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
When I was a little kid, my mom had one identical to this - same color combo and I think it even had those hubcaps:
It was the first really nice car my parents owned, and I think my mom saved some inheritance and stretched the budget a little to buy it. She loved the car, but by the time it was 10 years old, it was pretty tired. Emasculated 460, I forget what did it in, maybe a timing chain or transmission. I remember when I was a kid, I even knew that it was much bigger than almost every other car. I remember playing with the power seat until the battery drained (got in a little trouble for that) and sleeping in the back seat. It was the last big boat in my family (other than my dad's hobby cars and my first car, a Galaxie), replaced by FWD cars.
I have to admit a sort of soft spot for the '77-79 T-bird. I think they were good looking cars for the time. And considering they had their roots in the 1972 Torino/Montego, I think Ford did a great job, all things considered, of making them look modern by 1977 standards.
When I was a kid, my cousins' parents had a white '77-79 T-bird, and a white '73-74 Nova. Both cars looked classy in white, I thought. Made our '75 LeMans, which was sort of a persimmon/bronzish color, look pretty hokey in comparison. The Nova gave way to a Citation, but I forget what replaced the T-bird. I don't think they had the Citation for long...might have traded it in on a Town Car, but then my cousins' Mom drove the T-bird until the late 80's, when she bought a Probe.
I remember as a kid thinking that they were rich, but that was before they for the bankruptcies. (and yes, I mean that in plural)
For awhile, one of my Mom's cousins, who's also my godmother, had a '79 T-bird. I think it was called a "Heritage" or something like that. Really plush inside and even in the trunk, and it had vinyl padding that blocked out the large side windows, so you only had the little opera windows. She bought it used, and it was in great shape when she sold it. She only wanted $3500, and I was thinking about it, but it was really too nice of a car to let sit out, and back then (this was around 2002 I think), I would've had to keep it outside.
The '80-'82 design was just horrible.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I dunno...I still think of my old Dodge Dart as a "compact" car. And as far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing as "full sized" car anymore.
Those interior volumes can be misleading, too. I looked up my 2000 Park Ave on the EPA's website, and going by passenger volume, technically it's the biggest car I've ever owned. 111 cubic feet of passenger volume. My grandmother's '85 LeSabre came in slightly less, at 110, and the three '79 Mopar R-bodies I've owned are smaller still, at 108. Now, three cubic feet isn't a huge amount. But I swear, the R-bodies felt bigger than the LeSabre, and the LeSabre felt bigger than the Park Ave.
I think the reason for that perception is the published headroom. If you add an inch of headroom to a car, it boosts interior volume more than adding an inch of shoulder room would. And of the three cars, the R-body has the least headroom, while the Park Ave has the most. However, in my case at least, if a car already has enough headroom, adding more doesn't make it feel bigger to me. But adding legroom, or especially adding shoulder room, does make it feel bigger. The LeSabre and R-bodies both have about 2.5" more shoulder room than the Park Ave. And the R-bodies have a less intrusive dash, transmission/driveshaft hump, rear wheel wells, etc, than the LeSabre, so those all add to a more spacious feeling, although they have no effect on published interior volume.
Oh, back to the BMW 3-series. I honestly don't pay much attention to them, so I didn't realize they were redesigned for 2012. The 2011 is actually a subcompact according to the EPA, even in sedan form! 89 cubic feet of passenger volume, and an 11 cubic foot trunk.
The newer ones are pretty nice, but I remember sitting in one that was maybe late 80's, early 90's, that was for sale at Car Max. I didn't see what the big whoop was. I know that the main draw of these cars is the handling...but seriously, just sitting in it, it felt about as comfortable as a Chevette with leather seats. I'm sure it didn't squeak, leak, rattle, and break down like a Chevette, but it felt as cramped as one. And the interior overall just had sort of an outdated type of feel to it.
But, I remember riding in a friend's early '00's 3-series awhile back, and being impressed at how roomy it was up front.
I don't like the '80-82, but for some perverse reason, I do like that generation of Cougar XR-7! It's hard to explain, but for some reason, I just think the Cougar's styling worked better on that '80-82 style than it did on the '77-79, while with the T-bird, it was just the opposite.
Every once in awhile I'll see an '83-86 T-bird...usually at a classic car show. I think it's downright amazing how well that car has aged. I know the Taurus tends to get all the credit, but I think the '83 T-bird/Cougar should get some kind of recognition. One year at the Hershey show, there was an '83 or so T-bird parked next to a similar vintage Olds Cutlass 4-4-2 or Hurst edition, and I swear the T-bird made that Olds look about 20 years older.
