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

andre1969

I just looked up "Maserati Ghibli" on wikipedia, and according to them it was only sold in the US from 2015-2017, with around 20,000 total. So, pretty rare, I'm guessing.

Here's one for sale, not too far from me: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/be97197e-7e5a-4649-9903-37941183e066/

The price actually seems somewhat reasonable for something exotic. But, I imagine having one of these is sort of like dating a Las Vegas stripper? Pretty to look at, but expensive to hold on to? Or...I dunno. Is something like this even considered "exotic" anymore?

**Oh, the "Buick" reference was just because of the three ports on the side

kyfdx

They still make the Ghibli, Quattroporte (bigger 4-door), and the Levante (SUV)

The Ghibli is their entry car (more or less)

ab348

Some may remember the discussion of the "Iraqibu" here in the past. Those were thousands of Chevy Malibu sedans ordered in the early '80s by the government of Iraq and built by GM Canada that the Iraq government eventually refused to buy and which GM was stuck with.

Yesterday this appeared in my Twitter feed, a very detailed account from the CBC Archives of their reporting from that time about the long and painful history of the deal and what happened to the cars. The story has a number of period photos and video links as well:

https://www.cbc.ca/archives/iraq-didn-t-want-these-cars-but-thrifty-nova-scotians-did-1.5462599

I remember these were popular here among cab drivers for a short time. The 2.29 rear gear made them challenging on the hills here though. They didn't seem to stick around very long.

uplanderguy

I think, but too lazy to check, that the V6/stick combo was still available in the 'States in '81, but I don't believe I ever saw one. I still see '78 and '79 Malibus online with that trans from time-to-time.

Plainly remember a green metallic new '78 Malibu wagon with V6 and 3-speed, with blackwalls, Rally Wheels, Monte Carlo-style gauge cluster with round instruments and gauges, FM radio with the chromed buttons, at our local dealer. It was an ordered unit. Our family salesman said the guy didn't know it would have a floor shift but was tickled when it came in like that. That shifter looked kind-of neat. Our '73 Nova was a 3-speed floor shift but back then that was a $26 option.

I think the Chevy 229 in the '80 and later cars was better than the 200 in the '78 and '79 cars, and I like the four-door roofline better on the '81 despite the vent window in the rear door not being parallel to the rear of the door. The midsection of the '78 to '80 looks too big for the rest of the car to my eyes.

uplanderguy

I went to friend Bob Palma's funeral in Indy yesterday and decided to drive home a different way, off the interstate where possible. I saw a sign that said "Fairmount 5" so decided to drive through James Dean's hometown again. I'm fighting a cold and didn't feel good enough to stop and actually do anything there, but I did take a pic of the old bank downtown, which is largely unchanged from when Dean was photographed near it in 1955. I know not a car photo, but I love small, off-the-beaten-path towns and staying off the interstates.

imidazol97

There are several James Dean car events in Fairmount and Gas City IIRC. I'll post links when I see them.
I've never had nerve to drive to one to see classics.

uplanderguy

Dean was raised by his aunt and uncle in Fairmount. HIs younger cousin Marcus still lives in the big old home and farm just outside of town. He has an outbuilding full of classic Fords. I was hoping in 2021 when I stopped there that he'd be out and I could ask to see them, but he wasn't. At the museum they tell you he's OK with you pulling in the lower driveway to take pics of the house and barn if you want. A stellar gentleman by all accounts. He considered Dean to be an older brother.

imidazol97

https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/2-dayton-drivers-were-part-of-first-daytona-500-in-1959/THFRGS6O4ZFYFDA5XFSJARCOHQ/

stickguy

if that was the 1st year, was the 2nd year Dayton-B?

uplanderguy

Thanks for posting the Daytona info and pic; all news to me.

laurasdada

I shopped the Ghibli a few years ago when I was thinking of trading in the XF; couldn't find a comfortable driving position; poor (for me) ergonomics. And, a bit of a claustrophobic interior. Obvious Chrysler parts, not necessarily a deal-breaker.

andre1969

Chevy 229 vs 200...you'd think it would be an improvement, performance-wise, but from what I remember reading in old road tests, there wasn't a whole lot of difference, at least in 0-60. Even though it picked up something like 21 hp from '79 to '80, it was still a bit low on torque. GM also changed the gear ratios, making them taller (numerically lower) for 1980. The biggest advantage, as I recall, was improved fuel economy, because the 229 didn't have to work as hard.

