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

sda

benjaminh said:

Another story from that post in the comments section....




"Mine is a 1984 Buick Skylark, which my parents purchased for $900 as a second vehicle. It was brown inside and out, equipped with the Iron Duke 4 cylinder and 4 speed manual transmission.

Let’s start with the transmission:
Fourth gear would be classified a super-overdrive, almost like the transmission was missing a couple gears between 3rd and 4th. Simply run the engine until it sounded like it was going to explode (no tach), then shift into 4th. Once in 4th, the vehicle couldn’t accelerate because the RPMS were too low and the engine didn’t have any torque.

The floor mounted shifter seemed to be pulled directly from a Ford 8N tractor, complete with 45 degree bend halfway up the shift lever. Lever travel was measured in feet, not inches.
– First gear put the shifter directly in front of the radio, blocking it’s use.
– Second gear was somewhere near the driver’s right hip.
– Third gear blocked the passenger from using the radio.
– Fourth gear was somewhere near the passenger’s left hip.
– Reverse was interesting because it was located directly in your passenger’s crotch.

The really fun part was how unstable the vehicle was when driving. It would try and spin out at every opportunity, almost like it was trying to kill itself and the occupants. However, this wasn’t predictable. The car could spin out halfway around a cloverleaf at reasonable speeds, with no change in steering angle or application of brakes or throttle."

That looks like a Limited top of the line Skylark. I wonder if that was the actual 4sp car. I bought an 82 Skylark Custom in 89 to use as my daily commuter. It was a V6, loaded. It was a comfortable and quiet car but started to need costly repairs around 100k. It had the usual engine stumbles and stalling when first started from cold and the typical morning sickness stiff steering that was common with the X bodies, ran fine when warmed up. While not a sports car I never had any handling issues. I sold it for what I paid for it, no complaints.

fintail

They want to be maintained by the book, I think also more exacting about things like valvetrain maintenance too.

Years ago I did some online genealogy about the original owner of my car, but didn't record any of it, and now can't find much. IIRC, the guy was in his 60s when he bought the car, and was irked by some aspects of it, especially the transmission (which is unique, lacking a torque converter) - he wrote many notes in the owner's manual and transmission handbook. I have some suspicion he didn't replace it with another MB when he parted ways at 6 years old and ~25K miles. However, the next owner drove it a lot, and it had close to 100K on it by the time it was 12 years old.

uplanderguy said:

My Stude-MB dealer friend said that back in the day (late '50's, early '60's) 'Benzes had pretty stringent service requirements, compared to, say, a Studebaker. I've told you this before, but when I did research on new Studebakers his dealership sold from Sept. '63 to April '66, at the Stude Museum archives, at least a couple indicated a 'Benz trade-in. You had mentioned your car's original owner thinking some things were atypical or unusual, which may well have been the case with the owners I mentioned. You may remember, one guy born in 1888 (!) traded in his '59 Benz (no idea which model though) on a new '64 supercharged Cruiser--two of eight built by Studebaker and BOTH sold by my little hometown dealer!

texases

"The really fun part was how unstable the vehicle was when driving. It would try and spin out at every opportunity, almost like it was trying to kill itself and the occupants. However, this wasn’t predictable. The car could spin out halfway around a cloverleaf at reasonable speeds, with no change in steering angle or application of brakes or throttle."

My stepmom had the Olds Omega version of that X-car, hated it for that exact reason. Traded it in on a Cressida, which she loved (for good reason!).

benjaminh

sda said:

....That looks like a Limited top of the line Skylark. I wonder if that was the actual 4sp car....

That's just a pic I found for illustration purposes. So you're right, it isn't the exact stripper car being talked about.

bhill2

texases said:

"The really fun part was how unstable the vehicle was when driving. It would try and spin out at every opportunity, almost like it was trying to kill itself and the occupants. However, this wasn’t predictable. The car could spin out halfway around a cloverleaf at reasonable speeds, with no change in steering angle or application of brakes or throttle."

My stepmom had the Olds Omega version of that X-car, hated it for that exact reason. Traded it in on a Cressida, which she loved (for good reason!).

