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

Mr_Shiftright

Buicks were generally marketed as a niche higher than Oldsmobile, and on the premium models of each make, the difference in price was considerable.

During the Depression, many wealthy people chose to "downgrade" their cars so as to avoid ostentatious displays of wealth (you'll never see THAT again).

The Hispanos and Packards were stored away and the wealthy road in more middle class cars. Some even added custom bodies to Model A Fords.

This wasn't only done out of modesty. Now and then a very expensive car on public roads would meet with a hail of rocks.

andre1969

ab348 said:

Here is the pic that I couldn't find to include in my original post:

I think both the blue and red are good looking colors, and well-suited to modern cars. I've always been a sucker for a nice shade of green, blue, or combination thereof...but often what looks beautiful in nature, a painting, a bathroom wall, or a 1955 Diamond-T doesn't always translate well onto a modern car.

I think luxury cars, especially, need to be a bit understated in color. The color needs to attract attention to the car, but without overpowering it by screaming, desperately "LOOK AT ME!" And I think both the light blue and what I'd call "luxury car red" do a great job at that. They seem to accent the car, make you notice it, but still don't scream for attention.

tjc78

That red/burgundy looks great on that Caddy.  I love that color.   I’ve had more cars in burgundy than anything else.  

andre1969

Mr_Shiftright said:

Buicks were generally marketed as a niche higher than Oldsmobile, and on the premium models of each make, the difference in price was considerable.

During the Depression, many wealthy people chose to "downgrade" their cars so as to avoid ostentatious displays of wealth (you'll never see THAT again).

The Hispanos and Packards were stored away and the wealthy road in more middle class cars. Some even added custom bodies to Model A Fords.

This wasn't only done out of modesty. Now and then a very expensive car on public roads would meet with a hail of rocks.

I'd say it was 1959 when Olds and Buick more or less aligned, to where they were alternatives to each other moreso than one being a step up from the other. Although, the perception of Buick being more prestigious remained, I guess, right up through the end of Oldsmobile.

Most people might not realize it, but by 1958, Buick was actually sort of an "all things to all people" division...kind of what Pontiac tried to become in the 1970's once they couldn't sell solely on sportiness and performance anymore.

For example, the cheapest '58 Buick was the Special 2-door sedan, starting at $2636. For comparison, the cheapest Pontiac was the $2573 Chieftain 2-door sedan. A Bel Air 2-door sedan was $2493 by the time you added the base V-8, although if you really wanted to get totally strippo, you could get a Delray utility sedan with a 6 for as little as $2,013.

The cheapest Olds was the Golden Rocket 88 2-door sedan, at $2772. So, basically, Buick entered the market roughly half-way between the most common model for the "masses", and the base model for what was supposed to be essentially the "middle of the market" (2 divisions above, 2 divisions below)

Meanwhile, in the upper echelons, the Roadmaster was just under Cadillac territory, while the Limited sort of straddled the gap between the Series 62 and the DeVille. The Olds Ninety-Eight was on a stretched version of the B-body, rather than being a true C-body, and as a result wasn't nearly in the same league.

For 1959, interestingly, the LeSabre 2-door sedan still came in cheaper at $2740 than the Dynamic 88 at $2837. At the high end, the Ninety-Eight, now on a proper C-body, started at $3890 for the "Celebrity" 4-door pillared sedan, The Electra was $3856 for the base pillared sedan. And while it did have the more prestigious Electra 225 series, there was no pillared sedan there. Oddly, the Ninety-Eight convertible came in higher, at $4366, than the Electra 225 convertible, at $4192. Also interestingly, the 225 hardtop coupe and sedan were each $4300, more than the convertible? I wonder, if this was one of those situations where the convertible was actually less lavishly trimmed than the closed cars, so a bit cheaper in price, but they threw it into the upper trim series to give it more cachet? Kinda like what Chevy did with the convertible for '73, when they moved it from the Impala series to Caprice, but it still just felt like an Impala inside, and wasn't as luxurious as "real" Caprice?

As for downgrading to hide your wealth, people still do it today. It's called the "Millionaire Next Door" mentality. I think most of the people with the flashy, "LOOK AT ME" cars are leasing them, and struggling to keep up with the payments. Sure, there are people who buy them and can actually afford them...to the truly wealthy, dropping $100K on a blingy SUV or whatever is like me going out and buying a $500 beater. Heck, I actually do it myself, a bit. I could afford a much nicer car, but for the most part I'm driving the rather anonymous looking 2003 Regal I inherited from my Dad.

