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
5th Avenues were pretty hot sellers for awhile, and almost pure profit from what I've heard. I don't think they ever broke 100K units in any given year, but probably peaked out at around 90K once or twice.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Chrysler, as a division, actually did pretty well in the mid/late 70's, even as Dodge and especially Plymouth floundered. In 1979, Plymouth was down to essentially just two models...the subcompact Horizon and compact Volare. They did make the lineup seem a bit bigger though, by offering a range of captive imports, like the Colt, Arrow, and Sapporo. And they rebadged a few Dodge trucks and vans as Plymouths.
also a mint Red Fox body Cobra on the way to work.
It passed a bunch of us.
What an "overstyled" car that is. Surprised to see it driving around, they are pretty valuble I believe.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Up front it actually reminds me a bit of a Cadillac. I think it's the heavy "brows" over the headlights, that are a bit '59 to '60-ish.
There was a local guy who used to have a '60 Imperial 4-door hardtop. He sold it to someone out in Texas (I think) awhile back though, and last time I saw him, he had a nice, green '67-68 Imperial convertible. I guess being a convertible it's more desireable, but I always found the '67-68 to be a bit of a yawn-fest in general.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I sorta like the '63--older style with flush taillights. Not a fan of 'sparrow shredders'.
I don't know Imperials of the '57-61 era real well, but I remember looking at one in that range at a car show, and I swear that capital "I" on the front fender's 'Imperial' nameplate looked a foot tall! I also remember the enormous round instruments inside, reminding me of a double-D bra. To each his own, of course. I'm generally not a luxury car fan of that era, with some exceptions, and Caddys and Lincolns of the late '50's weren't examples of restraint either.
For me, I think it's just the slab-sidedness and boxiness in general that makes me think they both look too close together in style. Although, the '67-68 Chryslers actually have slightly concave sides. Apparently, the technology wasn't really there yet though, to bend the sheetmetal that way flawlessly, so there was sort of an unwritten rule that you did NOT order one in black!
I think a '67-68 Imperial was around 225" long, on a 127" wb, while the New Yorker was around 220" long, on a 124" wb. So, there really wasn't a huge difference in size there.
I think one thing that tended to hurt Chrysler's perception in big cars a bit was that old "There will Never Be a Small Chrysler" mantra. Starting in 1963, the Newport was always the same size as the much more expensive, upscale New Yorker. And, from 1958-62, the only difference between the Newport (and Windsor) was in the front clip, ahead of the cowl...passenger cabins were identical to the larger New Yorkers (and Saratoga).
In contrast, if you bought an Electra instead of a LeSabre, or a Ninety-Eight instead of one of the various 88 models, you got a bigger car, with a larger interior, and usually some pretty substantial sheetmetal changes in the C-pillar and rear quarter panel areas.
I guess you could argue that this would've made the Newport a great value, since you're getting a bigger car than a LeSabre or 88 at a similar price, but I thought it mainly served to cheapen the New Yorker, as most of the changes between the two were usually just easy-swap stuff like engines, interiors, trim, etc. And then, once the Imperial was redone for '67-68, it was just too close in style and size to the rest of the Chryslers to really matter anymore.
I thought Imperial did have a bit of a resurgence for 1969. I loved the hidden headlights and the sleekness in general, even if the fuselage styling did make it appear a bit chunky. But, if you put a '69 Imperial up against a '69 Newport, it becomes painfully obvious that they're almost the same car. At GM, a similar comparison would be a '69 Delta 88 or LeSabre up against a Caddy DeVille, and even though you might see some similarities, such as windshields, A-pillars, length of the front doors, etc., GM still did a much better job differentiating.
I guess though, since Imperials were sold in Chrysler dealers, a family resemblance wasn't such a big deal. But, when they started looking *too* much alike, a lot of people probably just passed up an Imperial for a New Yorker.
Oh, and then there was engines. Usually, whatever an Imperial had under the hood was the same as what a New Yorker had...392 Hemi-4bbl, 413-4bbl, and finally the 440-4bbl. At least Cadillac had their own engines, which added to the mystique. Although I'm sure there were some years in there, where an Olds or Buick big block still put out similar power.
Saw nothing else vintage on the drive down, but the vehicle fleet here is kind of retro in a "few cars newer than 1998" way - saw a Tempo coupe drive by not long ago.
Work in progress? I'd take it as it stands!
I like the whitewalls...not too wide, but seem period-correct.
Last weekend in South Bend, at the Stude Museum, they have a bow window with a car on a turntable and it's all lit up at night so even driving by, it looks like a showroom window. They had a charcoal-colored '58 Packard Hawk on the turntable, saddle leather interior, with wide whites but not real wide, which went right to the wheel. Looked very authentic to me and was the prettiest Packard Hawk I'd seen. Typically, not a pretty car but there are other '58 cars I'd park next to it for 'ugly' or 'extreme'!
Found this short video clip which includes the car:
http://www.abc57.com/news/local/New-wheels-on-displayed-Studebaker-Museum-181592- 841.html
OUI, OUI!
