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
Our '78 LeMans, with the 305 Chevy V8, frequently stalled once on a cold start, but then ran smoothly. I thought the power (140 hp?) felt very adequate, given the downsized body, and our other car at the time was a '72 Olds 98 Brougham with the 455.
I liked the '78 LeMans, which had the Roadhandling package (or whatever the heck they called the upgraded suspension). But, then, maybe that's not saying much, because I like most cars. One exception was our '70 Datsun 510, which had really bad driveability issues until the engine warmed up, and we lived in the Chicago area. Talk about underpowered!
I'm getting off subject with the Datsun, but I really wanted to like that car, because it had a lot of advanced design features for an econobox, such as an overhead cam engine and independent rear suspension. In addition, of course, it offered much better fuel economy than the domestic compacts. I must have taken it to the dealer half a dozen times, but they were never able to fix the problems, which also included a slight, but annoying lag when you stepped on the accelerator from idle. This manifested itself from a dead stop, as well as when you reapplied power while the car was moving. I eventually found out the problem was in the crude anti-smog stuff. Owners who lived in warm climates may never have experienced the cold start problem. Datsun fixed these problems for the '72 model year. Anyway, compared to that Datsun the Lemans was heavenly.
Interesting "fix up" car - rough running could be very minor or severe. Suicidal to restore, but the Euro parts do have some demand. Maybe for the DIYer, 126s aren't terribly complex compared to moderns. Too bad it wasn't a 420SEC, something never sold in NA.
Yeah, 140 or so horsepower sounds about right. I'd guess 0-60 was probably around 11-12 seconds which, for the time, was pretty good. Do you remember what kind of fuel economy you got with that LeMans? The best I've ever done with my '76 LeMans was around 17.5 mpg, driving back from the GM show in Carlisle one year, an almost pure highway run. Otherwise, I'm usually lucky to get 16-16.5, and when I just drive locally, I've gotten it down to 9-10 mpg! :surprise:
I remember my Mom complaining that her '75 LeMans was lucky to get 15-16 back in the day (350-2bbl with something like 155 hp; mine is a 350-4bbl that has 165-175 hp, depending on who you want to quote), and that was one thing that prompted her to trade it for a brand-new 1980 Malibu with a 229 V-6 that could easily break 20.
I think that handling package might have been called the "F41 suspension" or something like that? I know you can always spot what cars have it by the sway bar attached to the rear axle.
Must have been on something like 26"+ wheels, bet it handles great!
Also saw a ca. 72 Cutlass convertible that lived in the neighborhood where I was staying - also on huge wheels, looked ridiculous.
Didn't see any MB older than a few W123 down there, but it does seem to be the place where W210 and early W220 go to die, tons of them everywhere - look rich for cheap (until it breaks). Not much interesting on the roads really, a few restored 50s cars out on the weekend, not much more.
Oh, and saw a Panoz Esperante at the Ritz-Carlton east of the city.
Not a perfect rendition, but pretty darn close I'd say!
Here's a youtube of the car in action.
Dad's downsized '78 LeMans wagon also had the 305. That seemed to have quite a lot more off-the-line power than mine - obviously because the car was much lighter. I remember being surprised how zippy it was. The '78 was far more efficient in terms of space and fuel economy, but I liked my '77 boat better at the time.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I think the front seat comfort, for me at least, is better in the '73-77 than it is in the downsized '78+ models. At least, comparing my '76 Grand LeMans coupe to the '80 Malibu coupe, '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe, and '86 Monte Carlo I had. It feels like it has about 2-3" more shoulder room, and a lot more legroom than those downsized cars did. And the transmission hump and dashboard don't intrude as much. Seat feels bigger, and more thickly padded as well.
On the downside, I can tell there's less headroom (although still adequate for me), and the windshield is closer. If I turn the steering wheel open-palmed, rather than gripping it, and my palm is high enough on the steering wheel, my fingers will hit the windshield!
When they downsized these cars, I think the biggest interior gains for the coupes were in the back seat and trunk, but that they might have actually lost a bit up front. Unless the increased headroom was enough to offset the reduced shoulder room and legroom? The back seat of my LeMans is really bad, in terms of legroom. But oddly, as low-slung as that car is, I still have enough headroom in back, while my head hits the ceiling on the likes of the current Impala, and even the 1991-96 Caprice!
You lucked out too, getting a Canadian LeMans with a 305. If that had been a US car, it would have most likely been 301-afflicted.
I liked the styling of the '73-'77 GM intermediates, but the timing of introducing these bigger. heavier cars collided with the sharp increases in oil prices. In GM's defense, though, these cars were designed before the '73 oil imbargo. By contrast, the more space and fuel efficient '78s were introduced in time for the next gasoline price spike, which resulted largely from the '79 Iranian revolution.