However, if given the choice I'd go for the Olds, simply because modern or not, I do prefer its style. And those GM RWD intermediates were, IMO, a lot more comfy inside. And, while I'm on the interior volume kick, the figures bear this out. The Cutlass Supreme coupe was rated at 98 cubic feet of passenger volume, 16 cubic foot trunk, while the T-bird was technically a compact, at 92 cubic feet of passenger volume, 15 cubic foot trunk. But, I can still appreciate the significance of the T-bird.
I had an aunt and uncle like your relatives...back in the early 80s they had a cool T-top Fox Mustang, one of those bustleback Continentals, an in-ground pool...seemed pretty posh to me. But I think all was not as it seemed.
The first generation Valiant made a valiant (I know it's bad, but I couldn't restrain myself) effort at styling differentiation. It was certainly polarizing, but I rather liked it. Same could be said for the Corvair, which looked really modern for 1960, and was less polarizing than the Valiant.
It got a bit more muddled than that for 1981-82. Those two years, the Granada adopted the Fox platform, and its Mercury clone was called simply Cougar, with the T-bird cone being called the Cougar XR-7. For 1981 the Granada/Cougar were offered as a 4-door sedan and a 2-door that was upright enough that I'd call it a sedan more than a coupe. A station wagon joined the Granada/Cougar for 1982.
For 1983, the Granada/Cougar were replaced by the small LTD/Marquis, and offered only as a 4-door or wagon.
Those could be some confusing times. The Fairmont was marketed as Ford's compact car for its whole 1978-83 run. The Granada was marketed as an upscale compact through 1979, but in 1980, with the demise of the LTD-II, Ford marketed the Granada as their midsize...even though it was smaller inside than a Fairmont! And then the 1981-82 Granada, and '83-86 LTD/Marquis, were also marketed as midsized cars, even though they were the same size, inside and out, as a Fairmont. Actually, I thin the LTD/Marquis had smaller trunks, due to the sloped-off rear.
http://www.gmv-registry.com/137/23743.html
And to think they also put that turd of an engine in the larger (Panther based) LTD, and Grand Marquis.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Yeah, but consider the alternatives at the time. Chrysler's 225 slant six was choked down to about 90 hp by 1981, and that was the base engine in something like an R-body Newport, St. Regis, or Gran Fury. A 1981 Impala or Caprice came standard with a 110 hp 229 V-6, while a Catalina, LeSabre, or Delta 88 had a 231 V-6, also with around 110 hp. I think the Bonneville still came with a standard V-8, but it was probably the 120 hp Pontiac 265. Even in luxury cars, they were sticking 125 hp Buick 252-4bbl V-6es in the likes of the Electra, Ninety-Eight, and Caddy DeVille. Or, you could get the Caddy 249 V-8, also with 125 hp, but something like 10 ft-lb less torque than the V-6 (195 versus 205).
Heck, the Ford 255 might have been the musclecar of that bunch! :sick:
Hard to think what I would choose if I was buying a new car back then. A fullsize domestic was probably the best overall choice, some Japanese cars up there too - but many were still far from perfect. If I had money to throw around, I easily would have chosen a MB diesel wagon or a diesel S-class - which cost ~25K and ~35K then.
I think you mentioned the Eldo of that era. Very nice car, but I certainly would want one prior to the 4100.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Interestingly, a friend of mine used to have an '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the Olds 260, and it only had 100 hp by that time, but I swear it didn't feel all that slow. It definitely felt faster than my '82, which had the Buick 231, and that car was faster than my old '80 Malibu, which had the Chevy 229. The 229 usually had about the same hp as the 231, usually 110 (although it was 115 for 1980). But for some reason, it came up really short in torque. Whereas the 231 usually had around 190 ft-lb, I think the 229 only had around 170.
As for 1981 Monte Carlo fuel economy, I just checked the EPA's website. Unfortunately, they only list the city figure, and it's in the old raw numbers. It's showing:
229-2bbl V-6: 19 city
231-4bbl turbo: 19 city
267-2bbl V-8: 18 city.
In California, the engine choices were a bit different:
231-2bbl V-6: 20 city
231-4bbl turbo: 18 city
305-4bbl V-8: 18 city
Kinda makes you wonder, if the 305 did that well in California, why they didn't just offer it in the Monte Carlo in all 50 states that year?
I guess 79-80 are the good engine years for the Eldo, and 80 for the bustleback Seville. I think they could be had with wheels instead of wire hubcaps, no vinyl top, no faux Rolls grille, maybe even blackwall tires. I think I have read the 8-6-4 isn't all that bad either, just disconnect the computer if/when it fails.