Yes, my wife and I bought a loaded Cressida in 1988. Not a real exciting car (although the twin-cam six wasn't exactly a slug), but in 150K miles it required nothing but routine maintenance. We finally gave it to our son/stepson. He tried to take good care of it, but had two small kids. Oh the humanity.

uplanderguy

Do you remember what a new Cressida cost in 1988? I faintly remember them. Would it have had a timing belt?

roadburner

The worst cars my family owned were the 1973 Bronco, 1974 Maverick LDO, and a 1984 Topaz- textbook examples of automotive purgatory.

fintail

I've always liked the 85-88 Cressida. It's an odd mix - modern 80s/Japanese exterior styling (early adopter of composite lights for the USDM), but the upholstery is like something from a traditional American car, with button-tufted style on both leather and cloth:







I think there might have been less puffy styles available, too. I remember when I was a kid, a friend of my dad had a Cressida of that style, silver with blue button tufted leather.

bhill2

uplanderguy said:

Do you remember what a new Cressida cost in 1988? I faintly remember them. Would it have had a timing belt?

IIRC we paid roughly $20K. As I said, it was pretty loaded (although it didn't have leather). It did have a timing belt, which we changed as a preventive measure about 80,000 miles and that one was still going strong when we passed it on.

andre1969

My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Cressida. IIRC, it stickered for around $17,000. I think it was the highest rated car in that auto issue. They had 20 different categories such as acceleration, fuel economy, comfort, fit and finish, and so on, where the ratings ranged from 1 to 5. I think it came in around 78-80. In theory a car could get 100, but in real life that car would have needed the interior room of a Caprice, the acceleration of a Mustang GT, the handling of a BMW, and the fuel economy of a Chevy Sprint with a stick shift and no a/c, all rolled into one!

One other tidbit I remember was that it did 0-60 in 9.6 seconds, with a 4-speed automatic. While nothing to crow about today, that was one of the quickest cars they tested for that auto issue. There weren't too many cars that broke the 10 second barrier. I think a car had to do 0-60 in less than 9.5 to get a "5" in the acceleration rating.

They also tested a Maxima. I always looked at the Maxima and Cressida as competitors more or less, at least, while the Cressida was in production. But the Maxima was much less expensive, around $13,500. I remember that '85-88 era Maxima seemed to be a common sight, for awhile.

uplanderguy

That does seems like a weird combination of attempted-luxury and typical Japanese instrument panel.

With a few exceptions, I thought the early attempts at Japanese luxury always seemed like they made a compact car longer and tried to add luxury seats, etc. But the market has proven my tastes wrong.

My friend's parents bought a Lexus SC coupe, I think a 300?, six-cylinder. He told me it was $45K new in '92 I think--I am sketchy on the year-- which seemed like a real stretch to me. I was underwhelmed. A mutual friend would never agree to ride in the back seat of my Cavalier coupe to a swap meet, but was OK in the Lexus. I showed him dimensions showing the rear-seat legroom was virtually identical between the two, although the Lexus was leather, of course. It didn't change his mind. The whole perception versus reality thing. And hey, with the 5-speed, my Cavalier was quiet on the highway!

andre1969

Another thing that was a bit odd about some of those early Japanese upscale cars, was that they were larger on the outside, yet smaller inside, than lower level models. At least, according to the EPA, the passenger volume of a 1985 Camry is 93 cubic feet, while a Cressida is 90. The difference was closer at Nissan, with a Stanza coming in at 88 and a Maxima at 87. I seem to recall the Maxima and Cressida being tight on rear seat legroom, which is probably where they came up short. One of my first experiences with a Camry of that generation was, oddly, sitting in one that had just come in to the local junkyard and hadn't been picked over yet. I was impressed about how comfortable and roomy it was. It didn't have the shoulder room to compete with midsized cars at the time, but it definitely had the legroom, both front and rear, so it could definitely pass as a comfy 4-seater.

That first-generation Camry might just be the "pivot point" at which the Japanese really started to fight head-to-head with the domestics, on their home turf...high volume, and higher profit mainstream cars. Prior to that, Japanese cars, no matter how nice they were inside, just didn't have the interior room to compete directly with a midsized domestic. But suddenly, here was a car that could hold four good-sized adults with ease, and an occasional 5th. And, with the rise of multiple car households, the need for one vehicle that could hold 3 people up front and 3 in the back was becoming less of a necessity as the years went by.

