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

au1994

He had a 76 black, gray interior aka the mafia staff car

79 silver/gray: ate 2 transmissions

82 burgundy/burgundy: blew the motor the day he got it

85 blue/blue

88 blue/blue: seem to remember an issue w/rear brakes that could never be solved

95 champagne/champagne: went through an alternator or 2

andre1969

Wow, that sorta shatters the illusion of the older RWD 98's as being bulletproof! :sick:

tjc78

At least they got better as the years went on. Overall, wasn't the 307 a very reliable engine?

au1994

We had an 87 Caddy that had (I think) the 307. It developed an oil consumption problem in about a year. It gave way to the 88 Olds 98.

As you can see Dad was (and still is) a GM guy. In addition to the Caddy above and the Old's, we had:

~83 Caddy: 4.1 V-8 very nice medium blue
87 Cutlass Ciera: torquey thing with the 3.8 V6. Taught me what torque steer was
~85 Astro van
9X Malibu: the 1st year for the jelly bean redesign.
08 Trailblazer
12 Enclave

This is just what was around in my 40+years and just the GM's. Its clear where I get my chronic car buying. I really should introduce him to the CCBA board!

Mr_Shiftright

Saw a very decent '65 Valiant 2-dr post sedan. These cars are sometimes made into "streetbombers"---packed with a 360 or 440 engine, very clean and stripped down.

Typical California "old car"---paint was a bit dull, but a solid, completely rust free body, decent chrome and trim.

tjc78

How does he like the Enclave? That is what my Wife wants when the 12 LaCrosse comes off lease in about 18 months. The price tag on those things gets into orbit.

andre1969

At least they got better as the years went on. Overall, wasn't the 307 a very reliable engine?

Yeah, for the most part, the 307 was a reliable, sturdy engine. Supposedly more durable than the Chevy 305, and a bit lighter as well. The only experience I've had with one was in my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, which ran well right up through 2002 and 157,000 miles. I got rid of it when the brakes went out, and didn't feel like putting any money into it.

Lemko's '89 Caddy has a 307, and he's had good luck with it. I think he has around 159,000 on it.

I've heard the main reason the 305 stayed in production for longer is that it was simply cheaper to build than the 307. The 307, like the Mopar 318, used a lot of nickle in its block, which would make it stronger, yet it could also be lighter because the castings didn't have to be quite as thick.

However, I've also had two Chevy 305's, and can't complain about either. The one in Mom's old '86 Monte Carlo made it to 192,000 miles, when I got t-boned in it. And I still have Granddad's '85 Silverado, with about 140,000 miles on it. It'll probably rust out before the engine dies.

For the most part, those '77-79 Electras and 98s were reliable, as well. They used either Buick or Olds 350's as the base engine, and the 403 was optional. The 403 used a THM400 transmission. I'm not sure what the 350's used. Possibly just the THM350, but in a larger, heavier car like that, maybe they used a 400 trans even with the smaller engines? Consumer Reports always rated them fairly well in their reliability charts.

uplanderguy

The only negatives I recall with the Chevy 305 4-barrel in the '80's was, after a few years, they'd blow blue smoke for a second or two when you started them. Valve seals, but I'm told that wasn't a major job. I never knew my parents' V8 Monte Carlo to ever use oil between changes.

andre1969

Supposedly in 1979, which I think was the first year for the 305-4bbl, they had some issue where they'd foul the #8 spark plug prematurely. My Consumer Guide used car book said that the Chevy 305 and 350 were fairly good engines, but that crankshaft problems popped up more often than they should.

Mom's Monte Carlo, which had 179,000 miles on it when she gave it to me, would smoke a bit on start up, but it was more gray than blue. And, Granddad's Silverado will belch a bit as well when you first start it, but again, more light gray than the bluish tint. It had 109,000 miles on it when Mom sold it to me back in 2002, and I can't remember if it smoked back then, or when it started. At its age and condition, though, I'm not going to fault GM for anything bad it does at this point!

It's kinda funny, but some of my friends have taken to calling the old Silverado "The Real Truck" and my new Ram as a poseur truck!

andre1969

My family was pretty lucky, I guess. The only GM car I can think off, off the top of my head, that was really bad was my grandparents' 1982 Malibu Classic Estate wagon. Prior to that, they had a 1972 Impala 4-door hardtop that they sold to some family friends for $600, and the Malibu replaced that. It had the Chevy 229 V-6, which had 110 hp. I forget the torque, but I want to say 170-175 ft-lb? I've read that the 229 was pretty low on torque compared to similar-sized engines like the Buick 231, Ford 232, or Mopar's 225 slant six.

