Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'd imagine that any "german" Bentley would be as reliable as any other German car....which means "glitchy but okay". They are beautifully made, though.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Some new RR and Bentleys are cool, but they have to be careful to avoid the nouveau riche [non-permissible content removed] image, which can be seen now and then especially in the Continental.
The Germans also get a huge ego boost over controlling what has become such a big part of British culture.
I agree, that Grand Marquis is a handsome rig. :P Seriously though, I can see the connection Lemko makes between the cars. I think it's in the way the front-end is upright overall, but slightly wedge-shaped.
LOL.. that one was actually mine!
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Thanks, it was my first car! At the time of that picture (96?) I had Michelin XW4s on it, they had a very thin white wall. It was the same tire the newer Town Cars had at the time. My car had the grey velour and had every option except the Tripminder computer. Did yours have the "Instaclear Windshield?" I loved it, was like a rear defroster for the windshield.
My 89 TC was the same colors as your 89 GM.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Good 'ol R12 freon. Mine was great too. My 89 TC was converted to R134A and was good, but not like the GM. I would have to assume they were the same system.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
That long wheelbase might help the car look more streamlined, too. That car's about the same length as a Grand Marquis, but wb is over 8" longer, so that cuts down on the overhang. Also, I don't think it's the flat wheels themselves that make the car look sleeker, but the fact that it has a wider track, so the body doesn't seem to overhang so much on the sides.
The downside of long wheelbase is of course maneuverability and the fact that you have to strengthen the frame more.
Rolls are locomotives on rubber tires, that's true.
Are they worth the money you pay in 2010? Probably not. Are they impressive to drive? Oh, yeah. It's amazing how fast they are for their weight and size.
I think a bit more rear overhang can make a car look better, but only to a certain degree. I guess it's kinda like Goldilocks and the 3 bears...there can be not enough, too much, and just right. And it all depends on the overall style of the car.
As for that Silver Seraph, for awhile I didn't like that style of Rolls, as it just seems a bit generic compared to the older ones. But I think it looks a lot better than some of the new ones...
These things make me think of a cross between (among?) this, this, this, and this!
Abrupt deck lid designs remind me of shave tail mules. (something missing)
I don't care for the current Phantom.
Looks like this:
You know how it is, the pendulum in car design swings this way and that, just like fashion. Someday we'll have bell bottoms and tail fins again. :P
Hopefully not at the same time! It'll look like the bizzarrely anachronistic world of the later episodes of "Happy Days!" We'll have '70s hairstyles and fashions in a 1950s world!
Stylistically, I think it makes the car look awkward, but I imagine if they shortened the roof to give it better proportions, it would make the back seat uninhabitable.
The Lincoln MKS has sort of the same affliction:
I don't think adding any more rear overhang to the car would help. However, at 112.9", the wheelbase is awfully stubby for a car of this size class. Heck, a Chevy Malibu is something like 112.3"! I think if they kept the C-pillar on the MKS as is, but moved the rear axle and everything behind it back a few inches, it would balance the car out. As is, the car just looks like it would "see-saw" too much going down the road, although I'm sure its suspension is sophisticated enough to prevent that.
I wonder if the GS was designed for increased rear headroom, and they didn't think of how awkward it would look. As it is now, it wouldn't take much to give it a rear hatch like a BMW 5er GT.
Personally, I like the look of the body being stretched over four wheels, with the wheels pushed out to the corners....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Although I think the 3-series does a better job with that reverse-slant on the rear door and the elongated C-pillar than most. BMW also does a pretty good job with proportioning the wheelbase and the overall length. The 3-series is only about 178-179" long, yet rides a 108.7" wb. So that's kinda like a compact car with a midsized wheelbase.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I am a somewhat tall fellow and I have plenty of room up front. The back seat and trunk beat the 5-series hands down. I am comparing the prior generations of both cars, but the interior of the Lexus uses nicer materials than the BMW. I love BMWs. I've already had a couple of them and I am currently shopping for another. However, just about everything on the Lexus just seems better quality than the BMW.
Also, I can change the oil myself for less than $20 and in less than 20 minutes. It has't required anything else in the past year. It has bulletproof reliability particularly when compared to a BMW.
I think BMWs have nicer looking exteriors in general, though. Plus, you can get a manual transmission in one.
I think one thing that might be causing that look in C-pillars these days is that BMW-esque jig in the rear door. Back in the old days, that jig used to be down toward the base of the C-pillar, so only a small part of the rear door kicked back and the bulk of the C-pillar had a forward thrust to it, like this:
However, somewhere along the line, the old Rambler-esque "Reverse Slant" C-pillar got dusted off and introduced to a new audience...