The Camry wasn't cheap, though. My 1985 Consumer Guide tested one, and it MSRPed for a little over $14K, although it was very well equipped. Around that time you could still get a GM B-body or Ford Panther for around that, if you didn't go hog-wild with options.

uplanderguy

I'm reminded of a Packard guy I know comparing his Packard to my Lark. I used to say "You're comparing a Coupe deVille to a Chevy II". He seemed to get it at that point, LOL!

My friend who wouldn't ride in the back of my Cavalier--he's nearly-famous as a "Mr. Glom-A-Ride" too, LOL. Calls here..."Want to go (fill in the blank)?" "Can you pick me up?".

ab348

I think the Cressida was the Avalon of its day.

Re the TTAC commenter on his $900 Skylark: at that price it was surely well-used up to start with, but the comment about it spinning out unpredictably makes it sound like a first-gen Corvair. I suspect a combination of worn out tires, worn out suspension parts, and driver ineptitude are more to blame. I know Dad's '82 Omega Brougham displayed no such tendencies.

tjc78

Yes the Avalon replaced the Cressida after a few years with the Camry being the largest sedan. Big difference there, because the Avalon was FWD.

As for when the Japanese really "got it"... IMO was with the 92 Camry. The 90-93 Accord could also be in included, but personally I think the Camry was the more "American" car of the two.

uplanderguy

Different subject, but if you're of a certain age and on Facebook, I highly-recommend the "All Original Cars" page. It's probably my favorite FB page. It's almost always domestic vehicles, all makes, but I see cars there in conditions I haven't seen in decades. Today someone posted their '71 Caprice 4-door hardtop, with the original black brocade interior in bee-yoo-tiful condition. Most of the cars are low-mileage cars. I was surprised to see that the rear seat legroom seemed skimpy for so large a car. I guess I'd forgotten about that.

Someone had posted earlier here, how their '79 Cutlass was their worst car. I belong to a G-Body GM page on Facebook, as they are really the last GM models I liked a lot--body on frame, luxurious, quiet, like a shrunken big car but with better use of space. I'm amazed at how much interest there is in those cars--unscientifically, it seems to me like way-more than the full-size cars from the same period, which I wouldn't have expected. Last year their national meet was in Cleveland and I went, and enjoyed it. Some stock cars, my favorite, and a fair amount of cars have come in for the "Southern California" treatment (I don't know a more delicate way to put it), but it was fun.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

Someone had posted earlier here, how their '79 Cutlass was their worst car. I belong to a G-Body GM page on Facebook, as they are really the last GM models I liked a lot--body on frame, luxurious, quiet, like a shrunken big car but with better use of space. I'm amazed at how much interest there is in those cars--unscientifically, it seems to me like way-more than the full-size cars from the same period, which I wouldn't have expected. Last year their national meet was in Cleveland and I went, and enjoyed it. Some stock cars, my favorite, and a fair amount of cars have come in for the "Southern California" treatment (I don't know a more delicate way to put it), but it was fun.

Technically, they weren't called G-bodies until 1982. Even the coupes were considered A-bodies from 1978 through '81. Bizarro GM nomenclature even back then since the cars barely changed between '81 and '82.

I like the coupes too, especially the Cutlass and Regal, but they were troubled cars when introduced in '78. Too much lightening and GM cost-cutting, to the point where it was noticeable. They were prone to rusting in the rear frame rails and rear bumpers. They seemed to suffer quite a bit of emissions-related driveability issues, overall build quality was shaky, and so was parts and materials quality. But since they were body-on-frame and designed with small-block V-8s in mind, they are popular today for those so inclined to modify or restore them. I think their popularity in NASCAR in the '80s helped make them even more popular among certain age groups today.

uplanderguy

I think they weren't as successfully done as the first B-and-C-bodies, but I think the packaging was spot-on. Some real funky styling here and there--fastbacks (although I could like an Olds coupe now if it were bone-stock), Malibu sedans, the '78-80 Monte Carlo), but I remember when I drove rental Fairmonts, they screamed 'cheap' to me in every way in comparison.