Another advantage was that it was (barely) powerful enough to now be used as the base engine in the Impala/Caprice, replacing the old 250 inline-6. So they probably saved a few bucks, having one engine where they once had two.

After a few years though, they did something to the engine to get its torque up to more reasonable levels. Toward the end, I think it had 190 ft-lb, same as the carbureted Buick 231.

I thought it was a bit of a shame that Buick didn't do more with its 252 4bbl V6. It actually performed better than the various small V8s (Olds 260, Pontiac 265, Chevy 267) in similar-weight cars. But once they redesigned the 231, and offered the fuel injected version that started off with 125 hp (1985) there probably was no need to develop the 252 any further, so they simply dropped it.

When the Chevy 262 (4.3) V6 first came out, it had 130 hp with TBI in passenger cars, but the version that went in trucks, and the Astro, had a 4-bbl carb, and 147 hp. I forget when the 4-bbl carb was phased out, but the fuel injected version seemed to improve pretty quickly, in just a few years.

sda

I read the 252 ended up being fragile and problematic. I think it was rough on main and rod bearings. Too bad Olds didn’t put a 4bbl on the 260. I think that would have given a nice bump in power while retaining the smoothness and sound of the V8.

sda

uplanderguy said:

I think, but too lazy to check, that the V6/stick combo was still available in the 'States in '81, but I don't believe I ever saw one. I still see '78 and '79 Malibus online with that trans from time-to-time.

Plainly remember a green metallic new '78 Malibu wagon with V6 and 3-speed, with blackwalls, Rally Wheels, Monte Carlo-style gauge cluster with round instruments and gauges, FM radio with the chromed buttons, at our local dealer. It was an ordered unit. Our family salesman said the guy didn't know it would have a floor shift but was tickled when it came in like that. That shifter looked kind-of neat. Our '73 Nova was a 3-speed floor shift but back then that was a $26 option.

I think the Chevy 229 in the '80 and later cars was better than the 200 in the '78 and '79 cars, and I like the four-door roofline better on the '81 despite the vent window in the rear door not being parallel to the rear of the door. The midsection of the '78 to '80 looks too big for the rest of the car to my eyes.

Not sure if a 4 sp manual was offered, but at least it wasn’t the miserable fragile noisy stiff shifting with a heavy clutch 5sp Borg Warner based transmission that I had with the 231 V6 in my 76 Sunbird.

andre1969

My understanding of the 252/4.1 is that the block was "siamesed", meaning there is no water jacket between the cylinders. From what I've heard, there are advantages and disadvantages to this. On the plus side, eliminating the water jacket makes the block in that area thicker, and stronger. I've heard that racers tend to like the Chevy 400 smallblock for this reason, as it gives them a good basis to build up. I think the Olds 403 might be siamesed, as well?

However, in the case of the Buick engine, taking an already weak block, and boring it out even further, probably did more harm than good. And, on the down side, siamesed engines are more prone to overheating, because of those missing water jackets, so proper cooling system maintenance is more critical.

I've actually never heard anything bad about the Olds 403 though, whereas I have occasionally heard horror stories about the 400 smallblock. But maybe that's because the Olds block was stronger, to begin with?

The Olds 260 always seemed like a curious little engine to me. While none of those little V8s were exactly powerhouses, I believe the 260 was the weakest of the bunch, putting out as little as 100 hp in some years. The short-lived Pontiac 265 had 120 hp. I think Chevy's 267 actually started out with 125 hp in 1979, but then was cut to 120 for 1980 and then 115 for 1981-82. Buick's 252 V6 had 125. So, given the displacement, the 260 just seems really off to me, power-wise.

I guess you could say the same about the Olds 307, which had less hp than the Chevy 305, but in this case we're only talking 10 hp, until the 165 hp version of the 305 came out for 1985. But the 307 actually had a bit more torque, so that balanced things out a bit. My 1985 Consumer Guide tested a LeSabre and Delta 88 with the 307, a Parisienne with the 305, and to throw in some competition, a Crown Vic with the 302 and 3.55:1 axle, and a Grand Marquis with the 302 and 2.73:1 axle. The only 0-60 times they posted were 10.5 for the Crown Vic and 12.0 for the Delta 88, but they gave them all a rating of 4 out of 5, so they were all fairly close.