There are a lot of houses in my nearby area that, at their peak, were going for $1M plus. And people were getting into them with no money down and teaser-rate mortgages. Now those houses are worth around $650-750K. Many owners are still upside down on their mortgages, or have defaulted and restructured. But yet, to the casual drive-by observer, those people are going to look much more wealthy than people in my immediate neighborhood, who live in shotgun shacks by comparison, but they're mostly paid for, and actually have equity.

Back in the day, if you looked wealthy, you probably WERE wealthy. Nowadays, if you look wealthy, there's a good chance you're up to your armpits in debt!

berri

Years back I grew up near (perhaps unfortunately not it) several wealthy communities. One was new money with lots of ostentatious displays of their money. The old money kept it conservative.

uplanderguy

RE.: The recent posts on '63-64 full-size Ford four-door hardtop rooflines--

Just saw this online and realized their styling concept went all the way back to their '57 and '58 four-door hardtops:

ab348

andre1969 said:

I'd say it was 1959 when Olds and Buick more or less aligned, to where they were alternatives to each other moreso than one being a step up from the other. Although, the perception of Buick being more prestigious remained, I guess, right up through the end of Oldsmobile.

Most people might not realize it, but by 1958, Buick was actually sort of an "all things to all people" division...kind of what Pontiac tried to become in the 1970's once they couldn't sell solely on sportiness and performance anymore.

In 1955 Buick had its biggest year ever to that point, one that wouldn't be surpased until 1973. Look at this chart on production by make:



I remember reading that the factory capacity was stretched so thin that they were building engines off the line on hand trucks to keep up. The quality of the cars suffered in '55 and Buick's reputation took a hit, though they had a few good years but began a slow decline after '55 and didn't turn it around for several years thereafter. Buick's all-time high was in 1985 when they built over a million cars. Imagine that.

andre1969

Yeah, I heard one reason Buick took a bit of a hit for '57, and a bigger one for '58, was because that quality reputation came back to bite them on the butt. Of course, the '58 recession hurt everybody, except Rambler and the imports, but it seemed to zero in on middle-priced makes the most.

I think Oldsmobiles were actually pretty well-built during the time, even in those higher-demand years. As a result, when the '58 recession hit, I think they suffered the least, among middle-priced makes, compared to '57 sales.

As for Buick, I do remember there was one year in the 80's where both Oldsmobile AND Buick outsold Ford! Olds had started taking the #2 spot starting in 1982, I believe, but then there was one year that Buick pushed past Ford as well, knocking it down to 4th. It would have been a great time for GM all around, except that, a bit further down the ranks, Mercury took 5th place in 1983, and knocked Pontiac down to 6th.

In 1985, I remember the Buick Century was one of the top ten selling nameplates in the United States. The downsized Electra also looked pretty popular, but that's partly because it was launched early. Correspondingly, the old RWD model wrapped up production early in the '84 model year, so if you just compare sales figures, it made the FWD Electra (and Ninety-Eight, and DeVille/Fleetwood) look like smash hits. The Regal was also pretty popular, and even the X-body Skylark, in its final year, was good for around 100K units.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the 1985 LeSabre was the 18th most popular car model nameplate that year. A lot of people rushed out to buy them (my grandparents, included) once word got out that they were shrinking them for '86.

uplanderguy

I wonder if, for 1964, Ford simply used the more low-slung cowl/windshield for all of the body styles, and that made the 2-door sedan and the 4-door models look lower? Or, was it just an optical illusion?

Without looking, I seem to remember that '64 full-size Ford two-and-four-door sedans had quarter windows that sloped slightly downward at the rear, and that the '63's were pretty straight-cut, horizontally. I think that suggests that what you said probably did happen.

fintail

Yep, the 4 door HTs were called "Town Victoria".

uplanderguy said:

RE.: The recent posts on '63-64 full-size Ford four-door hardtop rooflines--

Just saw this online and realized their styling concept went all the way back to their '57 and '58 four-door hardtops

fintail

I think occupation might be a part of that, too. I've noticed locally that many doctors can be quite conservative in their vehicles, but people involved in the finance and real estate klepomania run to flashy stuff, likely many lawyers too. And then there's the dork chic of a 100K Tesla that the normcore tech geeks who want to look hip.