For some reason, the bigger FWD cars, introduced for '82, were called A-bodies if I'm remembering right, which would've resulted in the RWD cars being redesignated. One wonders why GM wouldn't have just picked another letter for the FWD cars.

Of all the rental cars I've driven over the years, domestic and foreign, and many, many of them, the only car that left me stranded was a Fairmont, LOL. Although I had a beautiful blue '80 Grand Prix once, velour inside, where the dome light and driver's side courtesy light on the floor were burned out--of course, the right courtesy light worked. The radio would cut out intermittently too. (I and my parents never had that happen although we both had current Monte Carlos at that time). The Grand Prix (V6) was ticking a lot and I added THREE qts. of oil to it at a gas station. I was in my early twenties, and when I turned it in, the girl at the counter, about my age, just totally blew off my comments on how it was the worst-prepared rental I'd had. She was as annoying as Edie McClurg in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles".

uplanderguy

I contacted the owner of this car for sale some time back. If I had more money, I'd have probably 'bitten'. The no A/C bugs me though...as does some of the interior fading. Although I'd put it back on whitewalls and the scooped-out wheelcovers, I even like it with the mags.

https://www.cars-on-line.com/gen3-cars/col1/posting/96673

I prefer these with the 50/50 front seat and dual folding center armrests, but it's not like I can order one today.

That is crazy money; wonder how much the seller came down?

I like 'under the radar'.

I like the taut dimensions. My guess, only that, is that it has the shortest overall length of any of the GM mid-sizes that year.

andre1969

Didn't they refer to the personal luxury coupes (Monte Carlo, Regal, Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme) as the G-body from '78-81, with all the other models becoming G's for '82, with the introduction of the Celebrity et al? Or is that wrong?

Seemed like the Bonneville was the only one that really tried to capitalize on it, being referred to as the Bonneville G for '82. I think they were trying to ride off of some of the hype that Mopar was getting from advertising its K-cars.

I always thought it was a shame that GM didn't keep up with development on these cars. For instance, I thought it would have been pretty cool if the improved version of the 3.8 that started appearing in the FWD cars for 1985 made its way into the RWD G-bodies. As it was, they did get the beefed-up block, so they were more durable at least, but they still used the 2-bbl setup and only had 110 hp. In contrast, the transverse fuel injected version put out 125 hp in 1985, and I think it jumped to 140-150 for '86, and soon after a 165 hp version?

It might have been a moot point, though. The Monte Carlo dumped the 229 V6 in favor of the 262/4.3 in 1985, and it gave decent power, in that fairly lightweight body. I'd imagine most of the B-O-P G-bodies were using 305's or 307's by 1985, so maybe there wasn't that much of a market for the 231 versions, anyway? Plus, I'd imagine that as soon as the 231 got to 140-150 hp, it would have eliminated most of the reasons for moving to a 305 or 307, so that might have been a factor.

Plus, these cars were probably cash cows with their own built in audience by that time, so GM figured people would buy them, no matter how outdated they were getting, and just let them run their course, more or less as-is.

uplanderguy

Honestly, there seem to be a fair amount of really nice original/authentic cars still out there all these years later. I'm old-skool but I prefer these to Fords of the period. Hardtop styling, jewel-like in small places, like chromed power window switches, chromed mounting pieces at the end of the door straps (on cars that had them), that kind of thing. Fords might've still had these small things then, now that I think about it, but I hated when all those things, even door handles inside sometimes, went plastic the next decade.

uplanderguy

RE.: the 4.3 FI V6 in Chevy G-bodies starting in '85 (I think)--it used to be at Chevy, the bigger the engine, there'd be an emblem shouting that out on the car. V8 Monte Carlos of this period had nothing on the exterior to indicate this, but ones with that 4.3 had a freaking foot-long emblem!

andre1969

I think the '83-88 T-bird and Cougar did have an edge on the GM G-body personal luxury coupes when it came to build quality. And, in the top trim levels, I think the Cougar and T-bird might have had an advantage as well. At least, I remember my friend's '86 T-bird, which was one of those designer editions like a Fila or Elan, or something like that. It was pretty nice, and I'd say definitely a step above a Monte Carlo.