But with the 260? Consumer Guide tested a Cutlass with one in 1981 or 82, and got 0-60 in something like 18.0 seconds! Meanwhile (and this is going from memory), I recall an '81 Malibu 267 that managed around 14.0, an '81 Grand Prix with the 265 doing 14.9, and a Bonneville-G with the Buick 252 V6 pulling a somewhat respectable 12.9. So the 260 just seemed like a dog, even among its peers!

sda

I remember test driving a 75 Omega hatchback with 14k in 78 with the 260. Though quiet and smooth I was really surprised and disappointed in how slow it was, actually thinking something was wrong with it. This was a non-ac car so it wasn’t burdened with that. It made my then worn out 71 Vega GT actually feel sporty. Months later I bought the 76 Sunbird 231 V6 5sp w/ac which felt like a sports car in comparison, lol. I think 0-60 was around 12-13 sec.

uplanderguy

I always wanted to drive a 4.3L V6 in an '85-88 Monte Carlo but never did. Seemed like a nice choice if a six was OK with you, and you wanted to not pay extra for an optional engine. I'm a tad surprised the B,O,P divisions stuck with the 3.8, but as we've discussed, lots of inter-divisional wrangling going on back then.

uplanderguy

I had a 267 in my new '81 Monte Carlo. The noises emanating from the engine of my parents' '80 Monte with 229 made that decision for me. I remember it was slow, but it was quiet and smooth as one expected from a V8.

There weren't a ton of 267's to choose from when I bought mine. In fact, later in the model year, I remember seeing on a window sticker some where at that point, the 267 was only a $50 option over the 229. I can't recall exactly what it cost on mine, much earlier in the run (mine was built in August '80), but it was more than $50.

andre1969

In 1985, Buick was at least nice enough to let you get the 4.3/262 V6 in the Regal coupe, as a step up from the 231. And in 1986, Pontiac offered it as a mid-range engine, between the 231 and 305 on the Bonneville-G and Grand Prix. For '87, the Bonneville went FWD, but the 4.3 stuck around as an option for the Grand Prix. I don't think the Cutlass Supreme ever offered it, though.

So, it was a nice gesture, I guess. But still, it seems odd to me, to make the 262 standard in the Monte Carlo, and the 231 in the other cars, even though they were from more upscale divisions.

If I was in charge of GM back then, starting in 1985 I would have made them simply drop the carbureted, 110 hp 231 V6 and just use the fuel injected version in anything that would have otherwise used it. Even though the fuel injected one was only used in FWD cars, would it have needed much in the way of modifications to put in the RWD versions?

My guess is the only downside is that by 1986, the fuel injected version was up to 140-150 hp, so all of a sudden, there was probably no performance advantage to getting a 307 in your Cutlass Supreme or Regal. Of course, there were buyers who would have gone for the V8 out of habit, or preferring its smoothness.

But, if I was in charge of GM, I would have also made them do some improvements to the 307, as well.

One car I'd be curious to try is a 1984 Monte Carlo with the 229 and the 4-speed automatic. That was the one year they offered the overdrive with that engine. It boosted the EPA estimates from 20/28 to 20/31. However, the combined number, 23, did not change. The carbureted 231 never got the 4-speed auto as far as I know. However, even with the 3-speed auto, it was rated 21/31, and 24 combined. So maybe GM figured that was "good enough", and no need to improve it?

In 1985, when the Monte went to the 4.3, it was rated 20/29, 23 combined with the 3-speed and 20/34, 25 combined with the 4-speed. This is the raw, unadjusted number, which would be comparable to the 1984 numbers. The window sticker, however, reflected a formula they used to round the numbers down a bit to reflect "real world" driving.

In its last year, 1988, the Monte with the 4.3 was only offered with the 4-speed, and it was up to 21/35, 26 combined. Again, that's the raw numbers, to compare to 1984. The window sticker was 19/27, 22 combined.

uplanderguy

I never knew the B,O,P divisions offered the 4.3 Chevy V6. I wasn't really shopping them at that point.

I know I never had one in any rental car I ever got during that period, Chevy or otherwise.

uplanderguy

I just quickly looked at the '85 Regal brochure. It lists only the 4.3 Liter Oldsmobile Diesel V6, not the EFI 'regular' V6.

uplanderguy

Here's the '86 Grand Prix brochure page about engines. Doesn't list it:
https://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/pontiac/86pti/bilder/50.jpg

I wouldn't doubt GM gave the info to the EPA pre-introduction, but I tend to believe the brochure more than the EPA.

In that era of GM, too, I really don't recall choices of two V6's in a RWD model line; usually a gas V6, a gas V8, and a Diesel of some sort. Of course, California often threw a wrench in engine choices then.

fintail

Mellow day today, so I switched on the time machine and went back to this date in 1980. The recent USA Olympic hockey win was still a big deal, money market accounts were advertised at 13%, The Jerk was at the local theaters, Queen was at the top of the charts but disco was still around, there were many people buying and selling silver, and there were cars for sale. A few fun ads (not overdoing it so much this time ) :

First off - a sign of a new era the left, buyer beware on the right (and "reusable" cars, as opposed to single use cars):


Tough choices:


Everything's a bargain:


I guess Dukes of Hazzard hadn't claimed all the Chargers yet:


Two 930 Turbos in Spokane? A yellow one? Big money now:


A Strada! Roll the dice! 200SX was a solid machine I think:


1980 was a heavy facelift or new model year for most Cadillacs, so there were leftovers. An Aqua Firemist loaded Fleetwood Brougham, I bet that was a beauty. Some of the others sound pretty too:

Michaell

Huh - the year old LUV is more than the new one.

In 1982, I paid $3850 for a '79 Sunbird (twin to the Monza) that had only 12,000 miles on it.

stickguy

308 at signing and 132 a month for the accord is quite the deal.

Used, the 69 Chevelle SS 454 4 speed for $1,250. I wonder if it is still available ?

andre1969

That $132/mo doesn't sound bad, until I remember my Mom's mortgage payment back in 1979-80 was only $389!

That ad also shows how the second Arab oil embargo and tanking economy were starting to affect car prices. That '79 Bonneville, for only $700 more than a same year Bobcat wagon?!

My Granddad bought a '72 LUV from one of my Mom's friends, around 1978, for a whopping $200. I don't remember it being in bad shape overall, but the interior was shot, as I recall. I remember grandmom sewing a seatcover for it, and they covered the door panels as well. I remember they were both animal prints...one was like a tiger stripe and the other was cheetah, or something like that. Sounds horribly tacky I know but it was probably just fine for the 70's. And it was reliable enough, at least, that they trusted it enough to take it on a few trips to southern VA, some 300+ miles away. My uncle was living down there in the mountains at the time, and I remember cramming in that truck with Grandmom and Granddad, and making the trip. It could get a bit scary on I-81, because there were a lot of tractor trailers, and it definitely had trouble on the long up-grades.

After a few years, I think they gave it to my uncle, and he either wrecked it, or gave it away; I forget which.

kyfdx

stickguy said:

308 at signing and 132 a month for the accord is quite the deal.

Used, the 69 Chevelle SS 454 4 speed for $1,250. I wonder if it is still available ?

$139/mo. lease for a $6800 car? Pretty pricey. 60 month loan at 12% would only be $151/mo.

Fine print: Open-ended lease. Lessee is responsible, if the FMV is less than the residual. Scary.

andre1969

kyfdx said:

$139/mo. lease for a $6800 car? Pretty pricey. 60 month loan at 12% would only be $151/mo.

Fine print: Open-ended lease. Lessee is responsible, if the FMV is less than the residual. Scary.

Adjust for inflation and the real fun begins. In 2023 dollars, that's like a $501/mo lease on a $24,688 car!

kyfdx

andre1969 said:

kyfdx said:

$139/mo. lease for a $6800 car? Pretty pricey. 60 month loan at 12% would only be $151/mo.

Fine print: Open-ended lease. Lessee is responsible, if the FMV is less than the residual. Scary.

Adjust for inflation and the real fun begins. In 2023 dollars, that's like a $501/mo lease on a $24,688 car!

Exactly... but, my main point: It isn't good relative to MSRP. It just seems that way, because it's a low number compared to now. (and, I guessed on MSRP. My '82 was around $7200)

I knew someone in the mid-late '90s with an open-ended lease on a Camry, and she basically was never going to get out from under it, without a massive payment of thousands of dollars.

uplanderguy

I'll take a new Seville or Fleetwood Brougham.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

I'll take a new Seville or Fleetwood Brougham.

I was just about to post the exact same thing!

sda

The Honda lease also stated no option to buy. Talk about restrictions and being on the hook to come up with $$ at the end of the lease!

uplanderguy

The 'Aqua Firemist' on the Fleetwood Brougham is intriguing to me. One time I was auditing one of our company's subsidiaries in New Jersey and the Controller (Comptroller?) took me to lunch in his '79 SDV. This was late '80's. It was a very vivid turquoise with matching top and interior....bold for a Cadillac. I bet that Fleetwood is the same color.

fintail

For those leases, I wonder if inflation of the era made the residual/open end thing workable? I know some cars barely depreciated vs MSRP, as new model years cost more and more, and inflation in general impacted used values, especially of non-dinosaur cars. Maybe not entirely unlike the recent inflation where people who leased in 2018-2020 were often gifted with favorable residuals at lease end. Foreign exchange issues might have also impacted imports - I've seen ads for 10 year old (Pagoda) 280SLs going for original MSRP or more - expensive new model pricing had to have been a factor.