Actually the Packard Hawk beats the Panhard IMO. :P
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
58 Hawk isn't pretty, but is better at some angles than others.
Oddities today - couple of Model A hot rods, 56 Chevy, quite a few 70s-80s era everyday cars.
Ugly can be fun actually, as long as you don't pay too much for it. :P
1971 is an interesting year, in that it is often the last year in price guides on collector cars before the values drop like a rock.
1960 was a big year of change with the arrival of all the compact cars from the Big Three and especially for Ford. I like the entire Ford model line up that year even though the success of the Falcon was at the expense of the Studebaker Lark more than any other compact.
GM and Studebaker led the way putting the headlights flush with the front end and the grille in 1959 (instead being integrated with the front fenders) and the others were following that design in 1960. GM had enough money to change its whole model line between 1959-1960 so it could afford to make major design changes after only one model year.
On the negative side, GM cars kept the big fins at the rear of their cars just as they were going out of style. Studebaker led the way in getting rid of the fins at the rear end of the car.
I think my favorite Riv is a '65--third year of the style but cleaned up IMHO--but I know people who love that '66 and '67. I think those are nice cars.
I like the full-size '65 Chryslers for styling. I thought it was cool that the New Yorker had clear taillight lenses and red bulbs, fairly commonplace today. For some reason I don't like that feature on modern cars--always looks to me like the red taillight lenses must be broken out! LOL
The '65 Chevy was "too big for its shape" if you know what I mean. Especially coupes do not look good when they are gigantic.
I think there is some validity to that, especially if you are going beyond just the body styling. !957 was a good year for that aspect, but otherwise a carryover from 55/56 (with the exception of forward look Mopars). I might broaden that 71 to very late 60's/very early 70's since during that relatively short time frame GM came out with really nice looking intermediates, Mopar brought on the Fuselage (although one can argue that the greenhouse area of a GM intermediate coupe had a very "Boeing" look to it), and even Ford did a big remake.
The 65 Corvair was sharp. I think the 65 Impala was nice because even if it was a bit out of proportion, the coke bottle styling was quite eye catching to me. I thought they squared off the 66 too much. I liked the updated 67 style though.
...and 62 stated bringing on the D3 intermediates (Ford Fairlane, and really even if unintentional, the downsized Fury and Polara). Although Studebaker and AMC beat the Big 3 to both of those markets.
Your tastes and mine are very close, berri. With regard to the Chevys, the only place where we differ is that I prefer the '63 to the '62, but the '61 is definitely my favorite and I also never warmed up to the '64. I also liked the '63 Ford and thought the '64 was a serious step in the wrong direction. For Plymouth, of course, there was nowhere to go but up from the '61. The '62 was definitely better (what wasn't), the '63 was yet better, and I guess my tastes would put the '64 on top.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
To me, the '64 was blunt at the front, blunt at the back, and had U-shaped bright side trim (except SS).
Taken with a shaker of salt, I was reading up on the Chevelle SS, and according to Wikipedia, although the '72 model horsepower was revised downward from the '71, there was no evidence that it really changed.
I believe GM started cutting compression ratios as well along the timeframe, which led to real power drops. And in those days, where GM led, everyone else usually followed.
In looking through my old car encyclopedia, it looks like some of the top engine choices started to lose a bit of hp here and there. Not just at GM, but at Ford and Mopar as well. Although one exception is the Chevy 454, which my book shows as being available with a 425 hp option that year!
I think that's a Consumer's Guide's curse there, andre...I remember the 454 having 245 hp.
When in doubt, I go to the original brochure's info in the Old Car Manual Project, online. I'm too lazy to do it this morning though. LOL
Yeah, I've caught all sorts of typos and such in those books over the years.
When in doubt, I go to the original brochure's info in the Old Car Manual Project, online. I'm too lazy to do it this morning though. LOL
Yeah, I know the feeling. I guess another reasonable source might be those big, blue "MOTOR's" Repair manuals, which have a lot of detailed info. Dunno if they still make them or not. My Granddad had a bunch of them, from 1960 to 1976, although he's missing a few years in between. They went back seven years though, so he was still covered. As the 70's marched on, Granddad started getting fed up with working on new cars, so he quit getting those manuals after 1976.
Anyway, most of them are packed away in my grandmother's garage, but I have the 1976 edition out in my garage. But I don't feel like walking the ~200 feet down there and digging it out. Maybe after the coffee kicks in...
Anyway, one inconsistency...for my '76 LeMans, Consumer Guide lists the 350-4bbl at 165 hp. But, the MOTOR's book lists it at 175.
By that time, Pontiac wasn't listing hp figures in its sales brochures anymore. The 1976 Pontiac "full line" brochure just mentions that there are five V-8 options for the LeMans. It references the 260, the 400, and tries to seduce the reader by suggesting they get acquainted by the 455, as it's acquired quite a following in recent years. Alas, probably not by 1976, with everybody worried about fuel economy and such!
I just dug out a brochure I have for the 1976 LeMans, specifically. It lists six different engine choices...
260 Olds V-8 (requires Hydramatic in CA)
350 2-bbl (banned in CA)
350 4-bbl (CA only)
400 2-bbl (banned in CA)
400-4bbl
455-4bbl.