Anyway, Granddad hated it because it was slow. Grandmom hated it when she discovered, after a couple months, that the back door windows didn't roll down. They bought it in the winter, so nobody thought to try out the windows, but one warm day in April of '82, I went to church with them and Grandmom sat back there, and discovered there was no window crank.

Once the 12month/12K mile warranty was up, the ECU went bad, and cost about $450 to replace. In the fall of 1984, it failed again. The car was still driveable, but acting up. They traded it, with the bad ECU, for a 1985 Buick LeSabre Limited with the 307, which ended up being about the best car they ever had.

IIRC, that Malibu was about $11,000 out the door, which seems awfully expensive to me, for a car that just had the V-6 and crank windows. But they got a pretty good trade in, IMO. $6500, for a car that was three model years old, and a faulty ECU. I forget how many miles it had, though.

uplanderguy

I was under the impression/memory that anything emissions-related back then was warrantied for 5/50K. I know I had a catalytic converter put on my '81 Monte Carlo for free at around 35K miles--which I had before it was stolen in October '82, never to be recovered.

au1994

He really likes it. Comfortable and easy to get in and out of which is a priority for him. Enough cargo capacity for golf clubs and Home Depot runs.

Just so-so mpg but hey, its a SUV.

andre1969

I was under the impression/memory that anything emissions-related back then was warrantied for 5/50K.

Would the ECU be considered emissions-related? I don't know how many miles that Malibu had on it, but I'm almost positive that it wouldn't have made it to 50K by the time they traded it.

I guess it's possible that the dealer screwed Granddad over, as well. He was bright in a lot of respects...mechanical, agricultural, etc. But when it came to contractual/paperwork type stuff, not so much. Now Grandmom, on the other hand, could be like a rabid wolf if she thought she was getting screwed.

tjc78

He really likes it. Comfortable and easy to get in and out of which is a priority for him. Enough cargo capacity for golf clubs and Home Depot runs.

Just so-so mpg but hey, its a SUV.

Thanks, MPG not a huge concern for us as we don't drive all that much. Heck, its not like our 12 Lacrosse is much better on MPG.

uplanderguy

Do you like your LaCrosse? I'm thinking that that might give some insight into the Impala coming up.

uplanderguy

If an ECU is what I think it is (!), it seems like it should've been covered under the emissions warranty, but the emissions warranty probably evolved over the years, too. OTOH, an emissions warranty was something new I think with the "Computer Command Control", so who knows if dealers were double-billing the customer and GM, too, who knows?

I agree that the '81 and '82 emissions systems were a 'learning experience'! I think the '83, and especially '84's and later, were much better.

tjc78

My wife drives it more than me these days, but yes I love it. It is roomy, rides like a dream and with the "hyper struts" has pretty much zero torque steer depsite 303HP through the front wheels.

MPG is right around 18.2 average at the moment, so compared to my 06 Avalon and 09 Genesis it uses a little more fuel than most largeish V6 sedans. It weighs over 4000 lbs so I am sure that has something to do with it.

My wife has a tough time seeing at times due to the very large A-pillars and if you aren't careful getting in (especially the pass side) you can bump your knee on the dashboard.

It has been pretty reliable for the last 17 months and 12K miles except it did puke it's front crankshaft seal and dump oil all over my driveway.

I saw the new Impala at the auto show, IMO the Lacrosse is a better looking car. The new Caddy XTS is also LaCrosse based and is certainly a looker, but I could swear it feels smaller inside than the LaCrosse.

uplanderguy

Just curious, did you have any issues with your Genesis or Avalon?

andre1969

All I know is that it was that electronic thing down in the kick panel in the passenger side footwell. I think "CCC" was GM's brand name for it?

I've heard rumors that apparently, the Pontiac 301-4bbl took very well to computer controls. Official hp rating is 155 I think, but various internet sources say it was really closer to 170.

I don't know what cars the 301-4bbl would have been going in by 1981, though. Probably just Firebirds and Trans Ams? I think Catalina and Bonnevilles were using Olds 307's as the "big" engine by that time. The Grand Prix and LeMans coupes and sedan were down to just the Pontiac 265 or Buick 252 V-6 as the biggest engines, although you could still get a 301 in the LeMans wagon. It may have just been the 2-bbl though.

Kind of a shame that, just as GM was starting to get some of the kinks worked out of the 301, they canned it.

tjc78

did you have any issues with your Genesis or Avalon?

I actually had two Avalons an 03 and an 06. The 03 had a few little issues like a PS pump within the first hundred miles and something with the sunroof. The 06 was darn near flawless (a CEL for an O2 sensor IIRC) and one of my favorite cars ever.