The Impala and Caprice were always available with a 305 V-8, even in the doggiest of years. IIRC, in 1979 emissions standards got a bit tighter, and the 305-2bbl got cut to 130 hp, down from 145 in 1977-78. The 350-4bbl still had 170 hp, but 1979 would be its last year in civilian passenger cars, other than the Corvette and Camaro.
For 1979, Chevy came out with a 4-bbl 305 that had 160 hp, but I think it was mainly offered in the midsized cars...I don't believe the Caprice/Impala got it. But for 1980, when the 350 went away, the big cars did get it, although I think power was cut slightly to 155 hp. They also got rid of the 2-bbl 305 for 1980, leaving the small 267-2bbl to fill that role, I guess.
I think the 305 might have hit a low spot of 145 hp around 1981-82, but not sure, maybe it was 150? But, around that same time, Ford was only getting around 130 hp out of their 302, and ditto the Mopar 318. The Olds 307 was a bit low on hp too, 140, but had more torque than the others. In those dark years, I think it had 255 ft-lb, whereas the others were around 240-245. Although maybe that wasn't enough to really count for anything?
I have an old Motortrend (or maybe C&D) from early 1982 that tested a Caprice with the 305. I think they got 0-60 in about 11.6 seconds, which sounds downright impressive for that time period. For comparison, I believe the '77 Caprice that won Motortrend's car of the year award did 0-60 in about 10.8, and that was with a 350.
Chrysler did it too. The New Yorker nameplate turned from an almost full size RWD sedan to a K-car based compact. The RWD model was changed to "Fifth Avenue".
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Yeah, Chrysler ran pretty far with it, too. For instance, the 1976-80 Volare and Aspen were the "compact cars", while the '77-79 Diplomat and LeBaron were the "luxury compacts".
The midsized Fury and Monaco disappeared after 1978, so for 1979, Chrysler had no midsized replacements. However, the Cordoba and Magnum coupes were still around. For 1980, the Diplomat and LeBaron were restyled, and marketed as midsized cars, even though they were no bigger inside than an Aspen or Volare. In fact, that year, the LeBaron/Diplomat coupes went to the shorter 108.7" wb shared with the Volare/Aspen coupes, so they were actually smaller, inside and out, than the "compact" '77-79 LeBaron/Diplomat coupes that were on the 112.7" wb shared with the sedans and wagons.
Chrysler shrunk the LeBaron/Diplomat coupes to make way for the downsized Cordoba/Mirada. And, just as the '80 T-bird was based on the Fairmont, so the Cordoba/Mirada and even the '81 Imperial were based on the LeBaron/Diplomat, which themselves were based on the humble Volare. IMO, Chrysler did a much better job of differentiating the cars, though. It wasn't as glaringly obvious that the Cordoba could be traced to the Volare. None of the sheetmetal was interchangeable, it was wider inside and out, and the dash was totally different.
I think Chrysler's biggest travesty of that era was what they did with the New Yorker nameplate. In 1978 it was one of the final mastodons, riding a 124" wb, puffed out to nearly 230 inches, and pushing 5,000 lb. In 1979-81, it adopted the R-body, and shrunk to a 118.5" wb, around 221.3" long, and while the base weight was around 3850 lb, I'm sure most of them still topped 4,000 lb. Now, that was reasonable for the time period, considering how Ford and GM rivals were downsizing as well.
But then, for 1982, they moved it to the M-body, and it replaced the LeBaron, which itself became a guzzied up K-car. Wheelbase shrunk to 112.7", overall length to around 207". Weight didn't drop much, probably to 3700-3800 lb. These were actually good cars...sturdy, reliable, better-built than the R-bodies or the old 70's mastodons. And Chrysler made them quite luxurious inside. But, they did lack the presence, IMO, of the older New Yorkers.
The real slap in the face, IMO, was in 1983, when they moved the New Yorker nameplate to a stretched version of the K-car called the E-body (Chrysler E-class, Dodge 600, Plymouth Caravelle). It was now on a 103.3" wb, around 185" long, and weighed about 2800 lb. The M-body was kept around though. For 1983 I think they called it "New Yorker 5th Ave", and then simply "5th Ave" from 1984-89.
Oh, and from 1982 onward, the M-body Diplomat, Gran Fury, and NY'er/5th Ave were now marketed as Chrysler's "full sized" cars.
As a result, I think the Diplomat may be the only car to be marketed as a compact, midsize, and a full-size, without ever going through a major redesign! The EPA always classified them as midsizes, though.
