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
not fast, being a 4 cyl AT, but we survived in it somehow.
funny story, they bought it used, and were told it was a 6 cyl. Not sure how long it took before someone figured out it really was a 4!
the one you really want is the 302 V8 4 speed car. Pretty much a mustang underneath, but maybe lighter, much roomier inside, and a total sleeper. And all the go fast and handling parts from the stang fit!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I think one of these cars would be awesome with a 302, but they were probably few and far between. I think the 302 was only offered in 1978-79, maybe 1980. In later years they offered a small 255 V-8 that had something like 115 hp. It was a dog of an engine, and I remember hearing Lemko carry on about what a dog the 255 was in his Dad's T-bird. But in a Fairmont, it might not have been too bad.
Another offshoot off the Fairmont that was kinda neat was the 1984-85 LTD LX. It had a 302 V-8 with 165 hp. Essentially, it was an LTD police car in civilian clothing. They only made something like 3,000 of them. They weren't exactly musclecars, as 0-60 was something like 9 seconds, but that was still better than a lot of cars in that era.
Nah, same platform as a Mustang, but the Fairmont drove differently. The V8 made it front end heavy, and the 4-speed was geared poorly. The I-6 was the best engine for the Fairmont. Unexciting, but still the best of the bad. The downsized GM intermediates were better than the Fox body Fords.
Around '83 Ford got serious about improving the Mustang, but all the '79-'82 Mustangs had going for them was looks. If only the '79 Mustang had been as good as it looked, Ford would have had a winner for its day. The 2.3 I-4 was a slug. The I-6 was just okay, but the manual transmissions offered with it were lousy. The V8 offered mediocre performance (to be generous), and yielded poor fuel economy.
The driver was wearing a floppy hat and big sun glasses so I could not ID him/her. From the back and side looked similar to the Ferrari that Tom Selleck used to drive in Magnum PI.
I know this car is not a classic yet, but is certain to be one some day, and I will remember the day I saw it. Ed Begley Jr. used to drive a GM EV-1 in this same area so it could have been him.
In the fall of '77 Dad wanted a new car to replace his 5-door '75 Hornet Sportabout. I don't recall any particular issues with the Hornet except that it was a bit plain-jane. He was a real estate salesman and I think he wanted a nice car to drive his clients around in.
I had read the articles comparing the Fairmont favorably to the Volvo. Dad had owned Volvos and liked them, so this seemed like a promising candidate. To say we were disappointed was an understatement. While the look was fine, the trim, even in the more deluxe models, seemed cheesy. The car had a very light and willowy feel to it, lacking the bank-vault feel of the Volvo. It just didn't compare. Now it was cheaper, but you had to option it up quite a bit to get a decent car, and then it became less competitive.
There is a redone 2-door around locally that the owner has dropped a Mustang 5.0 drivetrain into, with floor shift, Mustang seats, and added a set of Mustang wheels. It looks nice enough, though the orange paint isn't my cup of tea even though it is nicely applied. It was for sale last year - I think $8000 was the price. Don't think it sold.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Only 11,500 miles
As 300s go this is pretty mid-pack in terms of equipment. It is a little spendy but there can't be many left like this. The dilemma is always whether you want an original car with a few flaws or a restored car where the flaws are fixed - or covered up.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
It was a little quicker than the I-6, but not worth the extra weight, cost, and gas mileage penalty.
"Another offshoot off the Fairmont that was kinda neat was the 1984-85 LTD LX."
If you were going to go for a Fox V8 sedan, this was the one to have. The suspension also had enough upgrades to make it somewhat better than the Fairmont and the Fox platform Granada.
Or perhaps it never came with them? I know we think that they were required on all '69 models but the way the federal requirements worked was that they usually applied to cars manufactured after a certain date. For example, my '68 Cutlass was built in September of '67. Most people think that all '68 models have shoulder belts, but mine does not since it was an early production car and they were not a requirement for manufacturers until Jan. 1 of '68. This is likely an early production '69 given the sale date of Nov./68 so maybe it is the same.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Now, I might have a totally different opinion if I had to drive that car today, but at the time I kinda liked it. It seemed to handle better than my 1980 Malibu. More nimble, and just felt like a smaller car, even if it was a bit longer overall (something like 196" versus 192.7", probably no big deal in the overall scheme of things). The shorter wheelbase probably contributed here, plus it was a bit narrower.