I wonder if Pontiac actually mixed and matched 301's and 305's in the '78 LeMans? On the EPA website, they show the 231 V-6 being offered (with manual or automatic), the 260 Olds V-8 (that's a new one to me; I didn't think the LeMans used it), then a 301 with choice of 2-bbl or 4-bbl, and finally a 305-2bbl.
The LeMans wagon, however, only offered the 231 or 305. And for California, only the 231 or 305 were offered.
And in California, for the Grand Prix, they used the 305 instead of the 301.
I wonder though, if perhaps that 301 the EPA is listing was only used in the Grand Am, which was a trim level of the LeMans that year?
For 1979, it looks like Pontiac dropped the choices in the LeMans to 231 or 301, including the wagon, although the California models still had the 305 substituted in.
Then for 1980, for some strange reason, the LeMans went to the Chevy 229 V-6 as the base engine, with a Pontiac 265-2bbl V-8 being optional, and a 301-4bbl on top of that (no 2-bbl offered). In California, the 229 was replaced by a Buick 231, the 265 was not offered at all, and the 301-4bbl was replaced by a 305-4bbl.
For 1981, they went back to the Buick 231 V-6 or 265-2bbl, with the 301-4bbl only being offered in the wagon. And interestingly, for 1981 the 265 and 301 were offered in California models, so I guess Pontiac finally figured out how to clean up their V-8's to California standards. Too little too late though, as they were dropped after '81. A few years ago at the GM show in Carlisle, I saw an '81 LeMans sedan that the owner said had a Buick 252 V-6. The EPA doesn't list that one as being available in '81, although it was offered on the 1982 Bonneville G.
It's really amazing, all the engine juggling they had to do back in those days. I wonder if they would have just been best off to simply dump the Pontiac 301, and increase production of Chevy 305's? And while I like my Pontiac 350's and 400's, it probably would have simplified things to dump them and just substitute in Olds or Chevy 350's, and Olds 403's. I think the Buick 350 might have been banned from Cali as well, as the EPA's website is showing CA LeSabres and Electras as having the Olds unit.
One good thing about the Pontiac 301 is that it was a lightweight engine. I believe it weighed around 450 lb, compared to 575 for the Chevy V-8 (dunno about the Olds/Buick engines). It had similar hp, but weighed less, so in theory, that should have given better performance, but I don't think it did. In 1978 the 2-bbl was rated at 18/25, compared to 17/25 for the Chevy 305-2bbl, so I guess that 1 mpg was enough to make a difference, especially in the CAFE calculations. The 301-4bbl was rated at 17/24. The only instances I see of a 305-4bbl being used in '78 was on the Century and Cutlass, where it was rated 18/26. So overall, I dunno if that 125 lb weight savings did any good or not. It sure made the engine a lot more fragile than it should have!
I'm still alive and kicking, just have been busy. Yeah this Benz was running rough but driveable.
Do you still have your E55? I picked up an 07 328i for my wife just recently. Never had a BMW before and it's pretty nice sports sedan. Love the handling in it. :shades:
Btw, are you gonna come out to see the Auto sHow here? They moved in to our new convention centre this year because of renos at BC Place. Let me know!
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
I was in Germany a few months ago, had a 528 Touring as my rental...I like BMW seats very much. Didn't do much "handling" in it due to weather, but it's as balanced a car as is possible.
I was thinking about coming to the show, at least for a day, hadn't decided yet. Maybe you'll make me go for it :shades:
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Wow, that's kinda cool to think your Dad's car was probably built only about a half-hour away from me! I'm surprised the card didn't say "Baltimore Sends Its Best, Hon"
Is your dealership stocking up on used Japan branded vehicles?
Due to restricted supply, I'm thinking more people are going to start buying out their leases, too.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
We are always stocked up on used vehicles but we're going to fill the pinch with some of our new vehicles as the Rogue, Juke, and the Murano are Japan built. Plus other NA built Nissans use Japanese parts that now might not be readily available to complete their assemblies due to the earthquake.
We'll feel it in about 2-3 month as we still have a decent supply right now. I have a feeling that because of it, new car prices will go up a bit and incentives might decrease. We will see. :confuse:
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Oh yeah, and same E55 too.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Amusing way to show off new wealth, or that anyone in China would even know about "consumer rights" when more basic rights are ignored.