But, the GM cars definitely had the edge, in my opinion at least, in interior room and comfort. The Fords were really more compact in their interior dimensions and trunk space. And, while the Fords were a bit more modern inside, the GM cars had that comfortable sort of familiarity...if that was your thing. Plus, if I broke the window crank on my '86 Monte Carlo, I could just go to the "HELP!" section of the local Advance Auto and find a replacement...AND it would be the same crank that my '67 Catalina uses! But, I wonder if a T-bird/Cougar might have had power windows standard by '83?

I do like the '83-86 Cougar, but not the T-bird so much. But then for '87-88 I think the T-bird looks pretty sharp, but the Cougar became exaggerated in style, almost a caricature of its former self. I could also see myself being happy with the final-style, '89-97(?) generation of T-bird/Cougar, as long as it had a V8. I think that 3.8 "Essex" sent a lot of them to an early grave, and I'd imagine the supercharged version was troublesome, as well.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I contacted the owner of this car for sale some time back. If I had more money, I'd have probably 'bitten'. The no A/C bugs me though...as does some of the interior fading. Although I'd put it back on whitewalls and the scooped-out wheelcovers, I even like it with the mags.

https://www.cars-on-line.com/gen3-cars/col1/posting/96673

I prefer these with the 50/50 front seat and dual folding center armrests, but it's not like I can order one today.

That is crazy money; wonder how much the seller came down?

I like 'under the radar'.

I like the taut dimensions. My guess, only that, is that it has the shortest overall length of any of the GM mid-sizes that year.

The red fading is typical of all GM red interiors in that era. I think red is particularly prone to fading anyway but GM's interiors seemed to suffer it worse than some others. I like that car well enough and at least it looks better than the same year Monte Carlo.

My old '78 Delta 88 had a red interior and when I got it in '97 many of the plastic pieces were pink. My buddy took them and prepped/sprayed them with SEM dye and not only was the color match perfect but the stuff stayed that color the rest of the time I had the car.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I think they weren't as successfully done as the first B-and-C-bodies, but I think the packaging was spot-on. Some real funky styling here and there--fastbacks (although I could like an Olds coupe now if it were bone-stock), Malibu sedans, the '78-80 Monte Carlo), but I remember when I drove rental Fairmonts, they screamed 'cheap' to me in every way in comparison.

I agree. Not only were the base interiors painfully plain, but even optioned-up inside with better seats some of the cheapness remained. I remember we had one as a rental back around '78, and I was driving mom somewhere in it one rainy day. We stopped at an intersection under some overhead wires, and water dripping off them was hitting the roof. It sounded like you were inside an oil drum every time a drop hit the roof panel as there was no insulation in the roof at all.

uplanderguy

andre, I know all the '83 and later T-Birds and Cougars had bucket seats no matter what, and I seem to remember column-shifts with consoles (why did Ford do that, even with the beautiful interiors of Thunderbirds in the sixties?).

In Monte Carlos, I liked the '83 and '84 interior with the CL option--pretty plush IMHO. They still had the chrome glovebox knob (LOL), and the woodgrain was dark and nearly-flat-finished, outlined in gold pinstripe. The "Monte Carlo" nameplate above the glovebox was gold, instead of red like the two previous years.

My '82 had that seating and door panels but they didn't call it "CL" yet. But it still had that awful expanse of really bad woodgraining--bright, glossy, light-colored; as my friend used to say, "It looks like brown paint that hasn't been stirred enough".

tjc78

And, in the top trim levels, I think the Cougar and T-bird might have had an advantage as well.

Ford did the "80s" well. Seriously, which interior was cooler back in the day?



Or this:

fintail

I still remember with my friend's eventually matte grey 83 Monte CL, he/we'd joke that CL stood for "Celebrity"

It was fairly plush anyway, dark grey velour. Another memory, I recall he had the vinyl top replaced when the front of it came loose one day, and it caught the wind like a sail. This was around 2000, and the car had lived outside much of its life, so I won't blame it.

fintail

Biggest issue IIRC with early Lexus was fall-apart leather, and the finish on the steering wheel would sometimes perish.

