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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Don't RRs of that era have GM Turbo-Hydramatic (3-speed torque converters) trannies? If so, then a brake job might cost more than a transmission overhaul.
That white Corniche is a gorgeous car. Too bad the ownership costs are prohibitive, notwithstanding the super heavy depreciation. Of course, that's mainly why they depreciate so much. There's expensive maintenance (eg. older European mid-size luxury class), then there's frighteningly high maintenance (RR, Ferrari, Lambo, etc.). I guess it doesn't matter if you're a centimillionaire or billionaire, or just a garden variety 80-something year old multimillionaire.
Haha! Great looking car and pic too. We're so used to seeing Trans Ams over the past +40 years that we kinda forget what a jarring sight they could be back then - hood chicken and all. Seeing that Trans Am parked at the RR-Bentley lot made me laugh and think, "One of these things is not like the others..."
It looks like a '74 with base 400/4bbl and questionable wheel choice. The 4-speed is nice. Imagine if it were one of the few SD-455 optioned 4-speed cars.
"Imagine if it were one of the few SD-455 optioned 4-speed cars."
It would be reasonably fast because of the cubes and relatively light weight, but certainly not super fast. 1970, due to early mechanical emission controls. As you know, 1974 was the last year before the widespread introduction of catalytic converters, which allowed for an improved blend of fuel economy, power and driveability. 1974 was a low point, in terms of stumbling and stalling.
A lot of the remaining 1973 and 1974 big blocks have been recalibrated or modified to reduce or remove the negative effects of the factory spec smog controls. I'm far from an expert on this subject, but from what I've heard, some of these modified engines are legal while others are not. My neighbor is the original owner of a 1974 manual transmission Corvette convertible, with a machine shop remanufactured, carburated 350 that he claims delivers close to 400 hp. He also says it's emissions legal. He drives it just occasionally, since he and his wife and son each have daily drivers, but when he starts it up it lopes, shakes and is racing car loud. It's a real beast (think bucking bronco on wheels). I enjoy listening to it, but I imagine that it may annoy some neighbors. I haven't heard any complaints, though. To his credit, he drives it in a manner that's as considerate as one can be with such a vehicle.
He ordered that car without power steering or other power robbing accessories, so the driving experience is very different from modern high performance cars.
According to Wikipedia, Rolls used the old-style, 4-speed hydramatic from 1952-67, and the THM400 and its overdrive replacement, from 1965-92. Rolls actualy got the licensing to build the older 4-speed model themselves, rather than sourcing it from GM. Not sure about the THM400 though.
I've heard, however, that the GM transmissions used in Rolls Royces were built to higher specs, and there are some differences. So rebuilding the GM transmission in a Rolls is still a lot more expensive than rebuilding the one in my '85 Silverado. At least, that's what I've heard...dunno about the truth of it.
Even if RR built the THM400 to higher specs, I'm wondering how difficult it would be possible to replace a bad transmission with a GM spec THM400, as a practical solution to make a Corniche driveable. My reasoning is that, while the cost of rebuilding or replacing a RR spec transmission isn't justifiable in an old RR, desirable as it may be, the cost of a new or remanufactured GM spec tranny could be justifiable.
Hey, wait; the transmission in your '85 Silverado is good, while the body is rusting, right? Why not...just thinkin' out loud...
Even better....
That reminds me, saw another VW conversion this weekend. Like this, wire wheel hubcaps included, but white:
There's one of those with leather straps all over that hangs out at the golf course here.
At least this way you get a car that runs with your bling.
Where's my revolver?
Re RR and TH transmissions---as I recall, RR used their own case and did modify the transmission internally. Those 70s Corniches ARE nice cars, and a mighty fine ride for cheap---all you have to do is hold your breath that the worrisome hydraulics don't fail and that the equally worrisome V8 doesn't do something bad.
One has to keep in mind here that Rolls was on its knees in the late 70s early 80s, and all the King's (Queen's?) walnut burl and all the King's leather and wool, couldn't put RR back together again.
If I had that Corniche RHD back again, I wouldn't fix it--I'd just go out and sit in it and eat my lunch!
I wouldn't want a RHD car, there will be awkward driving issues, and resale will be tough. Easy to parallel park anyway.
I think those RRs weren't ostentatious enough, that coupled with malaise era British quality made the brand unsustainable. New ones are flashier, and the brand does much better. We are in a new belle epoque though, which certainly wasn't the case 35 years ago.
This morning I saw the same mean-sounding 450 SEL I see now and then. It really sounds like an old American car, as it likely has an exhaust defect. That little V8 can rumble under the right circumstances.
I think all the cars are RHD in St. Lucia - LHD would be awkward.