The 09 Genesis, well I'll keep it short for the good of the posters here. First and foremost it rode like a truck, second it stranded me three times over the course of a week and had to be towed to the dealer. Hyundai corporate had to intervene to fix it. The fix was to tear into the car and retorque and clean every ground point. It also had the power tilt/tele wheel repaired at least 3 times and various other small things in the interior I can't recall.

I didn't have that car long, but actually broke the lease by selling it to a dealer. Got really lucky as I actually pocketed a few bucks!

berri

I happened to be in Chicago last week and had some time to drop in on the Chicago Auto Show. The Enclave seems very nicely done, but as you noted very expensive for a non-luxury vehicle. You might want to check out the '13 Chevy Traverse. It seemed around $5K cheaper pretty comparably equipped and the updates took away a lot of the chintzy-ness of the prevous version. I've never had an Enclave, but I've rented Acadia's and Traverses and really didn't notice much difference in driving between them. I like the Lambda's, but their reliabilty ratings and different blogs about them make me a bit apprehensive for that kind of money.

berri

Personally, my experience in rented Hyundai and Kia vehicles is similar. I think they still have some work to do in overall refinement, suspension and steering.

uplanderguy

CR has, as long as I can remember, recommended the Traverse, to those who would be interested. I like the looks of the Enclave better but I find the price difference to be hard to ignore! LOL I like the '13 Traverse better than earlier ones too, in the small styling details outside, at least.

I've ridden a couple times in a friend's '11 Enclave, including the third row. Nice vehicle but I wasn't wowed. But then, nothing made since about 1979 really wows me. (and a good bit of what was out even then didn't either!)

berri

Yeah, the lambda's are another one of those similar vehicles with different ratings because I think the other two are CR rated worse than average. But what really worries me, is that even in these blogs you seem to see the same initial drive train issues on much newer models. That's a shame, because these are really nice driving and riding vehicles. There really is no excuse for GM apparently not having these matters totally resolved by now.The other issue is that while a bit smaller, the Highlander and Pilot are considerably cheaper in price with top notch resale values. But the lambda's are bigger and I think the 2013's are also much nicer inside (although new Toyota and Honda models are due in '14). I also think the Traverse hands down beats the new Explorer, but that's just a personal opinion that may be affected by the relative cramped interior and dumb dash layout on the Ford. They both drive very nicely and the Ford may have a slight edge on the leather seats.

explorerx4

The Enclave is the best looking of those GM's.
What's so-so mpg?
My '11 Explorer is averaging 22 mpg. I do a lot of highway trips, though.
Is my '02 Explorer a classic yet?

Mr_Shiftright

Hey everybody, let's careen back on topic

jrosasmc

I was browsing Ebay earlier and I figured I would share these ads with you to get your opinion(s) on each:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1986-BMW-L7-E23-735i-NO-RESERVE-Low-Miles-Well-Ke- pt-Original-Drives-Awesome-/160976783237?ViewItem=&item=160976783237&forcev4exp=- true

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1991-Alfa-Romeo-Spider-Excellent-/230924361669?_t- rksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1997-Volvo-S-90-960-Silver-w-Tan-Leather-Interior- -/190799433791?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2c6c88503f

To be honest, the BMW would scare me because of all that leather covering almost every surface. I would go for the Volvo in an instant.

ateixeira

Engine bay in that Alfa is filthy. You notice since the rest is so clean.

Mr_Shiftright

'86 BMW - 7 Series --- these are really great cars and this one seems nice enough--perhaps a #3 car; so, realistically, it is already fully priced at $3500. I certainly wouldn't bid any more than that. As nice as these cars are, they will never be worth anything. I sold mine, in similar condition, for the same price 6 years ago and it wasn't easy.

91 Alfa--- sold at retail pricing. These are worth more than the earlier "whale tails" but this car has a few troubling signs. If it were spotless and had a hardtop, it could be worth $10K--$11K. As it is, the seller should be happy. These are generally very reliable cars, but pretty doggy---a minivan could slap it silly. The real trick is to stuff an Alfa V-6 in there!

Volvo S90 --- just an old car for a cheap price. Nothing of any note here.

hpmctorque

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why would the leather of that BMW be a concern?

Mr_Shiftright

BMW leather is pretty good---volvo and saab leather doesn't seem to hold up very well. These are two different classes of car so I suspect the leather grades were higher with the 7 series.

