I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

Mr_Shiftright

"restored" on the cheap, looks like...or a long, long time ago. Hard to tell with those shots from a disposable camera.

tjc78

That is what alot of their cars look like. They have a 79 Continental that looks to have been freshly painted, however, the interior is worn and the engine bay is flithy. To top it off I can tell by the pics that the engine is a 400 and they have it advertised as a 460. Now that I think about it the 460 wasn't even offered in 79.

They also have an 86 Town Car with 55K advertised for 9K or something along those lines. No way... and that is from a fan of those old boats.

andre1969

I love this line in their ad for a '77 Regal: The V 6 engine provides PLENTY of POWER and IS ECONOMICAL TO BOOT !!!!

Right on! :sick: Consumer Reports tested a '77 Cutlass sedan with a 260 V-8 and got 0-60 in about 21 seconds. And I'd venture to guess the 231 V-6 would be even worse!

So just think, this big brown stripper Regal lawn ornament with the cover over the seat and the speaker cutout in the door panel can be yours for the low-low price of $8900! I think I'll pass.

tjc78

Yes, for $8900 there are much better choices. What did the 231 crank out in 77? 120 HP?

dieselone

A friend of mine in HS had a '78 or so Cutlass with a 260 v8, his mom bought it new and gave it to him about 10 years later. I know where the term "nutless cutlass" came from. That had to be the slowest car I've ever driven. Sharp though. T-Tops, console shifter, power windows, full instrumentation and even a limited slip diff! Don't know why it needed that, but it had it. Might have helped in the snow as that was the only time it would spin the wheels.

andre1969

Yes, for $8900 there are much better choices. What did the 231 crank out in 77? 120 HP?

Just looked it up in my old car book and...OUCH! 105 hp. FWIW, the Olds 260 put out 110 hp. According to Wikipedia, it eked out 205 ft-lb of torque. I think the 231-2bbl put out 190 ft-lb of torque. Dunno if those extra 15 ft-lb would make much difference, though?

Years ago, a friend of mine had an '82 Cutlass sedan with a 260. By then, it was down to 100 hp! I really don't know how to classify its performance though. I'd say it was a dog for something with 260 CID of engine. But, it seemed pretty quick for something that only had 100 hp!

boomchek

It's about the old Mercedes "Ponton" and your Fintail. It seems that they're considered to be predecessors to both the modern E and S Classes. So would a lower trim Ponton, and then Fintail be considered the equivalent of an E class while a higher trim Ponton and Fintail with bigger motors would be the same as an old S Class?

I'm asking because I saw this picture, and I always thought that the two were S class predecessors, not E class, but then I figured that back in those days these were the only sedans MB had anyways so they could be predecessors to both the modern E class (before it was called an e class) and the S class.

fintail

I think that's how people consider it, yeah. I think this is the most sensible way along their line of thought: A W120/121 Ponton is an E-class predecessor, and a W128/180 Ponton is an S-class predecessor, while a W110 Fintail is an E-class predecessor while a W111/112 Fintail is an S-class predecessor. For the most part this is a 4cyl vs 6cyl distinction. This assumes a fairly swift upmarket evolution for those S-class ancestors, as the higher Ponton and Fintail cars, while nicely trimmed, aren't nearly the equivalent of an S-class today.

It is a difficult comparison, as Mercedes really didn't use "S-Class" terminology until the W116 in the 70s at the earliest, and maybe not really until the W126, which in the last half of its life was sold along the first "E-class" named car in the W124.

The Ponton and Fintail in that pic are lower line cars, so they go along with the evolutionary idea.

stickguy

that picture reminds me of how good looking a MB was in the '70s through the early/mid 80s.

berri

Lemko, I know the 77 GP is probably a cushier car, but I still like the 69/70. For that matter, I think I like the mid sixties GP models the best.

berri

I always thought the 60's and 70's were the best looking MB, along with a few 50's models. The 90's and early 00's seemed to bring on a lot of nondescript models and product cheapening. I think MB is starting to break out in styling again recently though.

stickguy

well, a close cousin.

guy near me has a 1970ish Monte Carlo that I saw in his driveway monday. Not sure what mechanicals it has, but it is painted up like a stock car of the era.