I spotted an Infiniti M30 convertible a week or two ago. I remember how much I liked them when they first came out.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
There is one of those m30s down the block for me. Rotting away in a driveway, has not moved in years. Guy that owns it is (or was) a sales manager at the Infiniti dealer. Sad looking shape now. But handsome design.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I think I remember those. Kinda looked like a Renault Alliance? Kind of boxy, clean lines?
"If I had that Corniche RHD back again, I wouldn't fix it--I'd just go out and sit in it and eat my lunch!"
With Grey Poupon, of course.
rather, old man. (that was a clever commercial actually).
Yep, actually had an M30 convertible in our office garage for a while, ASC did the conversions for Infiniti:
Cool 1966 Pontiac Catalina Safari wagon I saw at my local mechanic today. I've seen this car around the neighborhood before.
In station wagons of that era I tend to prefer Ford/Merc or Mopar. BUT I like that Pontiac! Where's Uplander? He should be drooling over it
@texases That Infiniti looks like a copy of a fox body Mustang conertible.
Saw this Andre-mobile today:
Dad drove Desotos exclusively until 1960, when his 1957 required @$500 worth of repairs. He then went to trade it and the best offer was $350- or about 10% of what he paid for it new less than three years before. The closest he ever came to buying another Chrysler product was when he co-signed on a loan to help me buy my new 1979 Plymouth Arrow GT(a Mitsubishi).
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
@fintail, Check out those wheel covers on that Desoto!
IIRC the '59 Mopars got most of the Forward Look kinks ironed out. But personally I think they are a little flat compared to the 57/58's in style. Still like that one though and think that in general the Desoto's tended to be some of the nicer looking Forward Look Mopars on both the exteriors and interiors. That particular interior seems to pull off looking sporty, yet comfy and expensive.
So do you know what the white Bubbletop next to the Desoto is?
IIRC, it was a 61 Pontiac. I seem to recall it had a "tri power" badge. Extremely tight parking in there. There was also a 60 Pontiac convertible there, big car.
That '59 DeSoto is an Adventurer, so it's top of the line...basically DeSoto's version of the Chrysler 300 Letter Series. Looks like it's equipped with the swivel seats, too. In general, I don't like the '59 Mopars as much as the '57-58's, either. The Plymouth just seemed garish compared to the previous year, while the Dodge seemed like an exaggerated version of the '57-58, pushed out to almost cartoonish proportions. The Chryslers just seem kind boring, and the Imperials, a bit heavy-handed compared to '58. The DeSoto is kind of heavy-handed as well, but somehow, I think that hulking front-end works on the car, and gives it a muscular look.
DeSoto was trying hard by 1959, offering spruced up interiors, powerful engines, and a convertible in every series, for a total of four (they did that in '58 as well though). The Adventurer's 350 hp 383 V-8 was optional in the other three series, and must have downright scary in the lightweight Firesweep. That year, they also put more effort into the Firesweep, finally ditching the front clip that stuck a DeSoto grille onto a Dodge front clip. This year, it used a hood and fenders that were styled to look like the rest of the DeSoto line, albeit modified to fit the 4-inch shorter wheelbase. Sales improved slightly for the low end Firesweep and the high-end Adventurer. However, the more mainstream Firedome fell again, as did the more luxurious Fireflite. So overall, sales shrunk from an already bad 49K units in 1958 to around 46K for 1959. In 1957, the last good year, they sold about 117,500.
I've heard that the '59 Mopars in general were built a lot better than '57-58. However, because of quality perceptions, sales were still poor. I used to be a member of the National DeSoto club, and I remember in their annual roster issue, back around 1990, they had around 80-90 '57's listed, maybe 40 or so '58's, but over 100 '59's. I always wondered if that was an indication of the '59's being better built? Of the 3 years for DeSoto, I would have thought that the '57 would have been the most sought after, as it was the first year of the style, the purest, and the last year of the Hemi engine. But, a lot of people like 1959 cars in general because of that year's outlandishness overall, so maybe that's part of it? FWIW, I remember the most popular DeSoto in that roster being the 1956, with over 200 cars listed. 1955 and 1953 were also very popular years, but I don't remember the totals. I think 1950 might have had a good turnout on that roster, as well. IIRC, 1950 was DeSoto's best sales year, with something like 133,000 cars, although 1953 came in a close second., and then 1955. 1955-57 was the only period where DeSoto had 3 straight years of 100K plus sales.
When I've gone junkyarding, I've noticed that you could actually see the progression (regression?) of these cars through the years. For instance, I could find plenty of '49-54 Mopars that were still solid and looked like you could just install a battery and tires, give it a wash, and it would be ready to go. The typical '55-56 was rustier, about average for a car of that era. But then a '57-58 looked like it was eager to return to the earth. The '59's seemed better. Oddly, the UniBody '60 models seemed pretty rock-solid as well. Not up to '49-54 quality, but maybe they really were rustproofing them better by this time?
