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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I also drove by a house I remember belonged to a close friend's grandparents. They were Caddy nuts, and apparently still live there - in an open garage I could see a 70s Fleetwood, an 80s Fleetwood, and a 48-49 Sedanet.
Regards:
Oldengineer
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
The 94-96 Impala SS had a spurt there, but I can see it sagging already. Stagnant values at best; oddly enough the criteria of the pecking order for these cars is that the '96 brings more money because it has the automatic gear shift on the floor instead of the steering column. Whuppie.
I always hated cars with bucket seats but no floor shifter...like '94 and '95 Impala SS models, and Ford Thunderbirds of the sixties.
I think another reason the '96 SS brings more, is it has real analog gauges instead of the stupid digital instrumentation. Plus, it's the last year. I could be totally wrong on this, but I wonder if it's also desired because it's the lowest production year of the three, or not. You could also get maroon and dark green exterior colors, but without looking I'm not sure when that started. I'm thinking all '94's were black.
I think there was something about the 1995 that makes it a bit more valuable than the 1994 as well, but I forget what. Maybe they added a tach or something? I remember it was minor. Personally, I'd be willing to pay a little more for a 1996 with the floor shift, but not thousands more. Maybe a few hundred?
The 1996 also isn't exactly rare. IIRC, GM made 100,000 B-bodies total for 1996, before calling it quits early in the model year so they could convert over to 4-door Tahoes and Yukons. Of that 100,000, something like 40-45K were Impala SS'es. So that means the Caprice sedan/wagon, Roadmaster sedan/wagon, and Fleetwood combined, only pulled 55-60K units.
I think the Impala SS was really popular and desirable for awhile because, once it was gone, there wasn't anything remotely like it. There weren't any sedans left, affordable ones at least, that could come anywhere near that type of performance. But, as the years went by, cars got more and more powerful, and eventually it got to the point that an Altima, Accord, or Camry with a V-6 was probably about as fast.
Also, I wonder if cars like the Hemi Charger/300C, or even the V-8 Impala SS/Grand Prix/LaCrosse Super might have put a damper in the desireability of the '94-96 Impala SS?
As for black, I think that's the best color for the Impala SS and so do most people it seems. It was in fact the best selling color in the best selling year!
1996 is the highest production year, oddly enough. Congrats, GM, for killing a winner.
Total production of the SS is something like just over 69,000 cars, so this is a lot of cars for a "collectible". You see them for sale all the time, everywhere. Hardly a scarcity, so that keeps values down.
I actually prefer that lichen-ish green they had in 1996. Would these cars take a hit in value if you got one in green?
1996 is the highest production year, oddly enough. Congrats, GM, for killing a winner.
Yeah, GM has a habit of doing that, but in this case, it probably made financial sense at the time. I knew a lady who worked at the local auto parts store who had a 1996 Impala SS, in green. She paid about $25K for it. Now, that was a decent chunk of change at the time. But, still not a HUGE profit for GM. Plus, these cars sunk their CAFE average, so they had to build more cheap, economical, no-profit cars to keep from getting fined.
So, at the time, GM management probably saw dollar signs in their eyes, when they knew they could get $30-40K or more for the Tahoes and Yukons. Plus, being based on a cheaper-to-make, high-volume pickup, I'm sure they made tons of money. Then, there's the fact that these trucks, while guzzlers compared to the LT-1 cars, were put to a different fuel economy standard, one probably low enough that these trucks didn't sink their average.
Sadly though, with all that profit they were supposedly making, today they're a mere shell of their former selves...even their 1996 former selves. Wonder where all that supposed profit ultimately went? :sick:
Saturn...Saab...Hummer...Pontiac...Oldsmobile...
A Chevy exec once commented something like 'Imagine the products we'd have if GM hadn't flushed billions down the Saturn toilet.'
At the time (mid 90's) Saturn was a bit of a success story, selling upwards of 250,000 cars a year.
Problem was, there was no growth plan - once Saturn owners outgrew their cars, they more often than not went back to an import brand.
The L-series was meant to address that, but it turned into just another GM sourced mid-sized car, albeit with plastic panels and a good dealership service model.
By the time Saturn got some decent product, the writing was on the wall.
Good quote:
"Only one snag: like many fighter brands designed to take on low-priced competitors, Saturn was wildly unprofitable from the outset and totally unsustainable as a result. Its initial setup costs of $5 billion were soon extended as Saturn's sub-compact prices failed to cover the huge costs of a dedicated plant with massive operating costs that produced cars that shared very few parts with other GM brands. By 2000, Saturn was losing $3,000 on every car it sold. "
Hard to fathom Saturn was loosing $3k on an SL series in 2000 considering how out of date it was by then.
Saturn was doomed from the start no doubt. Had several family members drive Saturns including my wife. Not horrible in regards to reliability, but refinement was nonexistent and they were uncomfortable (for me anyway). Saturn was obviously starved to death as they never improved much on the product. My MIL's '95 SL2 wasn't any better than my wife's '92 SL2 It looked a bit different inside and out, but it was still the same rough riding penalty box. The Ion was a complete waste of time and resources and when it was released, IMO Saturn was officially dead.