For the Cadillacs, I see a 79 SdV listed as "seamist blue", probably another nice color. Refreshing to see period cars not in earthtones or the pale yellow that I associate with the era.

texases

That was the era that Honda dealers could just about name their price. Markups over MSRP were common.

stickguy

I couldn't read all that fine print, and honestly tend to forget open end leases even used to be a thing.

kyfdx

I don't remember used cars actually holding their value all that well, back then. New cars only had 12 mo, 12K mile warranties, at that time.

I don't recall any lease ads in 1980, either. I think most leases back then were structured like business equipment leases. So, open end leases were the norm, not the outlier.

fintail

Maybe it was for higher end Euros when they were more exclusive. Looking through ads, any 10 year old MB sedan was going for at least half of original MSRP, and sportier cars fared even better.

stickguy

back then used cars became cheap really quickly. they also (at least in the NE salt country) tended to rust really quickly. Not uncommon for a 5 YO car to be pretty much used up.

plus basic cars were fairly cheap to start with so had to drop a lot.

I think my Duster was a 1974 (I think it had the big front bumper but not rear?). I bought it in 1979 for about $700 from the original owner (no clue of miles, but not super high), and at 5 YO the rear fenders were both totally gone. I am guessing that was maybe a $3,000 car new?

fintail

I think large domestics depreciated fiercely then. My mom's T-Bird wasn't too old when it joined the family, but had lost a massive amount of value due to downsized models making the big ones look too big (in a no-rust area, so that was never a concern). I suspect many similar cars were done and cast off by 10 years old (roughly how long ours lasted). Meanwhile, a period Honda or Toyota seems to have fared better, per classified ads anyway.

Meanwhile, something like a 1970 MB 280SE which might have cost 8K new was 6K in 1980.

stickguy

Honda and Toyota in the 70s mechanically could last a lot longer, but in snow country, rusted quickly.

fintail

Just another reason I am glad to live in this region. The Japanese brand I see faring most poorly in old ads is Mazda, specifically rotary models, which seem to have become worth little in no time.

andre1969

With regards to used car values back then, I seem to recall Mom getting $1000 in trade for her '75 LeMans, when she bought her new Malibu in February of 1980. The LeMans had been about $5,000 new. It had around 60,000 miles on it when Mom traded it. I do remember Mom saying the car seemed "tired", but at the time I think the bigger concern was fuel economy. Gasoline was consistently north of $1.00/gal, and it was common for stations to run out. We had moved to southern Maryland in the summer of '79. Mom's commute to work only went up slightly, from maybe 18 miles to 19, but the new trip had a lot more traffic lights. Previously, she just hopped on the DC Beltway, and it was mostly highway. She also got homesick, so we were running back to see Grandmom and Granddad like every other weekend, and that was about 75 miles round trip.

The LeMans was lucky to break 15 mpg, but Mom usually got 20+ with that Malibu. That doesn't sound like much to brag about, but it seemed like a big deal at the time.

It also shows just how far cars have come. By the time Mom gave me that Malibu, it had about 80,000 miles on it. I usually got around 15 mpg in local driving, maybe 21-22 on the highway. But, being a high school/college kid, my driving style was probably a bit different from Mom's! But now, the '03 Regal I'm driving rarely gets below 20 mpg, and on the highway can break 30. And by today's standards, that's not particularly efficient.

andre1969

Well, George Jefferson had good taste in cars
Generous man too, getting that T-bird for Weezie...

uplanderguy

My memory of trade-in values of Chevys in the late '70's and early-to-mid '80's, where I lived, were pretty good, especially compared to later (not counting the recent craziness).

I remember these examples vividly, as I had the paperwork in my home until a few years ago, and looked at them a hundred times over the years.

Our '74 Impala Sport Coupe, sticker $4,408, was traded in on a new '77 Impala coupe when it had 28K miles, for $3,100. The '77's sticker was $5,503. The '74 was on their OK lot, with our name on the sticker, for $3,295.