The volvo is a more modern car so if it's just transportation you want, then that might be the way to go.

kyfdx

Yeah, but that model Volvo was modern in 1987, not 1997. I can't believe they were still making it in 1997.

andys120

BMW leather is pretty good---volvo and saab leather doesn't seem to hold up very well

That doesn't square with my experience at all. I've taken BMWs and Saabs to 100K+ miles and the leather in the Saabs held up better and had a much more enticing smell than in my 5ers and 3ers.

I've never been in a 7 Series so I can't speak to those.

I was told by an auto upholstery guy that Saab uses leather comparable to that used in Rolls and Bentleys

Mr_Shiftright

"I was told by an auto upholstery guy that Saab uses leather comparable to that used in Rolls and Bentleys"

In his dreams perhaps....that makes no sense whatsoever to me. Maybe he's confusing how leather looks with how it wears. Those Swedish cows don't come in contact with barbed wire so the leather dresses very nicely indeed, but without basic care it'll crack and scuff if you blink at it.

Now, we are talking 1990s here...

andre1969

In his dreams perhaps....that makes no sense whatsoever to me. Maybe he's confusing how leather looks with how it wears.

Not that I'd condone it, but would the leather in a Rolls or Bentley tolerate more abuse and neglect than in something like a Saab?

I've only had two cars with leather...a '79 New Yorker 5th Ave edition, and a 2000 Park Ave Ultra. Sadly, the leather in the NY'er is holding up a LOT better than the Buick. It's got cracks here and there, and the color has rubbed out in a few spots, but contrast that with the Buick, that actually got a big tear in it! :sick: The NYer's leather has a thicker, sturdier feel to it.

Oh, almost forgot, I did have an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe with leather. My uncle bought it used in 1990, and sold it to me in 1995 when I was married. I let the ex have it in the divorce in 1996, and it was dead by early 1998, with about 118,000 miles. Memory's a bit fuzzy, but I think its leather held up okay.

uplanderguy

...sold for $13,400, with 47 bids.

I'd say the name "Romney" had something to do with that.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh, not really if you sit down and think about it. Seems to me that's pretty small change for an alleged big cheese and a media-hyped sale, don't you think? I was thinking 15% premium over top dollar. Collector Car Price guide puts that car at $7800 max, so with 15% we get $8970, so Romney is worth $4,500 bucks extra.

Let him turn around and sell it AGAIN for $13,400, and a few times after that, if we accurately want to weigh the Romney "celebrity" status.

If the car had sold for $40K, I would have been impressed, really I would.

I wonder what it would have been like if it were Henry Ford's Falcon?

bhill2

Shifty, I don't want to seem naive, but $7800 for a bottom-feeder '64 Rambler with the small six, a three speed, and power nothing? I wish I had gotten my Dad's '64 Rambler 770 with the V-8 and power steering. That would be worth what, $10K?

uplanderguy

The Collector Car Price Guide can be pretty laughable if it's the one I'm thinking about (how many perfect 6-cyl. '64 Classic 550's are there to have based sales on?), but even using your numbers, the "Romney" factor gave it a 50% lift. I'm not sure it was a Number 1 car, either, with mileage in the 60's.

Just saying it obviously had an effect, when folks here said it wouldn't.

Mr_Shiftright

I thought the auction revealed quite the opposite---there are baseball cards that sell for more than that car did. I've seen celebrity brassieres sell for more.

but yes, the Rambler was worth more with the Romney name on it---in that one auction, on that one day. No argument there.

jljac

I found two things interesting about this post. First, I thought that the rich president of AMC could afford a top-of-the line Ambassador instead of the mid to low price range Classic (the American was the low price model that year). Second, it was not fitted with the optional roof rack for carrying the family dog. This proved to be very useful when useful when taking the family on vacation. More good images are here. http://jalopnik.com/george-romneys-personal-rambler-classic-is-for-sale-23078655- - 0

uplanderguy

I enjoyed them more than the new stuff. About 50 old cars there.

Ones the struck me the most:

1) Black '60 Lark two-door sedan, hopped up with what appeared to be SBC-power. Just when I think I knew where all the Studes in the general area were, they continue to pop up.

2) Dark green '77 Monte Carlo Landau with 5,258 miles, and I believed it since I looked at those cars constantly when new. White vinyl interior, green dash, belts, and carpeting. I know they're considered garish now, but I think it's easy to see why they were so popular. It looked like a lot of elegance for the bucks. I prefer to it a Gran Torino Elite, although I guess by '77 they were making the 'downsized' Thunderbird. Personally, I like the '77 Monte least of that generation, with its 'capped' taillights and added hood ornament, but this car still stopped me in my tracks.

3) One-owner black '67 Buick Wildcat Custom Hardtop Coupe. I love when GM offered luxury interiors with fastback rooves, not just on formal tops.

