies outsold the big Fords (which were also combined under "Ford") usually by a pretty big margin, and the Plymouth Fury lineup by an even bigger one. I think the Impala became the most popular big Chevy back in 1960, when it surpassed the Bel Air. It would remain so through 1976, although in 1977 the Caprice started outselling the Impala, and would increase that margin over the years, especially once the Impala started dropping some body styles. In final-year 1985, it was down to just a 4-door sedan, probably sold mainly as police cars and taxis, and moved about 55,000 units. In contrast, the Caprice, a full lineup, probably moved around 200K plus.
I though the post was about the Buick!
EBay
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't think they had much character, they were as bland as the product designers could possibly make them and they weren't all that relaxing to drive IMO. I found it quite tiring on a trip to deal with the marshmallow ride and the willowy steering.
As for "riding the hump", on anything but a short hop, it was awful. Six people can ride more comfortably in a Minivan than they ever could in a '70s Impala. I never could understand the rational for only two doors on a supposedly six-passenger car.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
an Odyssey or Sienna can haul 6 people + a ton of stuff in great comfort, or carry as much stuff as a pick up.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
They are in a sense, a perfect example of what happens when your products have no real competition. You get lazy and stupid.
That blue Chevy has some of the last vestiges of late 60s modernism, which was lost when things really bloated up and got pretentious as the 70s wore on.
I always wondered how they handled the water draining into those vents.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's the best hood closing story I ever read. Thanks!
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
That is definitely true. My grandpa always had a boat and a camper and he never owned anything but large coupes and or sedans. He towed a 22' camper numerous times from Indiana to Florida with a '75 Buick Regal. He had to add air shocks, a trans cooler, and a good Reese weight distributing hitch with sway control.
When he wore out the Regal and replaced it with an '83 Olds 88, he sold the camper and the boat. I don't think that Olds really could have handled a 23' camper weighing nearly 5k with the 307 v8 and tall gearing. Plus I don't think he wanted to ruin the ride of the Olds either. By that time he was pretty much done camping and boating.
Today, I have a 25' camper and a 21' boat to haul around. A 1/2 ton truck/SUV is the minimum to tow the camper today. It's about 6klbs loaded. Then add people and gear to the tow vehicle and you really need something with 7k lbs+ tow capacity to safely haul it. My boat is about 4,500lbs and can be towed with most midsize SUVs and some crossovers.
A minivan certainly has the most usable layout and is the way to go for family duty. But for those of us that tow a lot, a 1/2 ton truck/SUV is really needed. Another thing that greatly impacts towing ability is wheelbase. My Expedition is rated to tow 9k lbs, but in no way can it safely tow a 32' 8k lb travel trailer. With that kind of trailer length you need something with a wheel base well over 130" to safely tow. The 119" of my Expedition is marginal for my camper.
Just like many vehicles, boats and campers have gotten bigger and heavier too. Back in the 70's the average boat was 18' at best, had a much lighter outboard engine and might have weighed 2,500lbs max. Today the average boat sold is probably 21'-23' with an iron block/head v8 i/o (engine and drive of a 305 or 350v8 and outdrive is a 1,000lbs alone) and easily weighs 4-5,000lbs. These weights include the trailer.
Same with campers. During the 60's & 70's you rarely saw campers over 23' or so. Most people had pop-ups or a conventional camper of 20-23' max that didn't have slide-outs which add a lot of weight. How many 5th wheel trailers did you see on the road during the 70's? Very few. Now, in the spring and fall when the snow birds head to and from the South, it's nothing to see several 35' plus 5th wheels being towed with a 3/4 or 1 ton crew cab diesel p/u.
Very few of those "battlecruisers" from the 60's & 70's could safely tow a 6,000lb camper. The big block isn't the problem, but the tall gear ratio and super soft suspension isn't going to cut it.
Now today, you do see a lot of light weight pop-ups being marketed to sell to the midsize SUV/ minivan crowd. Still, a family of 5 plus gear really limits what most minivans can tow. Even a minivan with a 3,500-4,000lb tow rating can only safely tow 2,500-3,000lbs max after you deduct the weight of the people and gear from the GCWR (gross combined vehicle weight rating) of the van.
The most dangerous hoods are actually older Mercedes.
Well, one problem I've always had with minivans, and SUV's for that matter, is since those 2nd and 3rd row seats are meant to be removed, folded, stowed, or wheatever, they compromise comfort considerably. It might still be better than cramming three people across, but still far from perfect IMO. And I tend to find the front seat comfort of minivans to be a bit lacking. I know they've improved over the years, but still too van-like for my tastes, where you might sit up high, but the seat just doesn't go back far enough.
But yeah, for the most part, I'd say a minivan IS more practical than your typical 70's battlecruiser of days gone by. Just be careful though, because they're easier to overload since you DO have more volume. The GVWR on a 2010 Sienna, for example, is 5690 lb. Curb weight is 4295, for a spread of 1395 lb. In comparison, the GVWR of my '76 LeMans, a midsize coupe, is 5622 lb. Base weight is something like 3870 lb, although I'm sure optioned up the way it is, and with a/c, it's easily 4,000 lb.
A minivan probably is the most versatile vehicle today, though. While SUVs have that rugged, macho image, often they end up with a lower cargo rating than a minivan!