Great pictures of that Desoto. I recall those wheel covers, I don't think they were that popular with the general purchaser in my area since I'm not sure I saw any in the wild when new.
What museum were these cars in? Do they have pictures of their whole lineup online?
An unmentioned point is the dogleg shape of the windshield. I recall the companies battling it out over who had the best solution for visibility for the driver with their wrap around windshield shapes. Ford brought the lower window around with the angle reversed from what Chrysler has in the Desoto picture. Visibility is certainly different today with the A-pillar blocking visibility much more than any of the windshields did in the 57 era.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
>
I'm pretty sure those hubcaps were Adventurer-only, so they would be pretty rare. DeSoto only built 687 Adventurers that year, total. I forget what the breakout was, but I want to say 97 convertibles? So that would leave 590 hardtop coupes.
According to Wikipedia, the swivel seats were standard on the Adventurer. And according to Howstuffworks.com, the hardtop started at $4427, the convertible at $4749.
Oh, and for an interesting spin on how statistics can be manipulated, the Adventurer saw a whopping 59% boost in sales for '59. Sounds impressive at first, until you list actual sales figures...432 versus 687!
As for the shape of the A-pillar, that's one thing I like about my DeSoto. It makes it easier to get into and out of, a bit more like a modern car, although the seating position is a bit low. In contrast, those reverse-slant doglegs could be real knee-bangers.
Despite their squeaks, rattles, shoddy workmanship, and vulnerability to rust, the '57-59 Mopars were supposedly pretty sturdy cars. I wonder if part of that might be where the base of the A-pillar mates up with the cowl? It's pretty close to it, again, like a modern car. With those more severe wraparound windshields, the base of the A-pillar is aft of the cowl, and there's really nothing to support it. While any of these cars were a death trap, by today's standards, I believe the Mopars offered slightly better (less worse?) rollover protection.
As for sturdiness in general, I always figured something like a '57-58 GM B-body (Oldsmobiles, Buick Special/Century) would have been among the strongest. They were relatively small compared to their peers, but very heavy for their size. Plus, Olds and Buick rejected the wasp-waisted X-frame that Cadillac went with for '57, and Chevy/Pontiac joined for '58. Instead, Buick and Olds used what appeared to be a perimeter frame, with an X in it for added reinforcement.
Lemko, you might not want to watch this...
Oh, the humanity! 1962 Caddy versus 2002 in a head on collsion
I was surprised though, the Caddy held up much better than I thought it would, especially being a 4-door hardtop, and still on the X-frame. Looks like the biggest problem was the seat ripping loose and pitching forward...something that happened when NHTSA ran that '59 Impala and '09 Malibu together.
That 1962 Cadillac seemed to hold up better against the 2002 DTS than the 1959 Bel Air did against the 2012 Malibu. I wonder how my 1989 Cadillac Brougham would hold up against the 2007 DTS? I'm not crazy enough to try it!
I think it being a head on was a 'best case' for the '62/'02. That crash with the '59/'09 was an offset crash, one of the harder ones to handle.
It's actually kind of a holding facility for a higher end specialty dealer - the MB mechanic I patronize does business out of the same facility. I think a lot of the cars in that room end up going to auction somewhere. Odd that the DeSoto doesn't have wiper blades. The car was decent, but not mint - a good driver or local show car. The metal showed patina, but paint looked recent.
The dogleg windshield fad is something to study - it didn't really last long, maybe the cons outweighed the pros. Mopar was kind of a hybrid, and even the fintail kind of went for it, with wraparound glass (moreso at rear).
Good point, I had forgotten about that. Those X-frames might hold up better in a head on hit, with the force spread out more evenly along the whole front. But with some offset, like in the '59/'09 crash, I would think putting more force to one side would cause that whole X-frame to start to twist, at the point where it narrows down.
Lemko, I think your '89 would do comparatively well against your '07, but would still end up being the loser.
I've seen crash tests of the big '71-76 GM cars, and while they're still body on frame, they do show signs of folding up in a somewhat controlled fashion, so by that time, I think they were starting to put some effort into crash protection. I would imagine the '73-77 intermediates followed suit, and the downsized '77 full-sizers definitely had some thought put into them, although it would pale in comparison to today's cars.
Very impressive, as who knows what kind of metal decay and neglect had been suffered by the old car. Always seems sad to see something that old destroyed, but that car looks like it was far beyond ever being saved anyway. Might be better to go out in an experiment like that than rusting into the ground.
They missed on the length of that '62. 15 feet? I don't think so, more like 20. Their graphic claimed the '02 was longer, no way.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I want to say the '61-62 Caddies were around 222" long. They were downsized marginally compared to the '59-60 models, but still hardly petite.