SC was a top of the line car back in the day, getting hard to find a nice original as many have fallen victim to the tuner crowd. I think Bill Gates had/has one, and could be spotted driving it locally.

If I was buying a new car in 1985 and had a good but not unlimited budget, I'd have seriously shopped a Cressida. With no budget, it would be grey market MB time.

uplanderguy said:

That does seems like a weird combination of attempted-luxury and typical Japanese instrument panel.

With a few exceptions, I thought the early attempts at Japanese luxury always seemed like they made a compact car longer and tried to add luxury seats, etc. But the market has proven my tastes wrong.

My friend's parents bought a Lexus SC coupe, I think a 300?, six-cylinder. He told me it was $45K new in '92 I think--I am sketchy on the year-- which seemed like a real stretch to me. I was underwhelmed. A mutual friend would never agree to ride in the back seat of my Cavalier coupe to a swap meet, but was OK in the Lexus. I showed him dimensions showing the rear-seat legroom was virtually identical between the two, although the Lexus was leather, of course. It didn't change his mind. The whole perception versus reality thing. And hey, with the 5-speed, my Cavalier was quiet on the highway!

uplanderguy

I know which panel I'd rather have...the "less is more" look, with analog gauges The car I could put six in if I needed to. The one without the thick side window frames. My guess is that I'm older than you though.

Well-played; brochure photo versus somebody's pic on a website with their WalMart plastic center storage thingy!

That panel is an '85--I HATE that they went to the black glovebox knob that year! LOL

Where's the knobs on the Cougar's radio?

Could you even get a floor shifter with automatic in those cars? (I sincerely don't know)

I briefly dated a girl who had a new '87 Cougar. Hers was a cheapie though. I did drive it once. Dove gray non-metallic, plastic wheelcovers, blackwall tires, six-cylinder.

My friend's '87 Turbo Thunderbird was pretty, but I think the Cougar got uglier. The Avanti/then Gremlin/then '83 Cougar quarter window got even more bizarre.

The '83's did look fresh when they came out. A significant improvement to the dreadful (MHO only) '80 and '81's.

I think '83 is when Ford first got out of GM's shadow as far as reacting to whatever GM did two years earlier (exceptions: Falcon/ChevyII; Mustang/Camaro) and started doing its own thing.

I noticed this even back then--I have zero recollection of ever seeing a Monte Carlo magazine or TV advertisement after '81. Almost as if they didn't want it to sell against the B-O-P versions.

xwesx

imidazol97 said:

Lots of oldsters with masks on. I haven't worn mine yet because I social distance as much as possible. I wanted Lay's potato chips, and the Frito Lay guy had a large cart with boxes so I figured the regular chips would be put out soon. Then I watched him sneeze into the elbow and all over the boxes he would handle. So I left. Airborn droplets or virus on cardboard and then his hands as he put out bags--not for me.

Got chips with my coffee at UDF up the street.

As words of encouragement.... Just because you don't see the folks in the supply chain sneezing on your chips or coffee does not mean this same scenario did not already play out somewhere up the line.

xwesx

fintail said:

MB W140, a very 90s car in itself (S-class model years 92-99) could be ordered with a variety of interior colors, including ones never seen anymore, like green and blue. Here's a green one:

Speaking of blue interiors.... the new Lincoln Corsair offers a BLUE interior! I think it looks good, too.

xwesx

fintail said:

Could be worse, some German models specified "lifetime" transmission fluid, no changes ever, sealed unit with no easy way to check or service. Especially on turn of the century AMG cars, you'll still want to do it every 50K or so at least, or risk losing the transmission, especially past 100K.

The Q7 is like that. It has a drain plug, but no dipstick or any way of really checking the fluid level. The books claim "lifetime," but I replaced the fluid last summer. It was a complete PITA, but I got it done. As far as the old fluid goes, it looked nearly identical to the new stuff - maybe a shade darker. However, there was a fair bit of accumulation around the magnets in the pan, so I'm glad I pulled it apart and cleared that out (if nothing else). I certainly would not want to run any type of fluid on a lifetime basis, unless 100,000 miles is the "life" (which it isn't, for my vehicles!).

xwesx

I'm fairly certain that red Dodge Caravan was a second-generation unit. In many ways, I think that was the best generation of the lot, with a handsome, practical appearance, good drivetrain options... even a manual transmission available!... and AWD.