Pretty sure it must be for Dale Sr., since they have a Dale Earnhardt boulevard street sign at the end of their driveway!

toomanyfumes

That light blue with the red interior is a pretty color combo..

blh7068

"I recall hearing about the 1972 strikes that crippled F-body production, but I don't know the story of 455SD engine parts/supply problems. Could you give more details or point/link to a reference?"

Probably should have been more specific. Engineering issues led to parts availability problems....mainly with connecting rods, and there were also issues with the oil pump. There were also minor delays with emission cerification too in March of 73. That was the same time that Pontiac announced that the SD 455 would only be available in the Formula and TA.

As for the strike at the Norwood plant, yes, those crippled production. All partially assembled cars had to be scrapped because they couldnt meet the 1973 safety regulations for 5 mph bumper impact. If that strike hadnt happened there likely wouldnt have been a SD motor. GM strongly considered dropping the F body after that '72 strike year.

Hope that helps.

fintail

Saw something I forgot existed today - a Toyota Paseo convertible. Also, another 5 door Camry, and a ca. 65 El Camino.

explorerx4

a couple of beauties

omarman

Nice Mustang vert, 1990 or ? Plus it's wearing white which looks good on Mustangs and some other classic pony cars too.

But the link said to look for a couple of beauties. Where's the other one? Making room for a second Stang in the garage? Tell Post more pics!

just kidding. nice driver at the wheel too.

fintail

A few oddities this morning - first gen Celica, terrible condition...77-79 T-Bird, terrible condition...A-H 3000, in rush hour traffic with an infant in a child seat :confuse: , W108 280SE with factory air at the MB specialist who works on my cars, a W126 300SEL with 195K on it in very nice condition at the same place, and the high end lot near the MB specialist Has this nauseatingly overpriced but extremely cool thing

My own obscure car, the E55, is in for brakes and an inspection as the warranty ends later this year. I hope it doesn't need rotors...at 43K miles, it shouldn't. However, I suspected the tires were getting down there, and the guy who runs the place confirmed my suspicions. Yay, another grand + down the drain. The rears seem to be wearing faster than the fronts...maybe I drive a little too enthusiastically :shades:

Mr_Shiftright

Dealer! Step back from the paint fumes.....

Well he's only about $20,000 over market. Not too bad. :P

andys120

I spotted a late (big bumpers='74-'76) BMW 2002 parked on a city street this AM, it was in pretty poor shape with bad paint and some rust showing, damn shame.

fintail

That's exactly what I thought. I saw it on the lot, and looked at it...no price of course, but I was thinking "30K". I got home and looked it up, and my jaw dropped. Admittedly it is pristine, but my 30K was based on that too.

boomchek

Thanks, that's what I thought!

Mr_Shiftright

Those are worth considerably less than earlier 2002s, ergo not worth restoring, or even close.

boomchek

That's funny, I never knew there was a Paseo convertible, or maybe did know but it was quite a forgettable car and I too forgot it existed.

Mr_Shiftright

$30K would be a home run in fact.

boomchek

Your Mustang looks as good as ever, especially for a 20 year old car. You should be able to get collector plates on it soon, no? Here it's 25 year or older vehicle that qualify for collectors.

garv214

Now Andre The Olds 260 V8 wasn't quite as bad as Consumer Reports would have you think. The Olds wasn't going to impress many with its neck-jerking acceleration, but back in 1978 the performance bar was set so low that didn't seem too bad. I found this article on-line, and this level of "performance" is more in line with my memory.

link title

My family had both a 1978 Olds Cutlass Supreme (with the 260 V8) AND a 1981 Cadillac V8-6-4. Needless to say we walked to a lot of places back then... :sick:
Actually, the Caddy never had any engine/computer issues confirming the adage that even a blind pig can find a truffle once in a while...