Just think what how GM could have productively used the billions wasted on Saturn? Instead building one more half asses compact, maybe they could have made one good one. Well I know, that's probably to much to ask or expect from GM, particularly in the 80's and 90's.
The SL was a heck of a lot better than the Chevy Cavalier-which perhaps isn't saying much.
Oddly enough, the Cavalier was a huge investment for GM (it was supposed to be the "import fighter"-and GM wound up with an overweight, ugly, gas guzzler that wasn't as good as a 1965 Toyota. Where did they go wrong? Instead of a nice, high revving 4 cylinder engine (like Toyota made), you got half of a sawed-up V-8 (that didn't deliver much past 4000 RPM), a clunky 1930's-style manual tranny, and cheap, hard seats.Not much to show for all that effort!
So I am skeptical about the Chevt engineer's comment. :shades:
One of my friends in college had a 1985 Cavalier, dark gray 4-door sedan, and it was pretty spartan inside. The door panels were just black plastic slabs with a few creases and fake stitches molded in. It had a badge on the decklid that said "CS", or "CL", or something like that, which would be an indication to me that this thing was a step up...if so, I'd hate to see what the base model was like inside!
I think initially GM bombed with these cars for the same reason Chrysler did with the K-cars. They were advertised as inexpensive cars, but could get pricey really fast once you started loading them up. And when they first hit the showroom floors, dealers tended to order the more loaded models.
Another friend had a 1986 or 87 Cavalier sedan that was pretty loaded, and it was actually pretty nice inside. Full cloth interior, even on the armrests, and all the hard plastic was kept to a tasteful minimum. I never rode in it long enough to see if the seats were actually padded any better, or if they just had nicer material on them. My buddy's '85 had this real cheap fabric that wasn't that much better than what they make bedsheets and pillow covers out of, while the '86-87, at least, had "mousefur"
Oddly enough,
I'd agreee, particularly in the early 90's. The '92 SL2 5speed manual my wife had in college wasn't a bad car at all, it felt like a sports car compared to my '89 Mecury Tracer 2 door hatch 5speed that I drove. With the DOHC 1.9 and 5speed it was fairly quick and fun to drive. But IMO, from that point on, GM never improved the car much compared to the competition and the SL just got less and less competitive as the years went by.
Refinement is a word that will never describe a Saturn S series.
While the public really wanted more big cars (and presumably SUVs) from Detroit, lookit what the domestics were leading with in the 80s! A savage journey into the Heartbeat of America or what?
Detroit. Does not. Build small. And when they do, well, they go insane with one Nader-induced psychotic episode after another: Vega/Pinto. Chevette/Omni. Escort/K-car. It's hideous. And all of those things happened long before the Saturn koolaid was served. Picture Peter Lorre dressed as a waiter and announcing, "My name is Saturn, the Little General. You despise me don't you?" Yes.
Spotted one of those early 90s Camry wagons this morning that I hardly ever see now. By the time the early Taurus wagons got this age the novelty of their shape had long worn off. But despite the Camry nameplate these must have never been produced in similar numbers and still catch the eye:
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Town Camino?
I wonder if it was coachbuilt and not a redneck custom creation...appeared to be fairly well made, although a continental kit kind of opposes the purpose of a pickup. Almost kind of reminded me of an old fashioned flower car too, but a little too pimpy.
Those Camry wagons with dual wipers were at least kind of daring...more interesting than the following 15 years of beige.
...but they lasted a lifetime. Rugged cars that I used to frequently see as taxicabs in the DC area into the mid 2000's whenever I traveled there.
Don't know about Taurus wagons. I see more than a few 1st/2nd gen Taurus cars, but not many wagons anymore. I always thought the original Taurus wagons were kind of nice looking, but not the subsequent ovoid versions.
If Elvis had lived a little longer this could have been his flower car!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I know looks are a subjective thing, but those wagons were actually pretty successful for American Motors in their day. You want an ugly wagon, take a look at some of those early 60's Mopars like a 61 Dodge Phoenix, or 59/60 GM model. Just my opinion though!
Is it worth putting all this money into every piece on this car. It's a 2-door sedan. And it's a Special. A hardtop, a convertible, might be special enough to merit more money put into restoration...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Oh, I had a reminder of that just on Saturday, when I took my '76 LeMans to a classic car show. Now, it's been a few years since I've taken this thing out on the highway. Well, I had forgotten just how bad the hood shimmy gets at 70-80 mph...I swear the sucker looked like it was about to take flight! Other than that, the car behaved itself, but it's also been modified over the years with a stiffer suspension, dual exhaust, shift kit in the transmission, and other odds and ends, so it's probably more like a 60's car in disco drag, than a "proper" 70's car.
I think my LeMans probably has more hood than the entire length of a Smart car too. And to think the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo had about 4 inches MORE of it!