I had a third generation 1998 for a couple years. We sold it with 215,000 miles on it as it was having grounding issues that caused my wife to lose confidence in it. However, the engine still purred like new and the transmission was smooth and stable.

tjc78

Well-played; brochure photo versus somebody's pic on a website with their WalMart plastic center storage thingy!

First Google image I could find.

In all fairness... here you go. Same result IMO

fintail

I just checked that out via building my own, pretty cool. A good sign, maybe blue will come back.

MB has a blue/beige combo as an extra cost (fancy leather) option on E and S class, but it is quite rare. I very much like the brown on brown on brown theme of the interior on the wagon, but I'd enjoy something like this, too:

xwesx said:

Speaking of blue interiors.... the new Lincoln Corsair offers a BLUE interior! I think it looks good, too.

fintail

Kind of a funny thing that German cars were as far as I know some of the first to have a 6 digit odometer in this market, yet some sought that "lifetime fluids" scheme that has a firm possibility of limiting the lifespan of a vehicle. Come to think of it, maybe it was a conspiracy

xwesx said:

The Q7 is like that. It has a drain plug, but no dipstick or any way of really checking the fluid level. The books claim "lifetime," but I replaced the fluid last summer. It was a complete PITA, but I got it done. As far as the old fluid goes, it looked nearly identical to the new stuff - maybe a shade darker. However, there was a fair bit of accumulation around the magnets in the pan, so I'm glad I pulled it apart and cleared that out (if nothing else). I certainly would not want to run any type of fluid on a lifetime basis, unless 100,000 miles is the "life" (which it isn't, for my vehicles!).

tjc78

With a white exterior, I'd be all over the blue Corsair.

https://www.autoblog.com/photos/2020-lincoln-corsair-beyond-blue-interior/#slide-2219988

stickguy

looks nice to me, but I think that is something really need to see in person because I doubt the pictures do it justice.

andre1969

tjc78 said:

That's actually giving me a bad flashback, something I hadn't thought about in years. My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had that thin "wood" accent ring strip on the steering wheel. By the time I got the car, it was starting to peel and come loose in some places. You had to watch where you put your hands on the wheel, or it would give you a little jab.

Also, in seeing that picture, I can finally put my finger on what I didn't like about that interior. To me, the vinyl on the upper door panel, and the fabric on the seat, and the hue of the dash just seem a bit clashy to me. They don't match well enough to blend in, but at the same time aren't different enough to create a tasteful contrast. The vinyl on the door panel has sort of a greasy look to it, as well.

My Mom's '86 Monte Carlo had a burgundy interior. It was fabric, the stuff affectionately referred to as "mouse fur" I believe. But the upper door panel trim was the same material, and matched it. My memory's getting a bit fuzzy now, but I think Mom's Monte had shiny black trim on the dash...I don't remember any woodgrain.

That mouse fur wasn't the classiest stuff in the world, but overall, I think the interior coordinated pretty well. And, it was just a base Monte Carlo, so it wasn't pretending to be a luxury car.

As for overall length, the Malibu was indeed the shortest of them all. 192.7" for the coupes and sedans. I think the wagon might have been an inch longer. I want to say the Aerobacks and all the other 4-door models were around 196-199" long. I think most, if not all, of the extra length of the B-O-P models was all up front. At least, looking at an '82 Malibu and an '82 Bonneville, it looks to me like the header panel on the Pontiac is a bit longer, and the bumper juts out a bit more.

uplanderguy

In all fairness... here you go. Same result IMO

Whaddya know, a floor shifter?

uplanderguy

I never liked blue interiors (other than the navy blue in my friend's '87 Turbo Coupe). My parents' '84 Monte Carlo had the 60/40 seat with that standard interior in maroon. I so-preferred the toned-down woodgrain and gold pinstripe outline to what came in '81 and 82. Theirs was a 305 4-barrel and it felt quite fast to me at the time. Very smooth and quiet. Quiet--my biggest regret in current cars--silence no longer exists. My parents had the '84 'til they bought a new '90 Corsica.