My sister had a 1976 Mustang II with the 4 cyl and an automatic, now THAT car I strongly suspect would need 20+ seconds to hit 60 mph...

fintail

I should offer them 20K and see them cuss at me :shades:

If I wanted a G, I'd take an 80s Euro diesel model, hopefully in a period color like an ugly gold or a pukey green. I would greatly prefer a 2-door.

fintail

I think it was a MY 1997 only car. A Tercel coupe in effect...nothing to remember there.

jrosasmc

I'm sorry, but I just had to post this here:

http://bringatrailer.com/2010/06/05/good-as-new-minty-2-owner-1974-audi-100ls/

Even I can't remember the last time I saw one of these in person. I know that this particular model isn't one of Shifty's favorites, as well as other German car enthusiasts. I remember a friend of mine telling me about the '77 100LS he had years ago and all the horror stories involving the inboard disc brakes, electrical issues, and other stuff that always went wrong with it. Old Audis always seemed to make my Volvo 240 look like a Model T in comparison. :confuse:

Mr_Shiftright

au contraire.....I used to own a 100LS in Colorado and it served me very well. I don't believe I ever said a bad word about them---even if their reliability record was spotty.

They were among the first true "Euro Sedans" into America, and way more agile than the BMW Bavaria Wart Hog. I had studded snows on it, and it did very well in the Rockies.

toomanyfumes

I learned to drive on a 1976 Cutlass Supreme with the 260 V-8. It was slowww, a real dog. My 6 cyl. AMC Gremlin was faster.

Car never ran right, either. On cold start, would idle extremely high untill you kicked the choke down, then it would stall. Pull into traffic, car would stall. Dealer could never quite fix it, but I guess a lot of cars of this era had driveabiliy problems due to emission controls.

imidazol97

The choke system was a two stage and requiring setting of both stages to work right. The pollution control was the main goal. It quickly got off the richer, colder stage and into the light choke that didn't like slower idle speeds.

explorerx4

WHAT? you didn't notice that pear tree in the left side of the picture?
it's a '91, first year for the iconic 16 inch pony rims.
last year for forged pistons.

explorerx4

yes, next year i can get antique plates and maybe collector car insurance.
right now, i am paying through the nose for insurance on my regular policy, but it is only for a few months, so we just pay the bill.
you should see how good it looks when it is cleaned up.

andre1969

Actually, I'd think that in an '81 Cutlass, the 260 would do better than 16.5 seconds in 0-60. The car Consumer Reports tested was a 1977 Cutlass Supreme sedan, the last year for the big, pre-downsized model. It weighed about 4,000 lb, whereas I'd guess an '81 would be around 3100-3200 lb?

I always thought the Consumer Reports test was unfair, though. While the Cutlass Supreme they tested had that tiny 110 hp 260, they compared it to a newly downsized Impala with a 305, a Ford LTD-II with a 302, and either a Plymouth Fury or Dodge Monaco with a 318. All similar-weight cars (the Impala was actually a few hundred lb lighter I think), but with engines that probably had around 140-150 hp, and 240-250 ft-lb of torque. IIRC, the other 3 cars all managed 0-60 in 12-13 seconds.

The vast majority of Cutlass Supremes came with an Olds 350, to the point that it created a shortage of them and Old had to start substituting Chevy or other 350's in the Deltas and 98s (for some reason the Cutlass got first priority with the Olds unit). However, an Olds 350, with 170 hp, and its excellent (for the time) adaptability to emissions controls, probably would have run circles around those other 3 cars. And the whole point of the test was to show how much more sense the newly downsized Impala made. While it had the advantage of a bigger interior and trunk, it still probably wouldn't have looked good for the Olds to walk the Chevy in acceleration testing.

And that year, the Cutlass didn't offer anything that bridged the gap between the 260 and 350. I think the Buick Century/Regal was sort of the same way. You either got the 231 V-6 or you got the 350 V-8 (although my book lists a Chevy 305 being offered in the Century wagon as an option...350 was standard. :confuse: )

I guess if Consumer Reports wanted a fairer comparison, they could have gone with a Chevy Malibu with a 305, or a Pontiac LeMans with a 301. But, maybe Consumer Reports just had to test whatever they could get ahold of, and couldn't find one of those other cars?