The 120 hp 232 V-6 seemed to have a bit more power, too, than the 229 Chevy V-6, with 115 hp, that my Malibu had.
Overall though, I still preferred the Malibu, which just had a bigger, more substantial feel to it, and was roomier inside. My grandparents never kept their cars very long, so they didn't have it long enough to experience the head gasket problems that 232 later became infamous for. I do remember the idiot light for the temperature coming on in Florida, though.
Another Fox body I wouldn't mind having is an '87-88 T-bird with the 302. There was a guy at work who had one with the V-6, and somehow he managed to get it to around 200,000 miles, if not more. I don't remember if he ever had any head gasket issues with it though.
I think they required shoulder belts on cars that were built on 1/1/68 and later, and for headrests it was 1/1/69 or later.
My '68 Dart had shoulder belts, and my '69 Dart and '69 Bonneville had headrests.
I wonder if a lot of those cars that didn't have shoulder belts or headrests were converted later on? Considering at least 1/4 of them, if not more, were built in the previous calendar year, I would think that I'd see more '68's without shoulder belts, or '69's without headrests, but they seem to be a really rare occurrence.
I like the older TB/Cougars as well. While we are talking Fox body, I'll take a 92 MK VII LSC SE please.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Yeah, those Mark VII LSCs were nice! A guy at work had two of them. One was a black '87, and the other was an emerald green '92. He bought each one used. Forget what year he bought the '87, but he had it when I started working here in 1992. The other one, he bought in 1994. He took each one up to around 180-200,000 miles, and they were pretty reliable. Then he got a 2000 Lincoln LS, brand-new. It was so troublesome that now he drives nothing but Acura TLs. :sick:
Years ago, there was a local guy around here who had a 1978 or 79 Malibu coupe that was kind of a two-tone gold, and had racing stripes on it sort of like the old SS Chevelles from '68-72. He was a substitute teacher at my high school, but I didn't make the connection that it was his car, until one day I saw him getting out of it at a local strip mall. I struck up a conversation with him, and he said it had a 350 under the hood!
Now, I'd always heard that the no downsized '78+ A-body ever got anything bigger than a 301/305/307, with the exception of 2,499 Hurst/Olds Cutlasses that had the 350 from the Delta/98, Malibu's with the correct police package (some had a 305, some a 350), and anything that got Diesel-afflicted.
But then, I've heard some people say that in '78-79, you COULD get a 350 in the Malibu! My old car book even says that you could get it in the 1979 Malibu wagon.
So, I wonder what the truth is? I've seen Malibus with 350's and even 454's, but those were transplants.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I even like the Aspen/Volare and especially the Diplomat/LeBaron from that era. They also had a sturdy, substantial feel to them (as long as they didn't start rusting, at least!). However, they were heavier than the Malibu, less fuel-efficient, and also less space-efficient. However, I do remember the '89 Gran Fury I had seemed to have a bit more legroom than GM's A-body, but the downside was that the steering wheel was too close. Good handling car too, although this thing was an ex-police car. Your typical civilian model probably didn't handle as well, although Consumer Reports tested an '85 5th Ave, and rated its emergency handling "better than average". So I guess they could maneuver when they really had to!
The neighbors had a late 80s RWD LeBaron, silver with a red velour interior. I rode in the back with dad and I was not impressed at all with the car. It was nicely trimmed but my recollection is that the ride wasn't great and it seemed tight on interior room.
I remember the trip because the stories they had heard were indeed true. This guy spent money like water and had a very lavish lifestyle. I remember we went for a ride in his S-class Benz that day - I had never been in one before. Despite all the toys they had his wife (our friends' friend) seemed unhappy, as apparently he spent all his time doing deals. I doubt they are still together, though I lost touch long ago.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
The LeBaron wasn't RWD since 81. From 82 on it was a K-car varient IIRC. Is the car you are referring to a Fifth Avenue? Those had really plush interiors, but for as big as they were weren't that roomy.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Yeah, I noticed that too, although maybe he meant to type "late 70's"? Or, did they use the LeBaron nameplate on the RWD Chryslers in Canada for a longer time than they did here in the US?