Around here, there are also zillionaires who are house rich and maybe not cash rich - people who were middle class or even working class 40 years ago, and won the lottery when they bought a house at a time it was attainable for normal working people here. Now the 75K 1982 house (and maybe a rental bought at the same era, or something inherited) is worth at least a million, and the mortgage is long gone, so their assets look good while they may have never had an especially high income.

berri said:

Years back I grew up near (perhaps unfortunately not it) several wealthy communities. One was new money with lots of ostentatious displays of their money. The old money kept it conservative.

sda

fintail said:

I think occupation might be a part of that, too. I've noticed locally that many doctors can be quite conservative in their vehicles, but people involved in the finance and real estate klepomania run to flashy stuff, likely many lawyers too. And then there's the dork chic of a 100K Tesla that the normcore tech geeks who want to look hip.

Around here, there are also zillionaires who are house rich and maybe not cash rich - people who were middle class or even working class 40 years ago, and won the lottery when they bought a house at a time it was attainable for normal working people here. Now the 75K 1982 house (and maybe a rental bought at the same era, or something inherited) is worth at least a million, and the mortgage is long gone, so their assets look good while they may have never had an especially high income.

berri said:

Years back I grew up near (perhaps unfortunately not it) several wealthy communities. One was new money with lots of ostentatious displays of their money. The old money kept it conservative.

I imagine the property taxes on a house that appreciated so much has to be like a mortgage payment in its own right, forcing those that can't afford the taxes to sell or borrow against the equity?

tjc78

ab348 said:

I'd say it was 1959 when Olds and Buick more or less aligned, to where they were alternatives to each other moreso than one being a step up from the other. Although, the perception of Buick being more prestigious remained, I guess, right up through the end of Oldsmobile. Most people might not realize it, but by 1958, Buick was actually sort of an "all things to all people" division...kind of what Pontiac tried to become in the 1970's once they couldn't sell solely on sportiness and performance anymore.

In 1955 Buick had its biggest year ever to that point, one that wouldn't be surpased until 1973. Look at this chart on production by make: I remember reading that the factory capacity was stretched so thin that they were building engines off the line on hand trucks to keep up. The quality of the cars suffered in '55 and Buick's reputation took a hit, though they had a few good years but began a slow decline after '55 and didn't turn it around for several years thereafter. Buick's all-time high was in 1985 when they built over a million cars. Imagine that.

Amazing how much Cadillac crushed Lincoln back then.  

fintail

Surprisingly, compared to local fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, property tax rates aren't too bad.

Here's the cheapest detached house in my zipcode - as you can see, it is likely a teardown. 5K a year isn't too bad for something that trades for nearly 1MM.

There are also exemptions for older people under a certain income threshold - my grandma receives this, for her house worth dozens of times the original purchase price.

sda said:

I imagine the property taxes on a house that appreciated so much has to be like a mortgage payment in its own right, forcing those that can't afford the taxes to sell or borrow against the equity?

fintail

I think the Lincoln was seen as much more stodgy, and not as modern.

Typical 55 Caddy:



Typical 55 Lincoln:



I have no data, but I think the new 56 Lincolns sold better.

tjc78 said:

Amazing how much Cadillac crushed Lincoln back then.  

uplanderguy

I think you could see Mercury in the Lincoln then.

I always liked the '54 Mercury's taillights though.

berri

I also think Lincoln was looked at by some back then as more of a Buick or Olds competitor.

fintail

Speaking of the 54 Mercury, I vividly recall this one from "Peggy Sue Got Married":



I thought the car was amazing looking when I saw the movie as a kid kid - a Sun Valley no less, so I hope you like it hot.

uplanderguy said:

I think you could see Mercury in the Lincoln then.

I always liked the '54 Mercury's taillights though.

fintail

I went car looking today, and spotted this behind the Jaguar-Land Rover dealer, of all places:



I also went by the local specialty dealer, who had that hoard of relatively normal everyday sedans several months ago. They are all gone now. The most unusual thing today was this, quite a rarity

They also have this fintail coupe which I saw at the local MBCA gathering back in maybe 2010 or so. Very nice car, but the paint isn't a period correct color.

benjaminh

andre1969 said:

....the cheapest '58 Buick was the Special 2-door sedan, starting at $2636. For comparison, the cheapest Pontiac was the $2573 Chieftain 2-door sedan. A Bel Air 2-door sedan was $2493 by the time you added the base V-8, although if you really wanted to get totally strippo, you could get a Delray utility sedan with a 6 for as little as $2,013. The cheapest Olds was the Golden Rocket 88 2-door sedan, at $2772. ...At the high end, the Ninety-Eight, now on a proper C-body, started at $3890....