I liked that these cars still had chrome shift lever and turn signal lever, instead of black plastic.

The '86 had instrument panel trim in all black, but sort-of a semi-shiny trim. In the black trim, I'd have preferred a gloss black, unlike how I don't care for glossy woodgrain (see '81 Malibu Classic panel for an example of glossy black trim on that similar panel).

The '86 did have the cloth upper door panels.

It's funny that apparently the LS was not ready at the beginning of the '86 model year, so they continued the old-style Sport Coupe.

My favorite Monte of that whole '81-88 period, though, would be this car EXCEPT I'd want the checkerboard aluminum wheels; V8 with F41 suspension:

https://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/chevy/86mon/bilder/2.jpg

Were the Cougar and Monte Carlo comparable in price? I don't know about that.

Even when digital was trendy, I was never a fan.

uplanderguy

I can't add any more to this particular conversation.

xwesx

tjc78 said:

With a white exterior, I'd be all over the blue Corsair.

Yes, it is really a pleasant color scheme... not overwhelmingly blue like the Taurus, et. al, of the 80s/90s, but strikingly unique, nonetheless.

xwesx

uplanderguy said:

Quiet--my biggest regret in current cars--silence no longer exists.

It doesn't?

My Q7 is ridiculously quiet. So much so, that it is easy for me to forget just how good a job it does until I use a different vehicle and need to raise my voice just to speak with other occupants. Last fall, I had a crazy guy jump out of his car and scream profanities at me, yet it was so quiet inside my car that my daughter didn't even realize anything was going on. Even my dashcam couldn't pick up the tirade.

The 2013 Passat I had for a few months was nearly as quiet. A very pleasant, calm ride... and both are much more engaging to drive than those humongous barges of the 80s. While I have fond memories of some of them, I think those memories are only via their association to places, people, and other details.

uplanderguy

It's road and tire noise now IMHO. It used to be even a Chevy was whisper-silent. My complaint mostly centers around the wife's new Equinox...big tires and open all the way to the back inside. My '17 Cruze is pretty quiet, but not as much as my daughter's previous-gen '15, which isn't as quiet as my '08 Cobalt was.

The GM full-size downsized cars were totally silent in my memory. One advertising line that I believed was true was the '77 Caprice's brochure, "You'll find it hard to believe a moving automobile can be so quiet".

I sincerely believe that in the ever-present dash to cut weight, sound deadening is a casualty.

tjc78

Our Enclave is like a bank vault. 80 MPH and you can whisper to each other. It's really surprising to me considering its a giant box.

xwesx

uplanderguy said:

I sincerely believe that in the ever-present dash to cut weight, sound deadening is a casualty.

I agree. Much of what used to be sound-deadening was traded for wiring and airbag systems as vehicles just became heavier and heavier. While the Q7 is extremely quiet (even with a diesel engine!), it is also 5,500#!

I don't think the trade-off is forgivable, though, considering that we have some impressively effective sound barrier materials today that are neither heavy nor bulky. So, why not offer at least something? When I'm in my wife's 2013 Forester, I really feel like I'm riding in a tin can. It can take a hit, for sure, but it does not *sound* like it should be able to.

uplanderguy

I rented an Enclave for a week in December. I liked it a lot. It's definitely quieter--and significantly more expensive--than an Equinox.

You'll laugh, but I thought "I haven't driven a car this quiet since my 5-speed '08 Cobalt". I really did think that!

One of the other old forums that was essentially an I Hate GM forum, someone told me how 'thrashy' the 2.2 was. He finally conceded he had not so much as sat in one, yet rode in one or drove one.

That car literally felt like it wasn't running when it was. I can't say that about my newer cars.

fintail

My wagon is pretty serene on the road, in the upper gears (9 speed) there's effectively no mechanical noise even at higher cruising speeds. The only harshness is from the runflats on some surfaces. I imagine it would be even more peaceful if it had the optional air suspension and maybe conventional tires. I imagine a modern S-class is also cloud-like.

If I was choosing a Monte of that era, I'd pick a LS (that means the "Euro" front clip, right?) with both checkerboard wheels and T-tops:



IIRC those wheels were also offered on Mexican market SS.