I thought they were a good, comfy 4-seater, but really too narrow inside for 3 across. I think they had 56" of shoulder room, which is also about what the old Dart/Valiant had. I remember the transmission and driveshaft hump being less intrusive than GM's downsized midsized cars, and especially the Ford Fox cars. And the rear wheel openings didn't cut into the back seat area as badly as those other cars, either.
I believe they were a bit more slab-sided than most of the competition, so the sides didn't curve in quite as severely. And they had huge glass area, although the 5th Ave version cut that down with those blanked out quarter windows and that thick, formal C-pillar extension.
And, I know I get hung up on that roll-down rear window thing, but here they were pretty impressive, too. The back window went down almost all the way, sticking up maybe two inches. In contrast, I think a Ford Fox body stuck up about 5-6 inches, and GM's didn't roll down at all! Very few domestics had windows that rolled down all the way though, by that time. Larger glass area, lower beltines, and less space for the window to roll down into all contributed to that. Once downsizing set in, the only domestic from that era I can think of with windows that went all the way down was the 1979-81 New Yorker. However, its rear windows were really narrow, as the thickly padded opera window built into the back part of the door took up a large amount of space.
Even something like a Grand Marquis or Town Car didn't roll all the way down in the 80s. When you think of the size of these cars, it is surprising.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Yeah, I think the Grand Marquis and other Panthers went down about 3/4 of the way, and the Mopar Newport/St. Regis/Gran Fury R-bodies about the same. I remember the GM B- and C-bodies seemed like they went down a little more than half way in '77-79, but when they were re-skinned for 1980, they went down a bit less.
It had actually been happening before that, though. The 4-door pillared sedan versions of GM's '71-76 B-body, as well as wagons, had rear windows that didn't quite go down all the way. And I think it was the same for Mopar's '74-78 big cars.
And the pre-downsized midsized cars were getting like that as well. GM's '73-77 Colonade 4-doors didn't roll down all the way, and neither did the '71-78 Mopars. The '72-76 Torino did, but not the '77-79 LTD II. The Fords and GM's were frameless as well, and it always bothered me, having a frameless window that won't roll down all the way. The way those suckers rattled, it seemed like they were just waiting to shatter if you slammed the door too hard.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
My aunt/uncle were shopping for a replacement for their '78 Coupe de Ville in '86... I was trying to steer them towards a 5-series, but they couldn't quite see $26K or more for a one-year old 528e...
So, once I gave up on that, I found them a factory official Mark VII LSC at my local L-M dealership.... stickered for around $28K and they got it for $18K... My aunt loved that car.. I actually thought it was pretty decent myself.. Perforated leather and real alloy wheels... 302 V-8, moonroof, and all the toys.. It had 18K miles on it... .and, when she got T-boned in '92, it still just had 36K.... Totaled... and it broke her heart..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
As much as I like the packaging of the '78 GM A-bodies, I think this is where GM quality started to take a dive. Really, I think they did a better job overall with the full-size cars a year earlier; the intermediates were even more of a downsize job. Besides the before-mentioned fixed rear sedan windows, I know my Dad hated the mini-spares (first year), and on the Malibus, I remember the first half of the model year, there was no fender brace in front of the front wheels and it looked very open and flimsy there. Later in the model year they put a splash guard in there which made it look more solid. In a few years, too, on V8's, you could count on them looking like they were going downhill--weak front springs. Funny that the Monte Carlos didn't seem to have this afflication. But, I still liked the way the cars rode and drove, particularly for that size.
I rode to Missouri with a college friend in his parent's copper-colored new '78 Cutlass Salon Brougham sedan (fastback style). It was maybe not pretty, but it was quiet, luxurious, and felt solid. It was the 260 V8.
I think most BelAirs were V-8s, but don't really have any data on that.
Do you know if the Powerglide was also rebuilt or replaced? I imagine it was, although they were pretty rugged transmissions, and the Stovebolt put less strain on it than the V8 would have. Also, if the original owner was satisfied with the six, he probably drove the car conservatively.
One practical improvement of the '57's, though, was the built-in air-flushing over the headlights, where '55's and '56's rusted out. It seems Chevy figured that out pretty early on.