Fascinating price information!+++

Any chance you'd be willing to share similar info, if you have it, for some year in the 1930s?
In any case, thanks again.

berri

Quite a bit going on with that Seville styling

andre1969

Lemko and I actually saw a '57 Eldorado Seville yesterday, at the GM show in Carlisle! I'll have to post those pics. It really stood out, as it was yellow, rather than a more conservative color.

Benjaminh, sure...I got my information from a Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia. Now, I have heard these things can be wrong on occasion, so don't take everything as the gospel. I picked the year 1937, for the heck of it, and chose the cheapest closed 4-door sedan of each brand...

Chevrolet Master: $698
Pontiac DeLuxe Six: $881
Oldsmobile F37 Six: $920
Buick Special: $995
LaSalle Series 50 "T/B (Trunk Back?)": $1320
Cadillac Series 60 Touring Sedan: $1760

Ford Model 37 "Fordor" sedan: $671
Lincoln Zepyr 4-door: $1265 (they also had a very low volume "Model K" that started at a stratospheric $4450, and sold correspondingly)

Plymouth Business Series: $665
Dodge fastback 4-door sedan: $820 (no real model name listed for Dodge this year; for '39 they'd go with "Luxury Liner Special" and "Luxury Liner Deluxe")
DeSoto Six fastback 4-door sedan: $870 (no real model name this year, but they'd go to DeLuxe/Custom for 1939)
Chrysler Royal fastback 4-door sedan: $910
Imperial Touring Sedan: $1100 (the real high-tone Imperial in those days was the Custom Imperial, and a 4-door started at $2060)

There were a few things that stuck out that really interested me. For one thing, it's interesting how big of a jump there was from the entry level models (Chevy/Ford/Plymouth) to the next step up (Pontiac, Dodge, or in the case of Ford, you jumped ship?) Of course, Chevy/Ford/Plymouth did have a step up series to bridge the gap.

It's also interesting how close in price Pontiac/Olds/Buick and Dodge/DeSoto/Chrysler were. In later years, it seemed like Pontiac, and Dodge, would move further downscale, and I guess Mercury once it was introduced. So, they were less of a step up, but then you really saw the difference when you went from a Pontiac to an Olds, or a Dodge to a DeSoto. You really wouldn't get that big jump at Ford until the '57 Mercury came out, and the senior '58 Edsel models.

Finally, I didn't realize that Chrysler used the name "Imperial" on a car that cheap! They still had an Airflow model in '37 that sold for $1610. Looks like the name "New York Special" popped up as an upper trim level for the Imperial in 1938. For 1939, they went with Royal/Royal Windsor for the smaller models, and Imperial/New Yorker/Saratoga for the larger models, and Crown Imperial for the big brutes. In 1940, they got rid of the Imperial name in the "regular" cars, and only used "Crown Imperial", for the big, long-wheelbase monsters. Then, for 1941 they moved the New Yorker above the Saratoga.

benjaminh

Thanks. How much was an Oldsmobile 8 for 1937?

From the brochures it seems like the Olds 8 not only had a larger engine, but was on a longer wheelbase as well.

I'm wondering if an Olds 8 was on the same wb as a starting level Cadillac?

andre1969

Oh, here's a bit more price sampling, this time from 1955, mainly to show where Lincoln was slotting in by this time, among other high-end cars. I figured I'd also throw Packard in, since they were once a luxury brand, and some of them, in a token sense, still were. I also threw in the DeSoto, because it was on the same "Senior" body as the Chrysler, and the Imperial was just a wheelbase stretch of that. Likewise, I threw in the Buick Super, because it was the cheapest of the senior "C-body" models. I also included the Ninety-Eight as a reference point, to show where it was positioned back then, before Olds and Buick aligned more closely...

Packard Clipper DeLuxe 4-door sedan: $2,586
DeSoto Fireflite 4-door sedan: $2727
Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight 4-door sedan: $2833
Buick Super 4-door sedan: $2876
Buick Roadmaster 4-door sedan: $3349
Chrysler New Yorker Deluxe: $3494 (that was its full name, there was no simply "New Yorker" that year)
Lincoln Custom 4-door sedan: $3563 (a low volume loss leader)
Lincoln Capri 4-door sedan: $3752 (the volume seller)
Packard Patrician 4-door sedan: $3890 (the "Big", "Real" Packard)
Cadillac Series 62 4-door sedan: $3977
Imperial 4-door sedan: $4483 (only one trim level; "Crown Imperial" was a limo that year, and started at $6973)
Cadillac Series Sixty Special: $4728 (longer, "low-volume" Caddy, but just this model alone still outsold Imperial)

Oh, as for sales, Lincoln managed around 28-29K units in 1955. The '56 model was much more popular, with around 51K units sold. That was also the year it really started moving upscale. The Custom was dropped, and the Capri went to $4212. the Premiere was introduced, however, starting at $4601, and it was the volume seller. For cmoparison, Cadillac was at $4296 for the Series 62 sedan, $4753 for the newly introduced Sedan DeVille, which was a hardtop, and $5047 for the Sixty Special. Impeial was $4832 for the 4-door, and $5225 for the new Southampton hardtop sedan. Lincoln wouldn't get a hardtop sedan until '57.

andre1969

More useless trivia...

I had always known the '55 Imperial was on a longer wheelbase than DeSoto/Chrysler, 130" versus 126", and that the '56 was stretched even further, to 133".

However, I just noticed, in looking at pics, that for the 4-door at least, it appears they actually gave the '55 Imperial a longer front door...and I've read that the Imperial actually did have more interior room than a DeSoto/Chrysler.

However, for 1956, it looks like the Imperial went back to the same sized front doors as a DeSoto/Chrysler, and they gave it a big stretch in back, similar to what Pontiac did in later years with the Bonneville...so you'd get that long trunk, but no more interior room. Probably cheaper in the long run to do it that way though, especially since they brought out the 4-door hardtops that year, and Chrysler couldn't afford to come up with a unique roof. They simply took the existing 4-door sedan and removed the B-pillar and window frames, and made the rear quarter windows pivot down into the door.

benjaminh

andre1969 said:

....
Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight 4-door sedan: $2833....

Buick Roadmaster 4-door sedan: $3349....

So for $516 less than a Buick (which was a lot of money in those days) you could get the top-of-the-line Oldsmobile. Setting aside styling for right now, was their anything significant in terms of room, power, features, etc. that made the Buick better than an Olds 98? Or to a large degree were you paying that money for the Buick name?

Wasn't Buick called "the doctor's car" at one point....?

ab348

In '55, Buick would have had an arguably nicer interior and dash. Styling was probably a wash and subjective. I think Olds offered a better engine and transmission in those years. I would have a hard time justifying that extra money.

andre1969

I'd always heard of Buick as being called a banker's car, with the Century, especially, being called the "Banker's hotrod". I once heard of Pontiac as being a car for retired doctors, and that was a trend they tried to reverse in 1957, when they started shifting towards performance.

As for the Roadmaster versus Ninety-Eight, pricing...well I had just written up a bunch of speculation on why the Roadmaster might have cost so much more, supposed advantages, etc, but then I looked at the brochures, and it could be summed up with one little difference: Transmissions. The DynaFlow automatic was standard in the Roadmaster. You had to pay extra for the Hydramatic in the Ninety-Eight...even at its price point, a three on the tree was still standard! FWIW, a manual shift was standard on the Buick Super as well. FWIW, a 3 on the tree was also standard on the DeSoto Fireflite that year. Dynaflow was a $192.50 option in the lesser Buick models.

The Roadmaster (and Super) also had power steering standard. It was a $107.50 option on the Special/Century. I can't find any information regarding whether power steering was standard or optional on the Ninety-Eight. But, if it was, then just the automatic and power steering accounted for almost 2/3 of that price difference.

I always thought the Roadmaster looked a lot more substantial than a Ninety-Eight, but they're close in the major specs. The Olds was around 213" on a 126" wb, while the Buick was around 216" on a 127" wb. However, the Olds was just a stretch of the small-ish corporate "B" body, and I suspect they just added 4" of wheelbase ahead of the cowl, and tacked the rest on in back. So, you got a bigger trunk than an 88 or Special/Century, but no more passenger room. A Roadmaster, at least, would have been the size of a Cadillac inside.

As for engines, on paper at least, the Buick's 236 hp 322 sounds better than the 202 hp the Olds 324 put out. But, I think the Olds engine breathed and revved better, and it was in a lighter car. Plus, the Hydramatic performed better than the Dynaflow, so it probably was a quicker, more responsive car.

