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

uplanderguy

A concours Mercedes 280SL would exceed 120K easily these days.

What is the difference between a 280SE, like the one which sold for $120K, and a 280SL? Is the SL a convertible?

stickguy

SL is the classic pagoda 2seat sporty convertible. IMO one of the best looking cars ever.

The SE is a coupe or 4 seat convertible. Bigger car, I think on a different chassis

Mr_Shiftright

yes, that's right, much bigger, heftier car, and the 280SE 3.5 is a V-8 engine. It's a desirable car for those reasons--4 seat convertible, highway cruiser, and, in the "low grille" version, much more modern looking than earlier Benzes.

A 280SL roadster, on the other hand, is pretty wound up at freeway speeds and, some say, too feminine in concept for your average male car enthusiast. Dunno about that, but it's not the kind of car that would scare anybody.

andre1969

Mr_Shiftright said:

A 280SL roadster, on the other hand, is pretty wound up at freeway speeds and, some say, too feminine in concept for your average male car enthusiast. Dunno about that, but it's not the kind of car that would scare anybody.

There was an episode of "Speed Racer" where Trixie was driving what looked like a 280SL. Dunno if that makes it a chick car or not. It was at least big enough for Spritle and Chim-Chim to hang out in the trunk.

fintail

That seems like big money for a coupe. I remember about 15-20 years ago when the cabrios started passing 100K (I think they can hit 200K these days) I was shocked - six figures for such a recent car. They were kind of classics from new, and a specialist restoration would probably cost most of that 100K, but still. Maybe it's just a bizarro world, where 190SLs regularly hit 150K and nice 280SLs hit 6 figures.

I think you can get a nice coupe driver for less than half of that auction result. Must have been a nice car.

uplanderguy said:

Got my new "Automobile" mag the other day (a gift from a newbie in our local Stude club), and it shows selling at Sotheby's in Plymouth, MI, on 7/25/15, a 1971 M-B 280SE 3.5 coupe in Graubau Metallic over parchment leather with floor-shift automatic, for $121K!! I had no idea those cars were such in demand, although they comment that good ones can be found for much lower. Still, a '70's almost-anything bringing that kind of money is very impressive.

fintail

South of Seattle yesterday spotted a 65 Galaxie 2 door HT, ~70 Toyota Corona hardtop (haven't seen one in ages), clean 84-85ish Mustang 5.0 convertible, clean Celebrity Eurosport, Taurinental.

tjc78

Mid 80s Dodge Daytona "Shelby".

robr2

tjc78 said:

Mid 80s Dodge Daytona "Shelby".

Ooohhh. I owned one. Too many torks for a FWD car. 

andre1969

robr2 said:

tjc78 said:

Mid 80s Dodge Daytona "Shelby".

Ooohhh. I owned one. Too many torks for a FWD car. 

Which turbo did your Daytona have? The 146 hp version, or one of the more powerful ones? I had an '88 LeBaron turbo, with the 146 hp 2.2, and that sucker did have a bit of an urge to want to go sideways if you stomped on it from a standstill. Or, if you needed to make a sharp right turn, such as merging out into traffic, it seemed like it wanted to go straight.

robr2

It had the Turbo II - 174 HP and 200 torks. It did like to move the nose sideways when I stomped on it.

My circle of friends at the time has quite the range of early to mid 80's American "muscle":

Dodge Daytona - Red
Ford Mustang GT - Red
Pontiac Sunbird Turbo - White
Ford EXP Turbo - Silver
Chevy Monte Carlo SS - Blue
Chevy Camaro IROC Z - Blue

and then the outliers:

Mazda RX-7 - Red
Cadillac Coupe Deville D'Elegance - Baby Blue

Guess which one was driven by a gold chain wearing, weight lifting guy named Carmine??

andre1969

tjc78 said:

So you basically "floated" to Hershey!  I miss my 79 Town Coupe, someday I wouldn'the mind a Mark V.  

Yep, pretty much! My friend's car only has about 20,000 miles on it though, so at least it still has a lot of that "OEM float", rather than the "worn-out float" that's probably more associated with these cars.

Supposedly, Lincoln made something like 2500 each of the blue and gold Diamond Jubilees, but it seems like the blue, which my friend owns, had a much better survival rate. I can't remember the last time I've even seen a gold one, but the blue ones seem relatively common.

It's definitely a cushy car, and comfortable once you're in it, but the seats are really low, and hard to get into and out of. Not much headroom either, although the sunroof might make it worse.

If I was going to drive one of these monsters on a regular basis, I think I'd go for an Eldorado or Toronado. While hardly poster children for space efficiency, they feel like they have a better driving position for me, and are easier to get into and out of. But as a collector car that I only have to drive on an occasional basis, I think the Mark V wins hands-down for style. It just seems sleek, smooth, and luxurious, but manages to avoid some of the pretentiousness and pimp of the Eldo/Toro. Something about the Mark V seems like it's built a bit better, too. Tighter, more even gaps and such. And the hood doesn't jiggle nearly as much. There's a little cowl shake going over bumps, but I've seen Eldorados with hoods that shimmy like a Jello mold in an earthquake while they're just sitting there, idling.

Still, I like both the Mark and the GM cars, in their own way. I wouldn't mind having one of those Toronado XS models, with the wraparound rear window.

sda

The Toronado XS with an Astro-roof would be sweet. Too bad the Olds 403 was strangled by the emission controls at the time, and not a 455 from 1970!

berri

Toronado XS, now that car styling could have been from the late 50's! Not a jab, just it had the unique styling that was true back in those days.

Mr_Shiftright

stickguy

my guoodness, what a barge. Could not imagine driving that beast in traffic and the tiny parking space lots we have today.

kyfdx

Me either... but, I learned to drive in cars like that.

uplanderguy

We only ever had one large car when I was growing up, a '74 Impala Sport Coupe, but I remember it being very relaxing on the interstate. Really. I don't know if I can say that about any other car I've driven or ridden in since.

kyfdx

uplanderguy said:

We only ever had one large car when I was growing up, a '74 Impala Sport Coupe, but I remember it being very relaxing on the interstate. Really. I don't know if I can say that about any other car I've driven or ridden in since.

'74 Impala sedan was our Driver's Ed car in high school..

uplanderguy

Regarding that Mark V interior pic--I guess it's whatever you were used to looking at or liking when we were younger, but as nice as that seat trim looks, I never thought Ford did door panels as well as GM. A Caddy would've had a chromed plastic escutcheon around the door handle and chrome pieces at the end of the assist straps, small touches I think add a little class to a car of this price range.

imidazol97

Mr_Shiftright said:

I don't recall ever having seen one of those Toronados with the wraparound rear window at any
car show where I've seen probably 5-10K vehicles during the last several years.

I believe I did see at least one in the wild in the day when they were being produced.
How many were built?

uplanderguy

I think I remember seeing a silver one even in my small hometown. That concept, on a far less-dramatic scale, was used for the full-size Chevy coupes in '77 of course.

imidazol97

uplanderguy said:

That concept, on a far less-dramatic scale, was used for the full-size Chevy coupes in '77 of course.

And I loved that appearance of the rear window in the Chevy too. Worked with a lady who had one long ago. Beautiful car.

Mr_Shiftright

Roughly about 5,200 were made in '77-'78,

imidazol97 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

I don't recall ever having seen one of those Toronados with the wraparound rear window at any
car show where I've seen probably 5-10K vehicles during the last several years.

I believe I did see at least one in the wild in the day when they were being produced.
How many were built?

andre1969

According to my old car book, Olds built 2714 Toronado XSes in 1977, and that included on XSR prototype, the one with the retractable T-tops that they never could figure out how to drain. The XS had a base price of $10,684, compared to $8134 for the regular Brougham coupe. The cheaper model was much more popular, with 31,371 built.

For 1978, it was renamed XSC, and sold 2453 units. My book doesn't list a base price for that year, but the Brougham coupe was $9412, and sold 22,362 units.

In 1977, the 403 used in the Toronado put out 200 hp, compared to 185 in other applications, so maybe that helped a little bit? For 1978, my book just lists the 403 at "185/190", but doesn't specify which hp was for what model. I dated a girl back in the 90's who drove a '78 or '79 Olds Ninety Eight sedan with the 403, and it seemed to be pretty quick, all things considered. Of course, a Toro would outweigh it by probably 400-500 lb.

uplanderguy

And I loved that appearance of the rear window in the Chevy too. Worked with a lady who had one long ago. Beautiful car.

My folks bought a new bright red '77 Impala coupe with that window in Nov. '76. I loved the wraparound window in profile, along with the notched quarter window. I didn't like it so much from straight-on from the back, as the sides of the car weren't very curved and it looked a bit awkward from that angle. Still, I could still really like a Caprice coupe with 350, F-41 suspension, and the scooped-out plastic fake spoke wheelcovers.

Michaell

You guys and your big cars ... the largest car my folks owned growing up was a '72 MB 220D they got when I was in HS. Before that it was a '73 Corona and a '67 VW Squareback.

stever

Funny, we had Buick station wagons, winged '59 Chevy and a Galaxie 500. In later years my mom drove an Impala into the ground before downsizing to a Protégé. The Falcon and Valiant were pretty compact though.

kyfdx

When I started driving, we had a '72 Lincoln Coupe (not a Town Coupe.. base trim), and a '74 Sedan DeVille. Took my test in the Caddy.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

And I loved that appearance of the rear window in the Chevy too. Worked with a lady who had one long ago. Beautiful car.

My folks bought a new bright red '77 Impala coupe with that window in Nov. '76. I loved the wraparound window in profile, along with the notched quarter window. I didn't like it so much from straight-on from the back, as the sides of the car weren't very curved and it looked a bit awkward from that angle. Still, I could still really like a Caprice coupe with 350, F-41 suspension, and the scooped-out plastic fake spoke wheelcovers.

Back in 1980 and '81, I dealt with an IBM sales guy on a regular basis who had a '79 Caprice 2-door that was just like that. 350, F-41, the two-tone black and silver that was popular back then with an eye-popping bright red velour interior. It also had those spoke wheelcovers you describe.

The 403 was a bit of an unfortunate engine. It had a few design compromises that allowed the Olds engineers to get that much displacement out of a small-block, and suffered with emissions controls. I had a 403 in my '79 Park Avenue and it was crippled with a 2.4 rear axle. It felt no quicker - maybe slower - than my '78 Delta 88 with a 350 Rocket, which had less weight and a 2.78 rear axle. I guess the TH400 in the Buick sucked up more power than the TH350 in the Delta as well.

fintail

Today spotted a BMW E21, mid 70s Datsun pickup, Toyota "wonder wagon" style van, and the 80s era 2 door G-Wagen I see now and then.

fintail

There's a white XS I see in my area every now and then, on slightly too wide whitewalls. The car is so 70s chic, the tires don't detract. The "XS" has to mean "excess".

I have an old toy one:



I like those "sport coupes" with the similar rear window too, interesting design.

Mr_Shiftright said:

andre1969

ab348 said:

The 403 was a bit of an unfortunate engine. It had a few design compromises that allowed the Olds engineers to get that much displacement out of a small-block, and suffered with emissions controls. I had a 403 in my '79 Park Avenue and it was crippled with a 2.4 rear axle. It felt no quicker - maybe slower - than my '78 Delta 88 with a 350 Rocket, which had less weight and a 2.78 rear axle. I guess the TH400 in the Buick sucked up more power than the TH350 in the Delta as well.

There was another wave of stricter emissions controls that came in for 1979, so that might have also factored in with regards to your Park Ave versus the Delta 88. While the 403 had 185/200 hp for 1977 and 185/190 for 1978, it was cut to 175 for 1979. Not a huge loss, but it might have been enough to make a noticeable difference.

I drove a 1979 Bonneville with a Buick 350 once, that a local guy was looking to get rid of. I was disappointed when I drove it, as my Grandmother's '85 LeSabre, with its Olds 307, felt quicker. My guess is that it probably was, as the LeSabre was a bit lighter, and had a quicker 2.73 axle, whereas this Bonneville most likely had the 2.41. Plus, by 1985 it seemed like they were getting a better handle on emissions controls, and the rudimentary computer systems worked fairly well, so even if HP numbers weren't all that impressive, I think they were getting better use out of that power...less stalling, sputtering, strangling, etc. I think first gear might have been a bit quicker as well. I think the THM200-R4 had a 2.74:1 first gear, whereas the THM350 was either 2.48 or 2.52?

danfromm

Mr_Shiftright said:

A 280SL roadster, on the other hand, is pretty wound up at freeway speeds and, some say, too feminine in concept for your average male car enthusiast. Dunno about that, but it's not the kind of car that would scare anybody.

Are you sure? Could you have been thinking of that slug the 190SL?

I ask because one of my roommates once got a ticket for going 126 (mph, not kph) in his 280 SL. Yes, Pagoda 280 SL.

sda

ab348 said:

uplanderguy said:

And I loved that appearance of the rear window in the Chevy too. Worked with a lady who had one long ago. Beautiful car.

My folks bought a new bright red '77 Impala coupe with that window in Nov. '76. I loved the wraparound window in profile, along with the notched quarter window. I didn't like it so much from straight-on from the back, as the sides of the car weren't very curved and it looked a bit awkward from that angle. Still, I could still really like a Caprice coupe with 350, F-41 suspension, and the scooped-out plastic fake spoke wheelcovers.

Back in 1980 and '81, I dealt with an IBM sales guy on a regular basis who had a '79 Caprice 2-door that was just like that. 350, F-41, the two-tone black and silver that was popular back then with an eye-popping bright red velour interior. It also had those spoke wheelcovers you describe.

The 403 was a bit of an unfortunate engine. It had a few design compromises that allowed the Olds engineers to get that much displacement out of a small-block, and suffered with emissions controls. I had a 403 in my '79 Park Avenue and it was crippled with a 2.4 rear axle. It felt no quicker - maybe slower - than my '78 Delta 88 with a 350 Rocket, which had less weight and a 2.78 rear axle. I guess the TH400 in the Buick sucked up more power than the TH350 in the Delta as well.

My parent's (at separate times) had two 78 Olds 98s with the 403. The first was bought with 44000 miles and was a LS sedan. The second was bought a couple of years later and was a Regency coupe with an Astro roof. It was one of mom's favorite cars and she drove it for almost 10 years. For some reason, the LS always seemed faster to me. Could have been a combination of things, axle ratio, transmission, can't say. All I remember is the
Regency, though it ran nicely, always seemed to be not as perky as the LS.

sda

andre1969 said:

ab348 said:

The 403 was a bit of an unfortunate engine. It had a few design compromises that allowed the Olds engineers to get that much displacement out of a small-block, and suffered with emissions controls. I had a 403 in my '79 Park Avenue and it was crippled with a 2.4 rear axle. It felt no quicker - maybe slower - than my '78 Delta 88 with a 350 Rocket, which had less weight and a 2.78 rear axle. I guess the TH400 in the Buick sucked up more power than the TH350 in the Delta as well.

There was another wave of stricter emissions controls that came in for 1979, so that might have also factored in with regards to your Park Ave versus the Delta 88. While the 403 had 185/200 hp for 1977 and 185/190 for 1978, it was cut to 175 for 1979. Not a huge loss, but it might have been enough to make a noticeable difference.

I drove a 1979 Bonneville with a Buick 350 once, that a local guy was looking to get rid of. I was disappointed when I drove it, as my Grandmother's '85 LeSabre, with its Olds 307, felt quicker. My guess is that it probably was, as the LeSabre was a bit lighter, and had a quicker 2.73 axle, whereas this Bonneville most likely had the 2.41. Plus, by 1985 it seemed like they were getting a better handle on emissions controls, and the rudimentary computer systems worked fairly well, so even if HP numbers weren't all that impressive, I think they were getting better use out of that power...less stalling, sputtering, strangling, etc. I think first gear might have been a bit quicker as well. I think the THM200-R4 had a 2.74:1 first gear, whereas the THM350 was either 2.48 or 2.52?