Same here...I don't think there's anything really horribly wrong with any of the three years, but I dont' like the small grille on the '55, and something about the shape of the headlight area makes me think of an aging actress with bags under her eyes.
And by '57, it was just looking old and tired compared to the all-new Ford, and especially the Plymouth. If it wasn't for the fact that the 283 was a good performer, and that the Fords and Plymouths were rustbuckets, I'm sure nostalgia wouldn't be nearly so kind to the '57 Chevy today.
But I think in '56, they nailed the styling perfectly. About the only criticism I can think of is that the grille looks a bit Ford-ish. I still think it's a great looking car, but I guess I just dock it a few points for originality.
Oh, as for obscurities, today I was in DC and saw a salmon-colored '55-56 T-bird, and one of those 70's AMC Matadors with the Corvette-like fender flares, in a bright blue. Both looked to be in pretty good shape.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Best of all, a '62 Citroen DS that looked stock except for Dubs and an LS7 under the hood. Rear fender was removed ( to show how a tire was changed on these. Interior was stock except including single spoke steering wheel. I assumed it had been converted to RWD.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I forgot to mention the stock-looking Kaiser Darrin with Corvette power under the hood. Late-model 'Vette power seemed to be the rage for Resto-mods.
I expected to see more Rat-Rods. I like the simplicity and unpretentiousness of those but they're scarce this year.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
The 500 came out in 1970, and that year was only offered in the Eldorado. It was pretty powerful that first year, with 400 hp gross. In 1971, when GM started cutting compression, it dropped to 365 hp. When net figures started getting used in '72, it was down to 235.
Horsepower was again 235 for 1973, but then cut to 210 for 1974. For 1975, the 472 was finally dropped and the 500 made standard on all Cadillacs except the Seville, and it was choked down to 190 hp.
For 1976 there were two versions of it, 190 hp and 215. I think the 215 hp version had fuel injection.
The hp drop in '71 was mainly due to a cut in compression, which I guess would involve different heads, possibly other modifications? But I wonder if the additional hp cuts were due to simpler bolt-on stuff, such as emissions controls, more restrictive carburetors, etc? Stuff that, if you did a transplant to an older car, you would probably leave behind?
However, I think the auto makers were focusing more on fuel economy by this time, so even though they could have tuned the engines for a bit more hp, instead they decided to go the fuel economy route. Performance and horsepower were suddenly dirty words.
There actually were a few fairly high-hp engines around in 1974. Buick offered a 245 hp 455. Chevy's 454 had 235 hp, and in the Corvette up to 275 hp. Olds still had a 275 hp version of the 455 listed for the Cutlass and Vista Cruiser, although maybe that was just one of those options that made it to the sales brochures, but then was never actually offered? My book is also showing Pontiac offering a 250 hp 455 in the Grand Am, Grand Prix, and Trans Am, 255 hp in the full-sized cars, and 290 hp as the top option in the Trans Am.
On the Mopar front, the 360 could still be had with 245 hp. The 400 had up to 250 hp, and the 440 had as much as 275! At Ford, my old car book is showing the 460 topping out at 220 hp, but for Mercury, it's showing as high as 275.
For 1975 it was just about over, and if you got more than 200-210 hp out of anything, you were lucky. Although oddly, you could get a 454 in a full-sized Chevy with 235 hp, but in the Corvette it only had 205 hp. All of a sudden, the Dart/Duster 360 was the baddest car around, with 230 hp. My book shows a few Mopar 400's and 440's having around 240-250 hp, but I think those were only for police cars.
I'm not sure when emissions standards got stricter again, but I do know that for 1977, Pontiac's V-8's were all banned from California...but that was more of a Cali thing, and not a nationwide thing. And in 1976, in an attempt to improve fuel economy, GM switched the axle ratio on their bigger V-8 cars (usually a 350 on up) from 2.56:1 to 2.41:1. I don't know if that was in response to gov't pressure or not, though. I think the first time CAFE standards were applied to passenger cars was 1978.
Anyways, we got this trade in a few months ago: An 86 560SEC from Japan, with only 89k (55k miles), in blue cloth of all things. Was running a bit rough but had perfect body, and we thought it might be useful to someone at least for parts. It had the euro bumpers, lights, and good trim. We sold it to guy who was gonna fix it up.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX