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

1113811391141114311441223

Comments

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHMember Posts: 15,167
    edited January 2022
    RE.: Impala and Buick Lacrosse, final editions. It is noteworthy I think that GM styled those two cars externally, so nicely and so differently.. One doesn't look at all like the other, IMHO. For a company credited with badge-engineering (FWD A-bodies--and I agree totally), I'm glad they did style the two differently.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,254
    I can see just the slightest hint of green, but overall my first thought is a deep, dark honey color. It could just be a combination of how our individual monitors are color-calibrated, plus our own eyesight. I've noticed that one of my friends, who goes to a lot of car shows with me, tends to see some colors differently from me. Usually it's varying shades of blues and greens, which admittedly can blur the line sometimes.

    One thing I've noticed is that sometimes, when I look back on pics I've taken of my DeSoto, or my Granddad's old '85 Silverado over the years, is that even though they're both red, in some of the pictures they look a bit more pink, than other pics. And in person I don't see any pink at all!

    One time, someone asked me if the DeSoto was orange, which caught me a bit off guard. However, one thing I noticed, is that the red they used on the '58 DeSotos seems a bit darker, more of what I'd call a "blood" or "crimson" red. So in comparison to that, I'd say mine has just a hint of orange. FWIW, the red on mine is called "Fiesta Red" and the '58 red is called "Holly Red".

    And it's funny how the marketing can work on your subconscious. When I think "Fiesta" I'm thinking of things like the Southwest, wild parties, stuff like that, and in general, a warmer, hotter sort or tone. But then when I think of "Holly" it's making me think of the berries on a holly tree in wintertime, and a slightly "cooler" color tone.

    I prefer the '58 red over the '57, to be honest. Actually, I've noticed that I prefer most of the '58 Mopar colors to their '57 versions. But, I'm not gonna trade up to a newer year, just based on the color! :p
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaMember Posts: 17,716
    edited January 2022


    I'm not really seeing a green tinge, but as I've always thought, who knows what anybody else actually sees when they're looking at a color? :)

    To me, the top pic with the rear view looks very green. This is Chrysler paint code Y9, also known as Dark Gold Metallic.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,249
    Lots of ways the color could be shifted, lighting, camera, processing, monitor, so it might look quite different than it actually is.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 North Central OHMember Posts: 18,054
    RCC's Adam has a similar car in a similar color.
    2020 Ford Explorer XLT, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    Interesting upholstery pattern on that Newport. I also notice it has power seat, probably rare, as that was the volume/price leader.

    Regarding Lacrosse, that reminds me, I have seen a couple of 4-hole V8 Lucerne lately, has to be getting a little rare.

    Small town/independent dealers - MB dealer in the Seattle suburb where I used to live was a family-owned operation for decades. Many staff had been there 10++ years. It sold to AutoNation, and while I am sure that still serves the purpose, just not the same, and tons of staff bailed.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    TPiR, April Fool's Day 1981. First car, a GLC, new design that year, mentioned to have AC (!), MSRP $6290:



    Then this Pontiac, a long list of trim options, nice color but without sporty wheels these look a little basic to me. MSRP $7501:



    And in the showcase, this yachty cruiser. I guess the Coupe deVille was the base model that year, as it was claimed to be a V6 - I am sure that was a leisurely drive, to put it nicely. Showcase was $17K, probably mostly the car:




  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 47,364
    I liked that GLC era. They had a sporty model. 5 speed, and plaid seats!

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD , 2022 Ford Maverick Lariat Ecoboost FWD.

  • sdasda Indian Land, SCMember Posts: 6,316
    I think some folks thought the V6 was a good alternative to the troublesome 4100 V8. They both put out about the same power and mpg. I have since learned that the V6 wasn't much better in regard to durability or trouble-free motoring and wasn't as smooth as the 4100. Next up, the diesel. Not a good selection of engines from Cadillac during that period.

    2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    I thought 1981 was the V8-6-4 year, which apparently could be troublesome, but OK if disconnected. Was that a 4100 or a larger engine? I was thinking that and the diesel were the only options, I didn't know a V6 was possible that early.
  • sdasda Indian Land, SCMember Posts: 6,316
    fintail said:

    I thought 1981 was the V8-6-4 year, which apparently could be troublesome, but OK if disconnected. Was that a 4100 or a larger engine? I was thinking that and the diesel were the only options, I didn't know a V6 was possible that early.

    My bad, you are correct. The 4100 came out in 82 and the Buick sourced V6 later. The V6 you were referring to was to the Pontiac. oops

    2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    TPiR said the Caddy also had a V6 - that was a Pontiac engine? (the Pontiac above it also was mentioned to be a V6, funny if they had the same engine). I suspect it wasn't any faster than the diesel in a big Cadillac.
    sda said:

    fintail said:

    I thought 1981 was the V8-6-4 year, which apparently could be troublesome, but OK if disconnected. Was that a 4100 or a larger engine? I was thinking that and the diesel were the only options, I didn't know a V6 was possible that early.

    My bad, you are correct. The 4100 came out in 82 and the Buick sourced V6 later. The V6 you were referring to was to the Pontiac. oops
  • sdasda Indian Land, SCMember Posts: 6,316
    fintail said:

    TPiR said the Caddy also had a V6 - that was a Pontiac engine? (the Pontiac above it also was mentioned to be a V6, funny if they had the same engine). I suspect it wasn't any faster than the diesel in a big Cadillac.

    sda said:

    fintail said:

    I thought 1981 was the V8-6-4 year, which apparently could be troublesome, but OK if disconnected. Was that a 4100 or a larger engine? I was thinking that and the diesel were the only options, I didn't know a V6 was possible that early.

    My bad, you are correct. The 4100 came out in 82 and the Buick sourced V6 later. The V6 you were referring to was to the Pontiac. oops
    I didn't watch the video, so sorry for adding any confusion. The V6 in the Pontiac was probably the Buick 231, and the Cadillac had the larger version of the 231, I believe 252 V6 with a 4bbl carb.

    2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561

    I had zero idea a V6 was available in the Coupe that year.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561

    Late 1980 introduction through 1982. It was the Buick 252 according to Wiki

    I’m still surprised by this. I know I’ve never seen one for sale or in the wild.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • sdasda Indian Land, SCMember Posts: 6,316
    tjc78 said:

    Late 1980 introduction through 1982. It was the Buick 252 according to Wiki

    I’m still surprised by this. I know I’ve never seen one for sale or in the wild.

    Thanks for looking it up, that's what I should have done rather than going by my apparently feeble memory. I've managed to confuse everyone, good job!

    2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    Maybe the car was a prize because it would otherwise be nailed to the showroom floor with that engine.

    Not sure if it gets more malaisey than a V6 81 Coupe deVille. I wonder if the "tape player" mentioned was an 8-track. Still, I bet it was quiet and smooth, and had some style.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,254
    One advantage to that 252/4.1 Buick V6 is that, while it had the same hp as the Caddy 249, 125, it had a bit more torque, 205 ft-lb versus 195 ft-lb for the Caddy. While that's not much, I'm sure with a car this heavy, every bit probably mattered!

    At some point the Caddy 249 went to 135 hp in some applications. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a RWD Fleetwood Brougham with that engine. However, its torque didn't go up much, just to 200 ft-lb. 0-60 for that Brougham was a leisurely 14.9 seconds. And it took a 3.42:1 axle to get there. That sounds like it would make the engine a screamer, for that kind of car, but I guess once it went into overdrive, it would've knocked that down to about 2/3 of that?

    So by 1985 at least, it was probably an improvement over some of the dogs that came before. But a Town Car would blow it away in a drag race.

    In 1981, that 252 V6 was a credit delete option. Consumer Guide got 0-60 in 22.6 seconds, in an '81 Fleetwood. In the similar, but slightly lighter Electra, it was good for 18.3 seconds. Here's an article from Consumer Guide that mentions them: https://blog.consumerguide.com/the-10-slowest-cars-of-1981/

    Some of the specs are off though; I'm sure. For instance, it lists a 3-speed automatic and 2.41:1 axle ratio for the Fleetwood with the V6. I'm pretty sure it used a 4-speed automatic, and probably a 2.93:1 or something even shorter. I think that 3-speed/2.41:1 is probably what the V-8-6-4 used.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,254
    I'm really liking that Pontiac LeMans but yeah, it definitely needs better wheels! That color looks like a dead ringer for my '80 Malibu coupe.
  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561
    edited January 2022

    I don’t think anyone would argue Lincoln had a much better engine lineup in the 80s than Cadillac did.

    The 302/AOD combo was pretty reliable. Ford also beat them to the game with multiport injection in 86.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,249
    Had Caddy put in the FI 350 from the Seville, imagine how much better they would have been...
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHMember Posts: 15,167
    A friend and I were discussing this very thing this afternoon. I agree on the engines, but for me--used to hanging out at a Chev/Cadillac dealer--on first-impression stuff, anyway--styling, interiors, small details--I still like Cadillacs of that era better. But I would steer clear of a 4.1 myself.

    This doesn't belong in this forum, I know, but the Jalopnik article about leftover Impalas, which I've liked, put me in search of one. Long story short, yesterday morning I found one new Impala, five miles, in the U.S.--at a dealer in Seattle. Silver, which I don't really like, and obviously too far. But a dealer five miles from me had on their site, a black on black '20, 5,600 miles, clean carfax, two oil changes (!) done there, and was put into service in Aug. 2020, so that's when both the 3/36 and 5/60 warranties began. I utilized Carvana to see what they'd give me for my Cruze, and to my amazement it was $15.8K, and I was conservative in my description of the car and mileage. That's nearly $4K more than I paid when new, five years ago this month. The Impala was $31,990. Since I knew the VIN from the dealer's website, I went to the Monroney sticker website and paid $7.95 for a repro. The car was $33,420 new.

    Well, I went to see it in person and today and was told it sold yesterday, dammit. They never even got pics of it on their site. I did see it on the side of the building. It looked substantial, with substantial wheels and tires. I was smitten. Then, some employee climbed in and drove away.

    I looked at a new Malibu. Meh. Interior is very close to my Cruze, which I always thought was nice for a car of that size and price, but why update to that? I'm slightly depressed.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 47,364
    these days especially, if you see something, you need to act fast or odds are you will miss out on any decent deal.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD , 2022 Ford Maverick Lariat Ecoboost FWD.

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    Fun link, I didn't know Consumer Guide was putting out retro material. I actually have a copy of the 1981 Consumer Guide car book somewhere. That would have been a tough year to go car shopping, incentive to keep the old car on the road.
    andre1969 said:

    One advantage to that 252/4.1 Buick V6 is that, while it had the same hp as the Caddy 249, 125, it had a bit more torque, 205 ft-lb versus 195 ft-lb for the Caddy. While that's not much, I'm sure with a car this heavy, every bit probably mattered!

    At some point the Caddy 249 went to 135 hp in some applications. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a RWD Fleetwood Brougham with that engine. However, its torque didn't go up much, just to 200 ft-lb. 0-60 for that Brougham was a leisurely 14.9 seconds. And it took a 3.42:1 axle to get there. That sounds like it would make the engine a screamer, for that kind of car, but I guess once it went into overdrive, it would've knocked that down to about 2/3 of that?

    So by 1985 at least, it was probably an improvement over some of the dogs that came before. But a Town Car would blow it away in a drag race.

    In 1981, that 252 V6 was a credit delete option. Consumer Guide got 0-60 in 22.6 seconds, in an '81 Fleetwood. In the similar, but slightly lighter Electra, it was good for 18.3 seconds. Here's an article from Consumer Guide that mentions them: https://blog.consumerguide.com/the-10-slowest-cars-of-1981/

    Some of the specs are off though; I'm sure. For instance, it lists a 3-speed automatic and 2.41:1 axle ratio for the Fleetwood with the V6. I'm pretty sure it used a 4-speed automatic, and probably a 2.93:1 or something even shorter. I think that 3-speed/2.41:1 is probably what the V-8-6-4 used.

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    Was the 368 any good? IIRC 1980-only, at least in the bustleback.
    texases said:

    Had Caddy put in the FI 350 from the Seville, imagine how much better they would have been...

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    If you find a car out here I can pick it up for you :) - not Seattle though, passes all closed, they are cut off from the world. Hopefully the black one isn't being pressed into rental service - rental companies are competing in the late model used market right now too. Just keep looking if you want one, eventually one will come up. I don't know if I am more amazed that the Cruze has such value, or the Impala, formerly a depreciation king, is still carrying a price of ~95% of MSRP at 2 model years old.

    A friend and I were discussing this very thing this afternoon. I agree on the engines, but for me--used to hanging out at a Chev/Cadillac dealer--on first-impression stuff, anyway--styling, interiors, small details--I still like Cadillacs of that era better. But I would steer clear of a 4.1 myself.

    This doesn't belong in this forum, I know, but the Jalopnik article about leftover Impalas, which I've liked, put me in search of one. Long story short, yesterday morning I found one new Impala, five miles, in the U.S.--at a dealer in Seattle. Silver, which I don't really like, and obviously too far. But a dealer five miles from me had on their site, a black on black '20, 5,600 miles, clean carfax, two oil changes (!) done there, and was put into service in Aug. 2020, so that's when both the 3/36 and 5/60 warranties began. I utilized Carvana to see what they'd give me for my Cruze, and to my amazement it was $15.8K, and I was conservative in my description of the car and mileage. That's nearly $4K more than I paid when new, five years ago this month. The Impala was $31,990. Since I knew the VIN from the dealer's website, I went to the Monroney sticker website and paid $7.95 for a repro. The car was $33,420 new.

    Well, I went to see it in person and today and was told it sold yesterday, dammit. They never even got pics of it on their site. I did see it on the side of the building. It looked substantial, with substantial wheels and tires. I was smitten. Then, some employee climbed in and drove away.

    I looked at a new Malibu. Meh. Interior is very close to my Cruze, which I always thought was nice for a car of that size and price, but why update to that? I'm slightly depressed.

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHMember Posts: 15,167
    edited January 2022
    The new one in Seattle, 5 miles, is black, not silver....the silver one I looked at had 993 miles and is in Georgia (dealer calls it 'new' so it must have been a loaner).

    The Seattle dealer, Pierre, has it marked down too. And I have over $2K in GM card money which comes off the best price. It's a steal compared to around here, but just too damn far.

    https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/4e9dffa5-eff4-46d9-a2c3-623cfd2b619d/

    UPDATE: Ad says 5 miles; photo of odometer shows 2373. Still, can be bought better than around here.

    I like the chrome side spear of the Premier model, but they look to be about $4K more, generally.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,254
    I always thought Caddy should have kept the 368 around, EPA and CAFE be damned, and just pay the fines. In the long run it probably would have made for a lot more happy customers in that era, and those cars would be looked back on a bit more fondly. The 368 was essentially just a smaller-displacement version of the 425, so it was a good engine. Horsepower wasn't so impressive, around 140-150 I believe, but it was pretty torquey. Motortrend tested an '80 Seville with the 368, and got 0-60 in 10.6 seconds.

    Oddly, the '75-79, which is more fondly remembered, was slower from tests I've seen! Despite having 180 hp from the fuel injected Olds 350, the tests I remember seeing put it in the 12-13 second range.

    Interestingly, in '80, the Seville/Eldorado used a fuel injected 368 in the 49 states, but a fuel injected Olds 350 in California. In the DeVille/Fleetwood, it used a 4-bbl 368, regardless of where it was sold, at least according to the EPA website. At first I was thinking maybe the engine didn't pass California emissions standards, but then why would CA allow it in the RWD cars?

    I also seem to recall that, once the Olds 307 started getting used in the Brougham, the car wasn't that much quicker than the Caddy 249 had been. However, I believe they also went from the 3.42:1 axle to a 2.73:1, so they took advantage of the larger engine to boost fuel economy, moreso than performance. Normally you'd think the smaller engine would be more economical, but it had to work so hard it was a bit of a guzzler. The 307, while not exactly fast, was much less strained and could just loaf along. EPA estimates at the time were 16/22 for the '85 with the 249, and 18/25 for the '86 with the 307.

    At the time, I thought putting the 307 in the RWD Brougham was a really smart move, as it made for a better car overall, and a much more reliable one. But, I'm starting to wonder if the only reason GM did it was fuel economy? I think a 16/22 EPA rating would have made the car get slapped with a guzzler tax, starting in 1986. The Diplomat/Gran Fury/5th Ave had similar ratings, and they had a guzzler tax. The tax started at something like $500 and got worse, depending on how bad the car's fuel economy was, and it was paid by the customer. At least, it was a line item on the window sticker. But it might have been enough to keep GM's overall fleet CAFE average down far enough, that the company would get fined, as well. I seem to recall the fine was something like $5.00 for every 1/10 of an MPG below the requirement, multiplied by how many cars they sold that year.

    I wonder, too, how the 307 would have fared, if GM kept it around and updated it with fuel injection?
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHMember Posts: 15,167
    edited January 2022
    I thought it was odd, even then, that in a Caprice you got a 305 and the Caddy got that 4.1. I am thinking the 305 beat the 307 in horsepower.

    On the 'All Original Cars' site on FB, a guy posted his 20K mile '96 Caprice Classic all loaded up, aluminum wheels, and the LT1. He loves it. I get the bandwagon 'whale' thing, but to me the Crown Vic isn't a siren next to it either....it was obviously influenced by the '91 Caprice, just no wagons. And those had the vent window against a vent window I never liked. I know at some point the CV got the Grand Marquis roofline which looked better to my eyes.

    My point is, I guess, I've not heard any owners griping about the LT-1's used in those last cars....it's all good I think.

    While I didn't love the '91-93 instrument panel, I hated the '94-96 instrument panel though. But the leather seating was real nice, right from '91 to '96.

    I bought a new '93, base model, maroon, maroon interior, F41, full size spare, positraction. While I generally hate droopy rear wheel openings, up close, the way Chevy did the rear wheel opening revision, was done on the cheap.

    I was considering a Lumina, but the Caprice could be had for very little more, and had ABS and driver airbag standard, neither standard on the Lumina. Well, ABS might have been, too lazy to check, but just seemed like a lot more car for the money. We drove it six years and 93K miles and sold it in our driveway to a guy who was going to export it to Saudi Arabia.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,254
    The 305 did beat the 307 in hp, but the 307 had more torque. At least, I'm remember the 307 usually had 255 ft-lb, versus 245 for the 305? As for hp, the difference wasn't that great at first, but the gap widened in later years.

    This is just going on memory, but I think the 305-4bbl had 155 hp in 1980, while the 307 had 150. For '81 I think the 307 dropped to 140, and the 305 to 150. The 307 stayed at 140 until the end in 1990, although there was the 180 hp version in the Hurst/442 in later years. In 1985, the 305 went to 165 hp in full-sized cars and pickups, but stayed at 150 in midsized cars. Although, again, there were the high-output versions in the Monte Carlo SS and Camaro/Firebird.

    When the 305 went to TBI, hp went up a bit to 170. I've seen the torque rated, oddly, at either 255 ft-lb or 225...which I'm sure is a typo.

    My 1985 Consumer Guide tested a LeSabre and Delta 88 with the 307, and a Parisienne with a 305. The only one that they listed a 0-60 time for was the Delta, which came in at 12.0 seconds. However, they rated them all "4" in acceleration, so at that time, there probably wasn't a huge difference. They also tested a Crown Vic with a few upgrades (better wheels/tires, traction-lock, and the quick 3.55:1 axle), and it managed 10.5. It was rated 140 hp, 250 ft-lb of torque. They don't mention if it had dual exhaust though, and I can't tell from the picture.

    They don't give a breakdown of what, exactly constitutes a 4 out of 5 when it comes to 0-60 acceleration, but looking through other 0-60 times in the book, I'd estimate 9.5 to 12.5 seconds. I don't know how bad they had to be to score a 2, but the Jeep Wagoneer (17.3 seconds) and Mercury Topaz (15.9) did it! There was also an AMC Eagle that they rated a 2, but didn't give a 0-60 time.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 North Central OHMember Posts: 18,054
    edited January 2022
    Here's one of those Caprices(9C1) close by me. It makes an occasional appearance outside the garage.


    2020 Ford Explorer XLT, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561

    I have to disagree with the 91 Caprice influencing the 92 Vic and Grand Marquis. The 92 Vic was styled with the Taurus elements in mind. It also came out really early in January of 1991 only a few months after the Caprice.

    Ford’s 4.6 OHC engine was more powerful than the base engines in the Caprice as well. IIRC the Caprice didn’t get the 5.7 in civilian models until 93.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaMember Posts: 17,716
    The early '80s were a grim time for all the domestic manufacturers but especially for GM. Their sales volumes were still large enough that having to pay a CAFE fine on all of their production would have been substantial. That shows the folly of govt mandating such drastic measures. Adam's Rare Classic Cars page on YouTube has a 2-part video of him discussing what went on in those times, just posted in the last week or two.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaMember Posts: 17,716

    The new one in Seattle, 5 miles, is black, not silver....the silver one I looked at had 993 miles and is in Georgia (dealer calls it 'new' so it must have been a loaner).

    The Seattle dealer, Pierre, has it marked down too. And I have over $2K in GM card money which comes off the best price. It's a steal compared to around here, but just too damn far.

    https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/4e9dffa5-eff4-46d9-a2c3-623cfd2b619d/

    Black on black would be a non-starter for me.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 213,719
    tjc78 said:

    I don’t think anyone would argue Lincoln had a much better engine lineup in the 80s than Cadillac did.

    The 302/AOD combo was pretty reliable. Ford also beat them to the game with multiport injection in 86.

    I think my aunt's '85 Mark VII LSC was 160 HP from the 302. Decent for the era.

    Seems puny, but the BMW 5-series had either 121 or 180 hp, depending on engine choice.

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHMember Posts: 15,167
    edited January 2022
    I have to disagree with the 91 Caprice influencing the 92 Vic and Grand Marquis. The 92 Vic was styled with the Taurus elements in mind. It also came out really early in January of 1991 only a few months after the Caprice.

    Ford’s 4.6 OHC engine was more powerful than the base engines in the Caprice as well. IIRC the Caprice didn’t get the 5.7 in civilian models until 93.


    That's OK of course!

    Looked online (I know, questionable), I see the '92 CV was introduced to market in March '91, and the '91 Caprice was introduced to market in April '90. When driving back from Atlanta after Christmas '89 is when my father and I both saw our first '91 Caprice. It was a white base sedan with a name of a business on the driver's door, so apparently they released some for fleet sales. I had never even seen a photo of one before. I remember saying to my Dad as we approached to pass, "I have no idea what kind of car that is" and my Dad replying, "It has the Chevy emblem on the back".

    A 350 with 180 hp was introduced mid-model-year '91 in the LTZ model, Motor Trend's '91 Car of the Year.

    The Caprice and Crown Vic were head-on, direct competitors in the marketplace. I think the designers are well-aware ahead of the public of what their competition is working on.

    I only say 'influenced' because they were absolute direct competition at the time. Ford downsized it in '79 after GM did it two model years earlier, and both built that box-style for over a decade but similarly to the late '70's, Ford didn't opt to 'aero' theirs until after Chevy did.
  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561

    Agreed they were head to head competitors, that’s a fact. I just feel that Ford did a better job updating the Panther platform than GM did with the Caprice (B-body?).

    The reason I question the influence is that Ford themselves have said the 92 Vic was styled from the Taurus. So in essence many cars to come after the 86 Taurus were influenced by it. The design was radical for the times and IMO still looks good today.

    GM did beat Ford to the downsizing game. Not sure why Ford held on those few extra years, maybe they thought the trend wouldn’t continue.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    I bet you can have a car shipped for 1000-1500 at most. Not pocket change, but maybe something to negotiate - even in this market, a large traditional sedan probably isn't a fast mover. Interesting ad, an LT - which I associate with rental spec, but with leather and heated steering wheel.

    On the Impala subject, I had this early run car as a rental in November of 2013 (time flies!) - it was loaded - leather, pano, etc:


    The new one in Seattle, 5 miles, is black, not silver....the silver one I looked at had 993 miles and is in Georgia (dealer calls it 'new' so it must have been a loaner).

    The Seattle dealer, Pierre, has it marked down too. And I have over $2K in GM card money which comes off the best price. It's a steal compared to around here, but just too damn far.

    https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/4e9dffa5-eff4-46d9-a2c3-623cfd2b619d/

    UPDATE: Ad says 5 miles; photo of odometer shows 2373. Still, can be bought better than around here.

    I like the chrome side spear of the Premier model, but they look to be about $4K more, generally.

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    edited January 2022
    Not to mention, a year or so isn't nearly a long enough gestation period to have direct influence. Ford was on the aero game since the 1982 launch of the Sierra, which led to the Bird, Tempo, and Taurus. 40 years later, cars like the Sierra, Taurus, also the aero Audi 100/200 (5000) can really be seen as landmark designs.

    86 and 92 Taurus still look relevant, and I will admit to having developed a guilty pleasure for the early ovoid models.
    tjc78 said:

    Agreed they were head to head competitors, that’s a fact. I just feel that Ford did a better job updating the Panther platform than GM did with the Caprice (B-body?).

    The reason I question the influence is that Ford themselves have said the 92 Vic was styled from the Taurus. So in essence many cars to come after the 86 Taurus were influenced by it. The design was radical for the times and IMO still looks good today.

    GM did beat Ford to the downsizing game. Not sure why Ford held on those few extra years, maybe they thought the trend wouldn’t continue.

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 47,364
    from watching a lot of youtube channels they have all been complaining that shipping is a nightmare now. Hard to fin somebody to do it, and much more expensive.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD , 2022 Ford Maverick Lariat Ecoboost FWD.

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561

    Shipping anything right now is a nightmare.

    @fintail
    I’d rock a first gen LX with the right wheels and of course digital dash!

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561

    Like this

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    When I was a kid, an LX like that lived up the street, I remember it clearly - driven by a nurse, husband was a mail carrier. Same wheels.

    I know I have mentioned it, my uncle had an early build 86 Taurus L, on large plastic disc wheelcovers, which to my eyes had a Euro look. I remember that car had a backlit LCD clock with a unique blue green color, maybe something particular to early models, as I don't recall it being in later cars.

    Make my early Taurus (or Sable) a loaded wagon, which from the rear was always futuristic to me, hard to believe it is a nearly 40 year old car:

    image
    tjc78 said:

    Like this

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561

    The Sable was pretty cool with the all headlight front end. I couldn’t tell you the last time I saw a first gen.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,254
    The '92 Crown Vic and Grand Marquis probably took some of their inspiration from the Town Car as well, as it was updated for 1990. Sure, Ford and Mercury put their own spin on the cars, but I'd imagine the aero update of the Town Car probably forced the other two to follow suit fairly quickly, to realize some economy of scale.

    Of the early aero Crown Vics, I gotta say I really like the first-year 1992, with its grille-less front end. and normally I'm not a fan of that look that Uplander mentioned, where you have a spacer window in the rear door, and then another small window in the C-pillar, but I thought it worked rather well with the Crown Vic. When they started outfitting the Crown Vic with a grille, after the fact, I didn't really care for it as much.

    Now in '98, when it went through a somewhat more substantial restyle, and adopted the Grand Marquis roofline, I thought it was a great looking car, even if it did lose a bit of uniqueness.

    The Grand Marquis, I liked from the start, but again liked the '98 restyle even more. I think there's just something about the proportioning of the grilles and headlights starting in 1998 that just hit my sense of "good taste" just right.

    Perhaps GM going aero with the Caprice did influence Ford to some degree, but I think the biggest factor is that it was simply time. With the Tempo, the Taurus, and now two generations of aero T-bird under their belts, and the updated Town Car, the Crown Vic, and Grand Marquis, were starting to look out of place.

    GM's interpretation of "aero" was more wedge-shaped and angular back then, versus the more rounded curves of Ford, so I think the Caprice seemed to hold its own a bit better. But then when the '91 Caprice was introduced, it seemed so much more shocking, in comparison to what had come before. And the way it was more rounded, than angular, almost seemed a bit Ford-ish to me.
  • sdasda Indian Land, SCMember Posts: 6,316
    Mom had an 87 Taurus LX that was purchased around 1990. It had 13k on it. I found it somewhat oddly equipped. It had the upgraded cassette stereo, moonroof, but it had the standard analog instrument cluster which consisted of a speedometer, gas and temp gauge, no tach. All power accessories, cornering lamps. On the passenger’s interior door panel where there was supposed to be a speaker, it had a solid cover yet on the driver’s side there was a speaker. What did I find under that solid cover, a working speaker! I guess it was a quality lapse at the factory. I ordered the correct color coordinated cover and popped it on. Overall it was a good car. It was traded in 2000 for mom’s 98 Aurora.

    2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHMember Posts: 15,167
    Those Taurus wheels look nice.

    The '91 Caprice Classic looks better to me now than it used to. The worst angle is straight-on from the back, but I remember the brochure photo being a maroon Classic with the pinstripe whitewalls you got with the F-41 package all the way back to '77, and those polished, lacy aluminum wheels which they used through '96. The seating was pretty nice too. And I liked the polished black trim around the exterior door glass, which went away for '92.

    I had my wife's OK to look for a new '96 Caprice Estate wagon. She liked the '93 sedan she drove but liked wagons and 'woodies'. I told her it was the last year. She said "Go ahead". I didn't look any more seriously than stock at the three nearest dealers then, and didn't see one. I thought it would be fun to have a 260 hp woody wagon. But it really would have been dumb at the time. We still lived in our starter house and it only had a tiny garage where we parked the white Lark, so our daily cars sat outside all the time. We had a two-year-old and one on the way then. BTW, wife has always loved woody Jeep Grand Wagoneers, the body from '63 to '80-whatever.

    I like the simple '92 CV front end too. I wondered at the time if they got flack from dealers about the look of no grille, so added that chrome piece in front to simulate a grille.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaMember Posts: 17,716
    I cannot imagine the styling of the Orca Caprice being an inspiration to any other manufacturer, except as an example of what not to do. Truly one of the few RWD GM cars of my lifetime that I cannot say anything good about, along with the Chevette.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • tjc78tjc78 South JerseyMember Posts: 14,561

    The main reason Ford changed the grill on the 93 Vic was because of airflow. The 92 fleet models had a tendency to run hot when idling in hot climates.

    2020 Volvo XC90 T6 Momentum / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 55,785
    I remember when the 91 Caprice debuted, I thought it was terrible, "the whale". The rear quarter area that seemed so much wider than the wheel track width bugged me too. But as time has passed, I don't mind it anymore, it's a period piece, and became normalized with time.

    I think the Brooks Stevens Wagoneer was offered through MY 1991, later in life I think becoming kind of a fashion accessory for affluent suburbanites, ahead of its time. Seen in several movies of the era as kind of a family car ("The Great Outdoors" and "What About Bob?" immediately come to mind).
Sign In or Register to comment.