It's weird to think something that big is only 4" longer than my grandma's old '85 LeSabre (218") and within a fraction of my '79 New Yorker (221.5"). But, the 5 mph bumpers on those newer cars inflated the length considerably. Plus, the fronts on the newer cars were tapered, sort of prow-shaped, so driving a car that's only 221.5" at its peak isn't quite the same experience as driving a more flat-faced car that's the same overall length.
I'm thinking that from a structural basis, and all other things being essentially equal, that generally a unibody will prevail over a body on frame in a head on type collision. Just more there to absorb the impact.
You would be very very dead in that '62 Cadillac.
Usually, a UniBody will do better than body on frame. However, some of those early unit bodies could be hit or miss when it came to the engineering, since they didn't have the aid of computers and such like they do today. And over the years, body-on-frame vehicles have become better.
I'd be curious to see how a unitized '60 Mopar would fare, compared to its body-on-frame '59 counterpart. If it doesn't have seatbelts, you're still screwed, but I imagine that the '60 would still maintain its passenger cabin integrity better than the '59. One definite advantage Mopar had in those days, compared to GM at least, was the location of the steering box. It was mounted a bit aft of the front axle, so it at least took a pretty hard hit to punch the steering column back into the driver. GM put it up pretty far forward, ahead of the axle, so it didn't take much of an impact. I guess if you're not wearing a seatbelt, it's still not that much of a difference, since you'll still be thrown against the steering column. Still, I guess getting thrown on it isn't quite as bad, as getting thrown on it while it's getting thrust at you!
I always thought it was interesting though, that if you look up underneath any unitized car, they still have a subframe, both front and rear, but nothing under the passenger compartment. It almost seems to me that would make the front and rear of the car too stiff compared to the passenger cabin, but apparently not.
almost seems to me that would make the front and rear of the car too stiff compared to the passenger cabin, but apparently not.
I think they accomplish that on newer vehicles by adding crush zones into the design and production.
I would like to have seen the rust condition of the front part of the frame of the 62 as well as the rust around the seat mounting area before the collision.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I wonder, when those seats pull out and pitch forward, is it the entire seat assembly pulling out from the floorpan, or is it the seat cushion/backrest pulling off of the track?
Seeing how badly these cars crash makes me think more and more about when I get my '57 DeSoto back from the mechanic. Fortunately, when he pulled the car apart, he didn't find any rust at all in the floorpan or frame. The passenger cabin itself is nice and solid, although the trunk floor needed work, as did the lower quarter panels, and the piece behind the quarter panel, on one side. Oh, and a fender around the headlight bezel.
I'm having lap belts put in the car, so I guess that will help somewhat, I guess. Dunno how much that would help though, if the seat rips off of its track. And even if it doesn't, I'd still most likely hit the steering wheel. But, that would happen with my '67 Catalina convertible, so I doubt if the car would be much more dangerous than that. Although, the Catalina at least has a collapsible steering column.
Don't worry about it Andre. You only live once, so enjoy it. Life is short. You can't predict or change fate! BTW, I think some great convertible weather is heading your way as the storms continue to clear out.
Here's the rear of that beast. Flamboyant, anyway:
Nice visibility, too.
I like that anodized trim. I think Fomoco used a bit of that on some of it's upper trim mid-late 50's vehicles too. Then in the 60's it became popular on stereo's. That's a nice shot by the way. Got any of the 61 Pontiac next to it?
Beautiful car. Tasteful in terms of the attitudes and peers of that era. But it is radical compared to today's bubble cars with rounded corners everywhere. That was a period where jet planes and rockets were the styling cue givers. That museum doesn't have any extra room around some cars to make it possible to get a decent shot without using a wider angle lens that gives some distortion.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The cars were parked very closely - it's not a museum, it's a garage. After talking to the MB mechanic, I just kind of nosed around, as I spotted the DeSoto and knew the pics would be appreciated. They were so close that it would be difficult to view other cars, not to mention get pics - definitely parked one at a time to utilize space. I assume the Pontiac would have something like a 389 in it, as it had the "tri power" badge.
The anodized trim on the DeSoto had some patina, which over time, I am growing to like more and more. This car could be driven, not meant to sit on a trailer.
That DeSoto is just stunning. Designs were advancing quickly by 1959 but this one has to be near the head of the pack. The bumper designs on the '57-'59 DeSoto were just great. I especially love the '57 front bumper, with the "electric shaver" slot.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Maybe I'm getting old with distorted perception, but I think both that Desoto and the 61 Pontiac next to it still look good today. Seems like more than a few of the newer designs out today are getting too overdesigned. Suddenly it's 1958
Overdesigned is true, I think. Look at Hyundai and their "fluidic sculpture" theme, which is really overdone, to the point where they backed off it for the new Sonata and made it look like a Subaru instead. Same with Ford and some of their designs which are of the same theme just taken down a bit. The dashboard/instrument panels of these cars also suffer from tortured design. There is a fine line between good, elegant design and being overdone that often gets crossed, unfortunately.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6