My parents gave me the '77 when I graduated college in spring '80. I traded it in Jan. '81 with 57K miles on my new Monte Carlo, sticker $8,192. My memory is that I also got $3,100 for the '77 at this time, although the Monte was stolen and the paperwork was in the glovebox. Car was never located.

My parents' '80 Monte Carlo, sticker $7,070, was traded at 26K miles on an '84 Monte Carlo, sticker $11,409, and got $5,300 trade-in. My sister and B-I-L wanted to buy the '80 but couldn't match the dealer's trade-in offer.

It's all a bit academic as our local dealer ALWAYS started at MSRP, so could inflate trade-in values. Even though, I think Chevys held their values then, at least in that part of the country, better than they did in the 2000's.

Chevy always bragged in advertising about Impala resale value, although I don't recall them ever advertising that for other Chevy models.

uplanderguy

RE.: andre's mention of the 'LUV'--at the time I thought they were styled a bit better than the other small Japanese pickups, but the interiors--total turnoff to me. That Japanese vinyl smell at the time too, no matter the make....

My friend's Dad had a '73 Datsun pickup. I remember it on the back of a hook once for something. It was traded on a new '77 Vega Kammback. The Datsun had a small hole on the top of the left fender, a la early Vegas.

andre1969

Now that I think about it, my grandparents' 82 Malibu Classic wagon seemed to hold its value rather well. I seem to recall them paying around $11,000 for it, but that seems high to me. According to my auto encyclopedia, it would've had a base price of $8265, and by then an automatic transmission was standard. And I don't remember it bieng anything special, option wise. Manual locks/windows/seat. So I'm having trouble grasping at the idea of that car having $2700-2800 in options, although maybe if you throw on shipping, tax, etc, it would've been enough to push it up there?

When they traded it, in late 1984 for their '85 LeSabre, they got something like $6,000 for it. It was 3 model years old at that point, and the ECU was going bad, for the second time.

Now that I think back on it, when the '86 Monte Carlo my Mom gave me got totaled, I got about $2,000 for it from the insurance company. I think she paid around $14-15K for it new, but not sure. It was 12 years old and had about 192,000 miles on it when I got t-boned. Now, contrast that to my 2000 Intrepid. It had an MSRP of $20,950, with shipping. $22,389 out the door, with tax and an extended warranty I never had to use. When it got totaled, it was just over 10 years old. 150,351 miles. I got $1,988.73 from the insurance company. So the Monte held about 13-14% of its value, at 12 years/192K miles, whereas that poor Intrepid was down to around 9-9.5%, after only 10 years/150K miles.

Probably not the best example though, as Intrepids had horrible resale value. I can still remember, when my Dad bought his '03 Regal, there was an '02 Intrepid next to it. The Regal was $10,995, with about 19,500 miles. The Intrepid was $8,995, with about double the miles. This was September of '03, so neither car was that old...two model years in the case of the Intrepid. Although I guess this shows just how bad the Regal had depreciated, too!

At the time they also had a 2002 Intrepid R/T on the lot, that caught my eye. I think it had about 35,000 miles on it, and they wanted something like $16-17K? Memory's getting fuzzy now. I do remember them valuing my Intrepid at $3500, but said they'd raise that up to what the payoff was...about $4800. At this point, the car had about 85,000 miles on it. I was tempted, but ended up passing. I remember one of the headlights looked off kilter if you looked really closely, like it might have been in a minor accident. And I also remembered my 2000 having a few minor issues around that mileage, which I didn't want to repeat. They also wouldn't tell me how much of the factory warranty was left. When I had bought my 2000, it was a 3yr/36K mile bumper to bumper, but sometime in 2002 (but not covering all 2002's) they changed it to something like 7yr/70K powertrain, 3/36 bumper to bumper.

stickguy

I liked the LUV. back in middle school (ballpark!) I liked to build models (the glue together ones) and one of my favorites was a LUV with a V8 in it. that would probably be fun, if mildly terrifying too.

sda

My heavily optioned 76 Sunbird was around $5k new. In Sept 78 the Pontiac dealer listed it for $2900 and allowed $300 trade for my 71 Vega GT. When I traded it in 84 for my 80 Mazda 626 Coupe the Mazda dealer allowed $2600 trade for the Sunbird with 83k. I financed $3k for the Mazda.

fintail

andre1969 said:

Well, George Jefferson had good taste in cars
Generous man too, getting that T-bird for Weezie...

The Bird is for Weezie, the Civic at left is for Florence

I imagine his character driving a Seville.