I remember our 76 Cutlass Supreme, and two 78 98s my parents had must have had a tall economy rear axle. All three had a very long first gear and would shift around 50-55 under full throttle from 1st to 2nd.

berri

My 76 Cutlass Supreme 350 4bbl had very bad hesitation that various dealers were never able to fix properly. Otherwise it was a nice car, but because the engine, or carb issue, I only kept it for several years.

Mr_Shiftright

Theoretically not possible according to Mercedes data....they say 121 for the automatic and 124 for the manual transmission. At 62 mph the tach would read about 3250 rpm. so at 126 mph the tach would read 6,400 rpm. I guess this is feasible under ideal conditions.

I didn't say they were slow, only that they were geared very low, to enhance low end performance. But if you wanted to run at redline, that engine could take it.

danfromm said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

A 280SL roadster, on the other hand, is pretty wound up at freeway speeds and, some say, too feminine in concept for your average male car enthusiast. Dunno about that, but it's not the kind of car that would scare anybody.

Are you sure? Could you have been thinking of that slug the 190SL?

I ask because one of my roommates once got a ticket for going 126 (mph, not kph) in his 280 SL. Yes, Pagoda 280 SL.

fintail

Maybe a 5 speed could hit that, also downhill with a tail wind and a miscalibrated radar?

I've had my fintail up to 100 once. It gets up to 80 quickly enough, but it takes time to gain speed after that. That same day, a transmission cooling line broke - so no more high speed runs for me. The car is happy loafing along at 50-65 or so. As Shifty mentions, the revs climb pretty sharply with speed, especially in my automatic 220SE.

explorerx4

Have you ever seen one of these?
http://hartford.craigslist.org/cto/5298855412.html

ab348

Yes, though not recently. And never for $60K. But I do like it.

andre1969

I might see an occasional '55-56 Mercury at the Ford show in Carlisle, PA, but they don't seem all that common. Kinda odd, considering they were pretty popular when they were new. '55-56 Fords always have a good turnout, but of course they made a lot more of those.

berri

Put a little more white on the door and I expect to see Broderick Crawford's Dan Mathews step out in an old Highway Patrol episode

The Merc's I think I see the least at old car shows are 57-60 for whatever reason. Too bad, because often they were more differentiated from the Ford in those years.

texases

$60K? Really???

uplanderguy

I always thought the '55-56 Mercs and Packards have a very similar looking front clip. And their windshield and front-door shape (vent windows oblong rectangles) are similar too.

berri

Actually saw 2, yes 2, different Geo Metro's today. Didn't think any of those clunks were still on the road!

imidazol97

berri said:

Actually saw 2, yes 2, different Geo Metro's today. Didn't think any of those clunks were still on the road!

There are many around here. It seems they show up out on the roads at certain, random times of the year
and I'll see Geo Metro's frequently. Haven't seen one for a while. A car repair shop used to have 3 that it put on a driveup display ramp in front of their shop with Christmas lights on them. I don't know if I can find a picture of they--they were emulating a series of sleighs connected.

Local physics teacher had one that was a 1989 and 1990 models: depended on whether you looked at the front half or the rear half.

stever

I see more Trackers around here. Passed one two days ago.

Mr_Shiftright

He's asking convertible money for a 2D HT. Not gonna happen. He's about 2X over market price.

texases said:

$60K? Really???

uplanderguy

Hard to believe a top-of-the-line Merc like a Montclair would have dog-dish caps and blackwalls. What the correct full wheelcovers and whitewalls would add to that car, in curb appeal.

andre1969

That '56 Mercury has radial tires on it, so there's a good chance other things have been changed, as well. I would think a full hubcap would have been standard on a Montclair...IIRC, they were priced about the same as a Dodge Custom Royal or DeSoto Firedome.

I'm not sure about the whitewalls though. I have an old American Standard catalog of Chrysler packed away somewhere, and I want to say that even on my '57 Firedome, with its base price of $3085, whitewalls were still an option.

Whitewalls might have been one of those things where even though they were optional, on some nicer models, the dealers all ordered them with whitewalls, so if you wanted blackwalls you had to special order?