No HP figures are listed, but Consumer Guides shows: 260:110 hp, 350-2: 160 hp, 350-4: 165 hp, 400-2: 170 hp, 400-4: 185 hp, and 455-4: 200 hp.
Oddly, Consumer Guide lists the 400-2bbl as being standard on the Grand LeMans. Yet, the Pontiac full-range brochure (listed at oldcarbrochures.com) says the 250-6 is standard, or you can order one of five available V-8's.
I seriously couldn't imagine that, by 1976, anybody would be making something as big as 400 cubic inches standard on a relatively low-priced intermediate. But, the only '76 Grand LeMans that I can remember seeing at a car show, did indeed have a 400 under the hood! Can't remember if it was a 2- or 4-bbl though. I remember it was a dark blue coupe, that I saw at one of the car shows in Carlisle PA awhile back, maybe 2003 or 2004. Apparently mine was a CA/high-altitude car, so it got the 350-4bbl. And, the VIN bears this out.
Most Grand Prixes from '76 that I see pop up on eBay just have the 350-2bbl. So I'd imagine that if a more upscale car like that was offered with lesser engines, surely the Grand LeMans was, as well. I think the 400 was standard in LeMans/Grand LeMans wagons though, so that might be where CG's confusion comes in?
In addition, the '72s, '73s and '74s (especially) had driveability problems. Most models from those years were undesirable when new, and certainly didn't get better with age and mileage. Plus, assembly quality, especially in domestics, probably reached its nadir during those years. And, finally, prices rose at the most rapid rates in history in the early to mid-1970s, due to rapidly rising materials costs and overly generous union contracts.
We'll never know how much of the decline in car values was due to these factors and how much to styling, but the factors listed above were certainly serious head winds.
Remember that inflation was rampant in those years, as well ("Whip Inflation Now!").
The decline in values, IMHO, was also due to government regulations other than big bumpers--the view in the industry was that convertibles would be outlawed and rollover standards meant that hardtop body styling eventually went away.
But yeah, I think 1973 was the year everything started to go to hell, with the rudimentary emissions controls taking hold, fuel economy suffering as well, and the 5 mph bumpers adding weight. And, even though the body styles had been slowly phasing for awhile, I think you're right that most people probably remember '73 as a death knell for convertibles and hardtops.
The '72 had a few small changes---new front turn signal lmaps and a 3-tiered grille.
Things went downhill in '73, with a restyle and a 245HP max.
I always thought it was interesting that the 454 usually only came in fairly "hot" configurations, usually at least a fairly well-tuned 4-bbl. In contrast, Pontiac, Olds, and Buick all offered 2-bbl versions of their 455s, and some milder 4-bbls as well.
But then, for a few years, Chevy did have the 402, which probably filled in for lighter-duty big-block needs. And then starting in '73, the 454 was offered with 215 hp (probably replaced the 402) and 245 (probably the replacement for the 270 hp version).
Truth be told, Chevy did a pretty good job keeping the HP up on the 454, even through the dark years. It had 235 in '74-75, and 225 for '76, its last year in big cars. For comparison, the '76 Pontiac 455 was down to 200 hp, Buick's 455 was down to 205, and Olds was choked down to 190 in most cars, although the Toronado came standard with 215.
For comparison, my book is showing the Mopar 440 down to 205 hp in 1976. However, it also shows a 240 hp version of the smaller 400 as an option, both only for the Gran Fury. I wonder if that 240 hp is a misprint? Or perhaps a copcar only engine?
There was a 245 hp version of the 440 for 1978, but my old car book doesn't mention it. However, I have a police car book that references it. The Michigan State Police tested it in a '78 "small" Fury or Monaco, and it was the last thing resembling really "fast" mid/full-sized police car, at least until the LT-1 Caprices came out for 1994. IIRC, it did 0-60 in something like 9.2 seconds and topped out at 132 mph. I think the next fastest in that test was a Catalina with a 400 that did 0-60 in 9.9 seconds, and it only got worse from there, although I can't remember any of the other numbers.
I am unsure if other manufacturers did the same for '71. I suspect not.
It seems that emissions controls were fairly benign until 1973. Again, I can only refer to GM, but I know that their engines that year took a big dive in both driveability and performance. 1974 was even worse. Driveability improved somewhat for them in 1975 with the addition of catalytic converters and HEI.
1973 and 1974 cars were also afflicted with cow-catcher bumpers (worse in '74 than '73) qne the dreaded seat belt interlock in '74 also, thankfully repealed shortly thereafter. It was not a good time.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I believe that the reason for the change from gross to net horsepower was because of federal emissions regulations. I believe the feds wanted them rated that way because they were certified that way.
The federal regulations gave the Avanti II Corporation production problems because they used Chevrolet engines but later dropped the 4 speed manual transmission as an option because it would have cost too much to get their cars certified with that transmission. You could get the same engine in a Chevrolet with a 4 speed manual transmission, in but not an Avanti II. Expensive regulations tend to favor the larger more established producers. AMC had a lot of trouble meeting federal requirements too.