Back over the summer, when my mechanic had my '76 LeMans in for about a week, he smacked his head on the hood latch enough times that he ended up taking it off! On this car, the sharp part of the latch is on the underside of the hood, and the part where it latches into is on the header. I think most cars were like that back then, but every other old car I've owned had a hood that opened up higher, so it wasn't an issue.
Oh yeah, they couldn't do it stock...even in those days you really had to order a towing package that got you quicker gearing, the tranny and oil cooler, etc. I don't know about the older 60's car, but the '71-76 GM full-sizers and the '74-78 Mopar C-bodies could be equipped to tow up to 7,000 lb. I had a great-uncle who had a 1974 Impala coupe (can't remember now if it was the hardtop or the one with the stationary windows that came out that year) with a 400, and he regularly towed a 30-foot Terry trailer with it. I dunno how much something like that would've weighed back then...maybe 4-5,000 lb?
I think GM's '73-77 intermediates could be equipped to tow up to 4,000 lb. I want to say the downsized '77-90 models could tow up to 5,000 lb, but I wonder if that was the earlier ones? Once the 350's 400's, and 403's were purged, and Caddy went to that little aluminum thing, I can't imagine these cars were good for towing much. Same with the big Fords. Could a 302 with 129-150 hp, depending on the year, really tow anything? Chrysler's towing package on the 1979-80 R-body consisted of the 195 hp copcar engine, Torqueflite 727 transmission, and 9 1/4 rear-end with a 3.23:1 axle ratio. Once that engine went away, I couldn't see the 318 being good for much, although I guess if they put a 727 tranny and the big rear-end with short gearing, it might do okay, just wouldn't get you there too fast.
With most FWD cars, isn't towing capacity usually limited to about 1000-2000 lb?
What are the dangerous MB hoods, Shifty? For the radiator shell sticking down, inviting you to slam your head into it over and over?
I am not certain, but pretty certain, that the Cutlass Supreme hardtop coupe didn't really just take off like a jet until the '73 model year (opera window and all). I feel certain that the Impala 4-door sedan (pillared) was most-likely the best-selling single-model American car from 1960 through 1974 or 1975. Besides being the family-car choice of middle-America, it was a fleet 'darling' too and I doubt the Supreme coupe was. I do remember the Cutlass Supreme series taking over the Number 1 spot in 1976; then the excellent full-size Chevys taking over again in '77.
One other great thing about cars back then: Choice. It used to be that you would NEVER see an exact duplicate of a car. Fifteen or more color choices were the norm, with five or six interior colors. Options weren't sold in packages so you could really 'custom tailor' a car. There were usually three trim levels in whatever car you were looking at. Starting around the mid or late '80's is when I first saw identical cars in every way, priced identically, parked next to each other on local new-car lots. I hate that.
Bill
I'd have to say more than that, maybe closer to 6k-7k lbs. My 25 footer with two slides and a/c etc is about 5,600 empty.
I think GM's '73-77 intermediates could be equipped to tow up to 4,000 lb. I want to say the downsized '77-90 models could tow up to 5,000 lb, but I wonder if that was the earlier ones? Once the 350's 400's, and 403's were purged, and Caddy went to that little aluminum thing, I can't imagine these cars were good for towing much. Same with the big Fords. Could a 302 with 129-150 hp, depending on the year, really tow anything? Chrysler's towing package on the 1979-80 R-body consisted of the 195 hp copcar engine, Torqueflite 727 transmission, and 9 1/4 rear-end with a 3.23:1 axle ratio. Once that engine went away, I couldn't see the 318 being good for much, although I guess if they put a 727 tranny and the big rear-end with short gearing, it might do okay, just wouldn't get you there too fast.
Most of those cars could probably handle 3k-4klbs OK as they at least had a decent amount of torque. I know the '92 to maybe '05 CrownVic could be equipt to tow 5klbs. I think that included a higher gear ratio, rear air suspension, dual exhaust, h/d cooling etc, but I think that package was discontinued around '05 or so.
IIRC, the last car that could really tow would have been the last of the full-size D platform Fleetwood. I think those could be equipt to tow near 6-7lbs with the 350 LT1 and tow package. The B-Body Caprice/Roadmaster could do some decent towing too. Particularly with the 5.7.
I don't think the 318 was much good for anything other than being durable. My FIL had a 318 in a late 80's 3/4 ton Ram van. Man, that is probably one of the most gutless vehicles I've ever driven. It was painfully slow towing his bass boat that might have weighed 3k lbs.
I'm sure with EPA regulations etc, it's about impossible to have a car that can tow anything. I don't think any car today is rated to tow more than a 1k lbs.
Yeah, can't do that with to many cars these days unless it's a very expensive one. But you can do it with full-size trucks. The option list on them is a mile long. Probably can't get as many colors as back in the 70's, but you still have multiple choices for engines, wheel base, cab layout, and then misc. features. Still even with the trucks, lots of things grouped into packages, you certainly can't order much ala cart these days.
Oh yeah, you sometimes came across some really interesting combinations. At one point my childhood best friend had a late '60s Dodge wagon with a 383, automatic, air, and various other options, but without power steering or brakes.
What was the most useful thing about the options back then, however, was that you would have your choice of five or more engines (if you included carburetor options), at least three transmissions (3-speed with or without overdrive, an automatic or two, and maybe a 4-speed), and about six available axle ratios. It really gave you a chance to tailor your car to your intended use.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I imagine most people bought what the dealer ordered and they probably ordered inventory with standard options they new most people would want and be willing to pay for.