Interior-wise, it might be a hard call. They both look pretty luxurious, in my opinion, so that's probably just a matter of taste. Personally, I find the Olds dash to be more attractive. It seems a bit slimmer and more modern, whereas the Buick dash is a bit bulky and clunky looking.

berri

Seemed like Olds kind of faded a bit in the latter 50's and 60's. The Cutlass put it back on the top charts in the 70's though because it was very competitively priced, combined with sort of a reputation for being sporty and having a bit of an engineering edge. Of course, in reality it wasn't all that different than its GM companions by then.

omarman

That '55 olds dash is pretty nice. I like that Olds put the clock on the passenger side in a way that Buick did in the late 70s Park Avenue. And the Olds dash looks like it's padded...how common was that in 1955?


And then there is this cool map of the western hemisphere on the Olds steering wheel. I suppose that's the horn button? BEEP BEEP! "Yippee ki-yay! America comin' thru!"

berri

IIRC Ford went on a safety marketing approach in 55 or 56 offering things like padded dashboards. Didn't really work though in the marketplace.

imidazol97

omarman said:

And then there is this cool map of the western hemisphere on the Olds steering wheel. I suppose that's the horn button? BEEP BEEP! "Yippee ki-yay! America comin' thru!"

I think the whole piece of chrome, the center circle and the two wings were all one piece. So it was a horn bar?

PF_Flyer

Been going through the mountain of family photos that I have apparently been put in charge of, and it seems that Dad did not miss a chance to document an automotive moment

fintail

Looks like a 47 Chevy, fairly rare as a convertible these days.

Mr_Shiftright

fintail said:

Looks like a 47 Chevy, fairly rare as a convertible these days.

28,433 made. More than I thought. Certainly a rare sight today.

PF_Flyer

I wonder how what it hit was affected, because the car is bent The car could still drive because there are other shots of it parked against the building. So Dad must have moved it for better light

andre1969

PF_Flyer said:

I wonder how what it hit was affected, because the car is bent The car could still drive because there are other shots of it parked against the building. So Dad must have moved it for better light

That makes me think a bit of the '53 DeSoto my granddad had when I was a kid. It had belonged to his brother-in-law's mother, who had a heart attack while driving it and hit a parked car. The DeSoto went into storage. Eventually, the mother-in-law died, and Granddad bought the car for something like $200. It actually looked horrible...driver's side fender smashed, hood bent back into a garish angle, bumper and grille teeth smashed in. The passenger-side fender had shifted over as well, although not as bad as your Dad's Chevy.

I can still remember going with Granddad to a junkyard down near Culpeper, VA,and he was able to find all the parts he needed, for about $90. As far as I know, the frame wasn't bent, but it seemed like in those days, it was easy to hit something and it would shift the whole front-end clip, but without damaging the frame, suspension, or passenger cabin. Those old cars looked tough. And in some ways, they were. But, in many ways, they also weren't.

fintail

By the background cars in the first pic, the Chevy was damaged maybe in 1953 or a little later.

PF_Flyer

That's about right. My brother is in some of the other pics, and judging by his apparent age, the photos were in the first half of 1954 at the latest. '53 seems likely

jpp75

I saw this Saturday morning. The most surprising part is that it had temporary tags on it.

thebean

Maybe that Fiero was new old stock.

stickguy

temporary until what? It catches on fire?

Michaell

stickguy said:

temporary until what? It catches on fire?

LOL

When you buy or lease a car in CO, you get a 60 day temp tag. You have to register it through your county (no state level DMV), where you pay both the registration costs as well as the personal property tax to get your permanent plates and tags.

stickguy

oh, Jersey has temp tags too. I was just taking advantage of an easy set-up for a cheap joke!

uplanderguy

That Fiero was styled well IMHO--much-better than the Ferrari look they tried with the later GT's, and much-better-looking than the MR2 IMHO.

fintail

Too bad in typical GM fashion it got the good engine at the end.

A Fiero will always be Jeanie Bueller's car.

Mr_Shiftright

Only GM could make a small car steer and handle like a Ford F-350. But kudos for GM for the effort, even though (as usual), too little, too late.

PF_Flyer

Sometimes you only get a little peek at a car...pretty sure this was taken in '45.

fintail

Looks like a 35 Ford in Bronx.

PF_Flyer

Couple of more 1945 shots. Can't leave out the trucks and wagons