I remember driving a 1978 or so Cutlass Supreme coupe that had a 260, that was for sale at a local car dealership. At the time I had an '82 with the 231. Just going by the seat-of-my-pants feel, they seemed about equivalent.

My Cutlass was kind of a turd...only car I ever had where both the transmission and engine went out on me. But still, I liked that car. It was comfortable, good looking, beautiful shade of light jadestone with matching rally wheels. And while it was a dog from 0-60, it was actually pretty good out on the highway, once you got it rolling. Now I did have a '69 Dodge Dart GT with a 225 slant six that was better, but it was also lighter and had better gearing, and about the only emissions control on it was a pcv valve. That Cutlass was definitely quicker than the 1980 Malibu coupe I had, which had a 229 V-6. 115 hp, but I think it came up short in torque...something like 175 ft-lb versus the 231's 190?

fintail

Ultimate W220 turned up at a local dealer...nice depreciation

lemko

...gold 1971 Chrysler Newport two-door hardtop with a black vinyl roof parked on Rhawn Street about half a block from Tabor Avenue and a nice red 1967 Chevrolet Camaro convertible turning right onto Rhawn Street from Bingham in NE Philly.

lemko

Eeek! Pretty Poison! This car will clean you out faster than that Vegas showgirl you married last night when you were on the ragged edge of alcohol poisoning! Ow! When did I get this tattoo?

texases

Christian, now this is one of the more clever SPAM posts I've seen. On topic, except for the links...congrats! :sick:

dieselone

Eeek! Pretty Poison! This car will clean you out faster than that Vegas showgirl you married last night when you were on the ragged edge of alcohol poisoning! Ow! When did I get this tattoo?

Sounds like fun:) I say buy the car and head to Vegas!

Mr_Shiftright

Like Dennis Hopper said about his 8-day marriage to Michelle Phillips:

"The first 7 days were fun".

fintail

It really has that lure...extremely rare (especially as not black), full option load, 4 place seating, low production, twin turbo V12, MSRP after tax ~200K...and only as expensive to maintain as a large house.

Mr_Shiftright

For a car like that, I'd bargain hard, and just drive it for 6 months and never touch it---I wouldn't even dare change the oil---then sell it for what you paid and chalk it all up to an experience you were glad you had.

fintail

That's a problem - it is still depreciating. No way will it be worth in 6 months what it is worth now, even if you buy it wholesale. Very limited customer base for that thing now, as it is an obsolete platform - the affluent posers will be looking for W221 cars which can be had for much less already, and it is too expensive for posers in lower price brackets, so MB/AMG nuts are the only takers. The way to get one is wait a few more years and find one being let go by the meticulous eccentric aged original owner.

Mr_Shiftright

No bottom in sight, huh? Oh well. Eventually it can't go any lower. If we take a look at the a famously depreciating car---the BMW 7-series, they can't seem to go much below $10,000. I bet that's the 10-year-old price for the Benz--maybe a touch more.

fintail

I think 10K is the point for such cars, yeah. Decent C43s and early W210 E55s seem to be stopping there, C36s not much less - of course, this is for genuinely good cars, and there are some abused and neglected beasts out there. The closest old relative to that S65 would be a 2001 S55 - which can be had in the upper teens now.

boomchek

Very limited customer base for that thing now, as it is an obsolete platform - the affluent posers will be looking for W221 cars which can be had for much less already, and it is too expensive for posers in lower price brackets, so MB/AMG nuts are the only takers.

That's a pretty accurate customer analysis. If I had a choice I'd just go for a newer W221 S Class. You can't really use this car to its full potential on this continent anyways, and a newer S450 would make a better poser mobile with good performance.

Mr_Shiftright

500+ HP is just ridiculous in America these days.

fintail

Around here I have seen very nice looking 3 year old W221 S550s in the upper 40s. Probably one of the better used lux buys out there, as they seem to have a very good reliability record so far, and lots of amenities. Nearly 400hp is enough even for a barge like that. It will be a lot less drama than the S65, although not as cool.