Actually a little piece of chrome on the B pillar would fix that right up!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But yeah, in the price guides the 2D post cars do seem to be valued less, but not a whole lot less.
I think it depends on the car. One problem is that on some makes, the 2D post was the El Cheapo trim line---but on a '55 Buick, not so much.
I think one thing that helps that Buick is that the 2-door has more of a coupe-ish look to it, despite being pillared. Many 2-door sedans were literally that...a sedan with the same roof, windshield, A- and C-pillars, and rear window as the 4-door...only with the B-pillar moved back a bit. That gave them a more upright, clunky look.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Must've been all that road hugging weight. Remember, only Ford offered you TWO different full sized cars in 1977. The "traditional-sized" LTD and the "right-sized" LTD-II! Or, something like that, the ad copy said.
Actually, I found those LTD-II's, and the '72-76 Torino, and '77-79 T-bird, and their assorted cousins, to be pretty comfy inside. In the front seat, at least. I remember the seating position being a bit low, but having excellent legroom. I didn't really care for the stacked headlights, though. I think I would've been willing to pay a few extra bucks for the Mercury Cougar!
Yeah, although the Ford LTD-II was a much more hasty response, as it appeared in 1977, same year as GM's downsized full-sized cars. And it was really just a re-skinned Torino, but still every bit as heavy and space-inefficient as before.
I found some stats on the EPA's website stating the 4-door LTD-II had 102 cubic feet of interior volume, and a 16 cubic foot trunk. That's about what the downsized Chevy Malibu had in 1978! Actually, the Malibu's trunk was slightly larger, at 17 cubic feet. A 4-door Caprice or Impala was rated at 111 interior, 20 trunk volume.
The LTD-II 4-door was something like 219.5 inches long, on a 118" wheelbase. The downsized Caprice/Impala was around 212", on a 116" wb. The '78 Malibu was a trim 192.7", on a 108.1" wb.
When the 1979 Mopar R-body came out, most of them were about 220" long, although the New Yorker clocked in at something like 221.3", on a 118.5" wheelbase. Interior volume was 108 cubic feet of interior space, 21 cubic feet of trunk. That always struck me as a bit odd, because the R-body feels a bit roomier inside to me than GM's B-body. Maybe it's just roomier in the places I need it though, like front seat legroom?
The R-body was based on the old B-body (Cordoba, Coronet/Satellite, "small" Fury/Monaco), but Chrysler put more effort into trying to pass it off as a full-sized car than Ford did with the Torino-turned-LTD II.
In the end though, both were failures. The LTD-II sold somewhat tolerably its first year, although nobody fell for the "right sized" full-sized car thing. People flocked to GM's shrunken big cars in droves, and coupe buyers fell in love with the new '77 T-bird. In '78, when the downsized Malibu came out, plus Ford's own efficient Fairmont, LTD II sales were further impacted, and the platform was finally ditched after 1979.
With the R-body, the made great police cars and taxis, but they weren't quite as space efficient or fuel-efficient as GM's downsized big cars. And the stylists gave them a big, heavy look, which might have scared some fuel-conscious buyers off. Plus, with the fact that Chrysler was facing bankruptcy, a lot of buyers were afraid to take a chance on a Chrysler product. Similar to the LTD-II, they sold somewhat tolerably the first year, but then in 1980, with recession and fuel crisis in full swing, and everybody wondering if Chrysler would even be around, sales tanked. The 1979's also weren't all that well-built. Ironically, build quality improved drastically for 1980-81, but so few were sold it's hard to find one today. I think they sold about 166,000 total R-bodies for 1979, but that probably dropped to about 65,000 for 1980, and I doubt if they even sold 30-35K in 1981, which was an abbreviated model year.
Oh, I still remember the commercials when those cars came out...the "H-body" I believe they were called, although just about everything Mopar had at the time, with the exception of the M-body Diplomat at al and the L-body Omni/Horizon were just K-cars in different dress. I remember the commercial with the cars zipping around, and the background music was the old war tune "Over There....Over There". And at the end of the commercial the guy doing the voice over would say something like "And we're gonna keep on fighting..." and then the song would be altered to say "Till it's OVER Over Theeere!!"
The Lancer and LeBaron GTS did get a lot of good press at the time. A BMW or Benz they were anything BUT. But, for K-cars they were pretty nice, and good performers with the turbo. I remember one car magazine touting them as "What the Tempo/Topaz SHOULD have been!"
GM did a similar thing with the N-body Pontiac Grand Am, and to a lesser degree the Calais and Somerset Regal. Initially these cars were designed to replace the RWD Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, etc...a second wave of downsizing. But, then gas became cheap and free-flowing again, and the old RWD G-bod proved to still have a lot of life, and profit, left in it, so GM instead tried to market these things as Euro fighters. The Grand Am, especially, attempted to target the BMW 3-series. Needless to say it missed that target by a mile, but it would prove to be a very popular model for GM for nearly 20 years.