4) One-owner, light turquoise with white painted top '63 Pontiac Bonneville Sports Coupe. IMHO, though, 'gummed up' with later Pontiac wire wheelcovers and chrome fender skirts. Still, a beautiful car in and out.

andre1969

The 1974-76 Torino Elite was an experiment by Ford, to see how well the public would take to a Monte Carlo-sized T-bird. It was fairly successful, so they went ahead with it, and as we all know, the '77-79 T-bird was a smash hit.

I think the Monte Carlo is actually my least favorite of GM's intermediate coupes. A little too pretentious for my tastes, and the interiors seemed a bit cheap. But something like a Grand Prix, Regal, or Cutlass Supreme in the upper trim levels was a really nice car...or even the Grand LeMans, which is probably the one I would've gone for.

As for comfort, it's been ages since I've sat in an intermediate Ford from that era. I seem to recall them having enough legroom, but the seating position was really low. My '76 LeMans fits me pretty well, thanks to a power seat that goes into some pretty obscene positions. But I've sat in a few GM intermediates without the power seat, and they've seemed a bit tight inside. And the models with the swivel seats were even worse. It was a neat novelty gimmick, but I found those seats uncomfortable.

Chrysler's competition of the time wasn't bad, IMO. Although I've sat in a few Cordobas and found my LeMans to be more comfortable. Even with power seats, it seems like the GM cars have a wider range of motion.

uplanderguy

With the passing of time, I'd have preferred a Malibu Classic now to a Monte, but outside, I still like the Monte better than the Grand Prix, Supreme, and Regal (it is differentiated outside from the Malibu), but inside it is definitely the worst instrument panel...straight out of a Chevelle with optional (round) gauges. I like Pontiac's instrument panel by far the best of all of them. I didn't like the Grand Prix's chiseled decklid and wide side molding often seen the last couple years. I do like the '76 Buick Regal's exterior a lot.

I liked that the Monte had wide rocker trim unlike the others. In Monte's, I probably like the '76 best of that iteration--clean, tall taillights, stacked headlights but no hood ornament.

In '77, I lobbied Dad for "The New Chevrolet" and am glad I did. So much better use of space, for one thing.

Regarding the swivel seats, I think the only thing they were good for was opening up access to the (tight) rear seat. Olds used them too, but only on the Cutlass "S" models, not the Supremes. Buick and Pontiac never used them.

Another oldie there I liked a lot--and I thought of lemko--was a golden-brown '71 Coupe deVille with gold cloth interior. It was one of the earlier ones with the brushed metal applique on the dash and door panels. Looked like a two-year old car. A boat, yes, but beautifully styled IMHO.

andre1969

I think one of the nicest interiors I remember from that era, in midsized personal luxury coupes, was the Cutlass Supreme Brougham, which has a really nice, plush striped velour interior.

I can't really recall the Regal's interior fabrics, but I remember Buicks in general using a vinyl that was thick and heavy and durable looking, but reminded me a bit of what you'd see in a school bus or police car.

Now, the T-bird got pretty nice, with those Diamond Jubilee/Heritage editions for '78/79. I wonder if the Cougar XR-7 had something similar?

On the Mopar front, they actually offered leather in the Cordoba and Magnum...a level of luxury that I think was unprecedented in cars of this class.

It was one of the earlier ones with the brushed metal applique on the dash and door panels.

When it comes to those monster Caddies, I prefer the '75-76 models with the square headlights. But, I do like the brushed metal trim in the interior of the '71 models. Makes them feel a bit more youthful and sporty, for such a big boat.

fintail

A few cars slumbering in the garage where the fintail now lives. This thing appears to have been there for awhile:



And a couple mystery cars:

uplanderguy

I'd say the second (first covered car) pic is a '66-'69 Lincoln Continental four-door, and the later pic a later Continental--probably late '70's, like a Town Car.

fintail

Pretty much bang on about the first covered car - I think it's a 66-67 Continental. It's a convertible, kind of a burgundy color.

Second car is an early Rolls Royce Silver Shadow - probable late 60s vintage.

I guess I can share these here too - an old obscure car and a fairly obscure (as it is diesel) new car:







And about to be tucked in again:



I'm so happy to have a stable garage for it again.

stickguy

took a drive, and saw a couple of oddballs.

1st was an early Seville (the nice looking mid-70s style). Real clean looking in white. But the real crowning touch, it had one of those trunk lids with the imitation wire wheel in the top.

2nd was an actually nice looking 80s something Subaru XT doorstop wedge. Don't see many of them these days.

jrosasmc

Did you purchase that new white Mercedes diesel? That car is definitely you!