Not sure; my post that you replied to mentioned specifically the '81 Cougar I had as a rental.
The XR-7 was by far the most popular model. I think they were usually good for around 150-165K units annually, while the regular Cougar coupe, sedan, and wagon combined couldn't muster that.
After 1979, those big, Torino-based Cougars went away, and for 1980, the only Cougar offered was the XR-7, the T-bird clone on the Fairmont platform.
The Cougar sedan/coupe came back for 1981, to replace the Monarch, which had its last year in 1980.
Cost. There were a lot of expensive pollution controls in those California cars. It didn't make sense to equip all vehicles nationwide if it wasn't needed.
He also has a ~60K mile 85 SS, black with dark red interior, t-tops, etc. It's a lot louder than the CL and maybe faster, but the handling is still kind of wallowy, and it is one of those cars where you close the door and it rattles for 30 seconds.
I think the MSRP on the loaded 85 Tempo GLX that was in my family was something around 11-12K, but it was a year end clearance special car bought for a bit less. The Ciera, moderately equipped, didn't cost much more. I think my mom's 93 Taurus GL stickered for maybe 16K, too.
I remember the first XR7 I saw was at the Mercury dealer back in '67. Saw one on the floor, and really liked it, especially the dash. I had them order one for me (a '67 XR7 GT), and traded in my '66 Cyclone GT on it. Guess I had a thing for Mercurys' back then.
Love that car.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Whatever us auto enthusiasts may think of desirable cars now, Ford sold a whole lot more of Cougars ten years later than they did the first year.
Total production First generation: 1967: 150,893 1968: 113,720 1969: 100,060 1970: 72,343 (Note: These are similar to total Studebaker production figures between 1959 and 1962)
Cougar production Fourth generation 1977: 194,823 (XR-7 124,799) 1978:213,270 (XR-7 166,508) 1979: 172,152 (XR-7 163,716)
I never knew there was a Cougar station wagon in 1982 (only) until I read the Wikipedia site above. That was definitely taking a good idea too far.
There was also a Cougar wagon for 1977 as well, a clone of the LTD-II wagon. That was when the whole Cougar lineup was supposed to be a replacement for the '72-76 Montego, so it sort of made sense at the time. However, when Ford restyled its midsized cars for '77, the T-bird and Cougar XR-7 were hot sellers, but the LTD-II and regular Cougar models were a bit of a flop. So, the wagons were dropped in '78. Also, in '77 I think Mercury had a broader lineup of Cougar and Cougar Brougham, plus the XR-7. For '78-79, they dropped the Brougham as a separate model, although it may still have bee offered as an option package.
As for the 1982 Cougar wagon, that coincided with the 1982 Granada wagon. Neither one was any larger than the Fairmont/Zephyr wagons, but they were plusher, pricier, and more profitable, and marketed as midsized cars, whereas the Fairmont was marketed as a compact.
Other than the age (I was 18-19), I could have written that. Through '66, I really liked the Mustang. Once the Cougar came out, I couldn't have cared less about the 'Tang; I wanted a Cougar XR-7. Couldn't even come close to affording one, of course, but wanted it in the worst way.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I stand corrected. There was a station wagon in 1977, although I would not have recognized it as a Cougar unless the car had name plates on it I could read. http://jalopnik.com/359000/yes-mercury-really-did-make-a-cougar-wagon
This situation is similar to the Ford Thunderbird. That name means many different things depending upon the model year, but many times Ford sold more cars as they built them bigger, so it is hard to criticize success even if the result is not pleasing to see today.
I guess I should disclose though, that it's this version...
:P
The wagons really look outdated IMO, compared to the sedan and coupe, because a lot more of the sheetmetal appears to be carryover from the 1972-76 models. While the coupe and sedan got crisp, angular sheetmetal all over, the doors and rear quarter on the wagon are more rounded, and the beltine kicks up in the back door of the wagon, whereas it's level on the sedan, giving a larger window.
Still, I think the '77 Cougar is a handsome looking wagon. If I was going to buy a midsized wagon in 1977, I'd probably be biased towards the LeMans, but I do like the front-end of the Cougar.
I wonder if anyone ever thought to bolt a Thunderbird front clip onto an LTD-II wagon? I never really cared for the front-end of the LTD-II...IMO those stacked headlights that made a comeback in the 70's were often hit or miss. And on the LTD-II, I think they're a miss.
I've seen an LTD-II driving around locally, with a T-bird front clip on it, but it's a coupe. It really improves the looks a lot though, in my opinion.