I actually saw a similar vintage Falcon convertible on H-1 while visiting Hawaii last month. What amazed me was how big it looked today even though it was considered a small compact back then. I'm guessing that thing was similar in size to the Malibu rental I was driving, maybe a bit taller.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I actually checked the dimensions. It looks bigger than a cruze, but is actually only 181" long, so almost identical in length. Might be narrower though (new cars do seem to be getting wider and wider).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
First one I've ever seen in the U.S... Rented one in the Cayman Islands, once..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I think a lot of it has to do with styling and proportioning. The Falcon's only 181" long, but is on a 109.5" wheelbase. Plus, the front and rear don't slope off like the do with a lot of modern cars, and you don't have protruding bumpers padding the length. The Falcon also has an upright windshield and rear window, which give it a correspondingly longer hood and trunk.
It's basically a large car style, scaled down to compact size, with a few tweaks here and there. So that might make it look bigger than it really is.
For their small size, I believe they're actually pretty space-efficient for the time. And very lightweight. A '63 Falcon started around 2300 lb for the base 2-door sedan. Perhaps a little TOO lightweight!
As for fixing an alternator? Well, that mechanic could just do like what the modern ones do. Take out the two bolts that hold it in, slip off the belt, throw it away, and install a new one!
Aren't generators usually something that the mechanic rebuilds, whereas alternators are something you just throw away and replace (or at least, send the core off to where they get rebuilt en masse)?
Affluence creates much more waste, obviously.
Affluence creates much more waste, obviously.
Well, good point there!
On the subject of complexity, is there really anything about a similar-vintage Valiant/Lancer or Dart that really makes it more complicated than a Falcon? Other than the standard alternator? The pushbutton gear selector for the transmission might give a little more aggravation than a column shift if you had to fix it, but it was still all mechanical.
The big Mopars still used those annoying press-on rear drums through 1964, and might have still been using the needlessly complicated "Total Contact" center-plane front brakes that the '57-59 models did, but I don't know if any of that stuff carried over to the compacts.
I don't know if they had roll-up windows yet, but that's not very hard to figure out once you pop off a door panel.
On the other hand, it would be impossible for a 1963 mechanic to go 50 years into the future to fix a 2013 car. I mean, he could do a few things certainly...maybe....what....20% of the car? Maybe.
That's the same weight as a '12 Fiat 500.
two-speeds.
For instance, the latest Ford Ranger sports a 2.3 4-cyl engine with a 5-speed automatic! It only has 143 hp, but I imagine that would easily be around 200-220 hp gross, which is around what the 302-2bbl V-8 was putting out in later years.
It would probably make no economic sense to do something like that, and would kill the value and originality of the car, but I sometimes get fascinated by the idea of taking an older car and fitting it with a modern drivetrain. I think those old Falcons were pretty economical, but with a 144 CID 6-cyl and automatic, I think 0-60 came up in around 25 seconds!
A Ford Ranger drivetrain probably isn't the most cutting-edge thing in the world, but I picked it because it was still a RWD setup, and still kept it all in the Ford family.
A 2010 Accord 2.4 4-cyl has 162 ft-lb of torque. However, just like horsepower, torque was rated in gross amounts back in those days. When they went from gross to net ratings, torque didn't drop as badly. For instance, on a Mopar slant six, hp went from 145 to 110, a 24% drop, while torque dropped from 215 ft-bl to 195, 9-10% drop.
So, that Falcon 144 would've had, at best, 125 ft-lb of torque in net terms.
So yeah, something as strong as an Accord, Camry, or Altima 4-cyl would probably be almost like a musclecar in something like a Falcon! Albeit a funny-sounding musclecar, with only 4-cyl!
I wonder if something even smaller, like a modern Corolla or Civic 4-cyl, might even be enough for a lightweight like a Falcon? They probably have aorund 125-130 ft-lb of torque, and the modern engines, and a modern 4- or 5-speed automatic would make better use of the available torque. It's not gonna be a screamer, but I imagine it would perform more or less as well as it would in a Corolla or Civic? Maybe a RWD setup might sap a bit of power, since you add a driveshaft and rear-end into the mix. And at higher speeds, the more bricky aerodynamics of the Falcon would come into play, so fuel economy might suffer a bit.
And yeah, the Accord 4-cyl in a Falcon would probably blow the doors off the 260 V-8. Now the 289 that usually had around 210-220 hp or so, might be a more even match. And that hot 271 hp 289, could you ever get that in a Falcon? Or was that just Mustang/Fairlane material?
The car itself was a shade of Salmon that was browner and less pinkish than what I remember of Fords of that era. Plate was "56TBIRD".
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
There's actually still one running???
As long as we're at it, why not put a modern V6, say from a FWD Mopar, in one your New Yorkers? That would draw attention at Carlisle!
Actually, the 505 was too.