Back in the old days, the rooflines were more upright, and they had wraparound rear windows, so the overall C-pillar didn't take up too much room. Plus, they had those longer decklids and weren't as concerned about space efficiency, so they put the C-pillar where they thought it would look good, not where it would help out with back seat interior room. These days though, with more focus on interior comfort, plus aerodynamics, and the fact those old wraparound windows weren't cheap to make, probably forces the roofline into a more serious rake, and when you add in the stubby rear-ends of today's cars, it just makes the whole thing look a bit awkward.
Expensive claims
Long hood
Little red survivor
Nice upholstery pattern
Long story
Early pillarless of sorts, good bids
For the Francophile
You'll never run into yourself
Iffy car, iffy boat
Good use of resources
8 feet tall? Really? Sounds a bit hyperbolic, but you know, I don't know.
Back in 1916, most cars on the road were Model T Fords, and of the remainder, most of them were short-lived both in manufacturing and in reliability. But the Hudson was a good ol' car. I'd love to have this car, absolutely.
The car also looks very modern for 1916 with its lack of brightwork and its streamlined cowl. It must have been very modern at the time.
the '73 CDV: why bother restoring? And incorrectly at that: awful velour-ish interior, digital (are you SERIOUS?) gauges, ick. Nice outside, horrible inside, and nobody cares. 1973 ANYTHING American sucks.
the Longest Story In The World doesn't make an '81, non-loaded Olds 88 coupe worth a whole lot, really, even with the low miles (and seller is comparing it to bubble-top Bel Airs and Impalas? Please.).
Talk about an ugly car! Well, okay, the Honda Crosstour and Acura ZDX are no better, to my eyes.
Back in 1916, most cars were open, and closed cars were in the vast minority, and were very heavy and very expensive; moreover, the ventilation in them was pretty bad---most did not have roll up winder windows at that time. Some had a slider, some just fixed in the rear. (DId anyone notice, no winders in the doors on that Hudson?)
The "California top" was clever but a devil to assemble. It must have driven people crazy.
With the 1924 Essex came a wave of reasonably priced closed cars that were not incredibly tall or clunky. It was a kind of breakthrough.
That Hudson needed all the HP it could get to push that heavy body around, I'm sure.
By the late 20s, the proportion of closed to open turned around 180 degrees, and most cars were closed by then.
Cars in 1916 were still built for function---very few were built for styling. Ads for most cars said things like "rugged and reliable" and "it'll get you there"----car companies hadn't started to "spin dreams" quite yet.
The GT should at least drive nicely - we are all used to ugly BMWs... and the Crosstour...well, I doubt it will have a long life. "Cargo incognito" has to be the most ridiculous catch phrase of late.
Good point. Unless I just haven't noticed them -- which would be difficult -- the only ones I've seen are in showrooms and the auto show. In addition to the hideous styling, they're real porkers. That weight is a real head wind for meeting the ever tightening federal fuel economy standards. Maybe these, um, things will quietly be replaced in their respective lineups.
Nice 1962ish Vette convertible.
A 1969 Camaro. Looked like a copo, with dog dish hubcaps on steelies, and a high rise hood.
A hot rodded 1965 mustang. Giant tires and a DIY sheet metal hood scoop. otherwise looked clean.
1970 Caddy convert with the land yacht plates (that guy I know).
and most shhocking, moving under it's own power, an early Jag XJS
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Saw the only two Rainiers in existence, yesterday.. 1906 and 1908 models..
They were really high-end cars, at the time.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Yesterday, looking out the window of my office (which overlooks a major highway), I saw a car break down. It sat on the shoulder for awhile, and then a flatbed tow truck finally came to pick it up. The car? Fiat X1/9, of course.
It's amusing that the ad says that foreign cars have "already adapted" the magneto ignition----when in fact the foreign cars invented it and used it a decade before the Rainer.
Magnetos are pretty reliable, but unlike the soon-to-appear ignition point distributor which appeared in the 1912 Cadillac, the magneto required fixed ignition timing, that is, one compromise setting for both high or low speed. On these ponderous old cars, not a great compromise.
Magnetos still are used of course on various machines.
Note the Rainer has no front doors---in 1906, the car was still transitioning from horse carriage to automobile, and front doors were uncommon. Also note that the lack of luggage space required all kind of junk to be carried on the running boards. The rear seats plopped right on the rear axle could easily cause the passengers to be hurled out of the car on a severe bump.
This car appears to have acetylene lighting, an actual differential (instead of chain drive) and a front-mounted engine and hood. So in many ways, quite modern for 1906.
Probably prohibitively expensive as well. The 1908 Model T will kill off most of this type of car.
All large American cars of this era are actually copies of the 1901 Mercedes, an extremely influential automobile.
I remember reading somewhere that the Dodge Brothers built the first 4-door hardtop, or at least, a rudimentary version of it. I think 1914 maybe? I think it had a fixed steel roof, and no B-pillar. However, it didn't have roll-down windows. Probably those type that snapped or clipped into place, or whatever?