By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Stealth - turbo made those cars fun (and amazingly expensive for the time, $30K IIRC), until they'd die, of course. Hard to get excited about a regular overweight V6 model.
'50 Olds 88 - I don't know why, but that's the best looking '50s 4-door that's come up lately. The late '50s GM 4-doors all seem out of proportion.
"This is a car for an experienced professional to restore" - also must be a billionaire
For the brave
Not cheap, and I know people don't seem to like these smaller models, but I don't mind this. Seems "sporty" in an old way, like a close coupled sedan
And that price! For reference (now granted probably 3-4 years ago) I picked up a running, Mk2 sedan that looks light years better than that Mk7 for a chunk less $$$. Sure it needed some work, but nothing remotely like this Mk VII.....that guy is crazy for asking that price.
I'd pass on that ol' gal.....
I'm not sure about GM 4-door hardtops of that timeframe, but I know the Mopar 4-door hardtops were smaller inside than their 4-door sedan counterparts. I'm pretty sure they used the same roofline as the 2-door hardtop (the DeSoto/Chrysler 2-door hardtop; the Dodge/Plymouth 2-door hardtop had a different roof with a much slimmer C-pillar), and if so, that would mean that about 4 inches of back seat legroom, not to mention some headroom, was lost compared to the pillared 4-door.
I'd imagine that GM did something similar, as the C-pillar is further forward on the hardtop, and the quarter windows are eliminated.
I agree, that a Sebring is probably a much better choice in a convertible, but for some reason, these Cutlass 'verts have appealed to me. Probably because it's something that I just don't see everyday, and that makes it more interesting.
'50 Olds 88 - I don't know why, but that's the best looking '50s 4-door that's come up lately. The late '50s GM 4-doors all seem out of proportion.
Yeah, I think that '50 Olds is pretty good looking, too. I think one reason might be that hardtops weren't that popular back then, and the 4-door sedan was usually the model of choice. Therefore, they actually put some styling effort into the 4-door. In later years, hardtop coupes became wildly popular, and were seen as a bit of an upcale, halo car. As a result, I think the stylists started designing the hardtop coupe first, and then from that threw together whatever they could to come up with a sedan.
Rare SLC?
among the first aluminum 5.0 V-8 motors that MB produced. This motor was lighter than the 4.5 liter iron block counterpart and, as a result, had greater horsepower.
Lighter = Greater power :sick: I think greater displacement might have had more to do with it. On the other hand, lighter does equal less heavy, which is a good thing. :shades:
james
Jaguar Mark VII---can you say woof! woof! Useless old thing, should be $400 at best. Why anyone would restore this type of car is a major mystery to me. Jaguar's challenge to Rolls Royce that fell on its face.
I'm looking for the "watch out for this..." type of comment, because I'm increasingly interested in maybe buying one to restore.
Any info of bad things to look for with potential cars would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-Ryan
Oh how the mighty have fallen!
And I like that '57 Chevy 4-door also in that striking 2-tone turquoise and white!
Austin Mini Cooper
james
Early MINIs are fun to drive but unless it's a Cooper, I wonder if it's worth the hassle of owning one. Parts fall off MINIS like leaves off trees in autumn. They like to break. But a Cooper is a kick to drive. Maybe the most fun you can have in a car.
I think everybody switched over to 12 volts for 1956, although I guess it's possible that some of the dying independents may have held off.
In any event, any MINI you buy should have the 1275 engine if possible. Many have been converted. After a while they only had one engine, the 1000cc (like that '76 you saw)--which I guess would be okay...but it's not the real fun one. You should drive a couple.
They like to leak water in the rain, and they will consume oil.
Collectable Toys
And seen these pictures:
Classic Toys on parade
Not sure about Chryslers but I'm pretty sure they made the switch in 1956.
I remember Volkswagens were 6 volt until 1967!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I don't know why so many people convert old cars to 12V?
More fun than, say, MGs, 2002s, and Alfas of similar vintage? And how do the old Minis compare to the new ones, in terms of fun, in your opinion? I ask the latter because you didn't include the MINI among the new cars you like.
The biggest drawback of 6V is cranking power I think...you can run a modern sound system off a 12V battery in the trunk I guess...even though you'll have to charge it up frequently...
And a 6V in cold weather---ugh!
RHD cars usually take at least a 35% hit in value in the USA....unless....unless...that's the only way they made 'em----e.g., MG TC.
RE: Mini Cooper S -- in my opinion, more fun than any other car in the known world to drive.
New MINIS are fun but they don't have that gut-level rawness of a "machine"....a Mini Cooper S is like diving and strafing the enemy in a bi-plane.
Sharp coupe
Yep, everything's a 'classic'
What's a 911 engine cost?
I'm not a big fan of the 996 engine.
I got stranded in LA (60 miles from home), Solvang (80 miles from home), plus once on the way home from my girlfriend's house at 1 in the morning --- had to call my folks to pick me up.
When my sister inherited it from me, my dad, uncle and cousin spent a weekend converting it to 12V. She never once had a problem with it.
Sheesh!
When it was converted to 12 volt they probably replaced the bad generator, regulator etc and thus fixed the problem.
We once hooked up a Model A horn under the hood of my '62 Impala SS. You should hear how LOUD those horns are when you give them a shot of 12 volts!
AH....OOOOOOOGGGGGAAAAA
Ahh yes. The 154/246 "short-cut" through the mountains. Depending on if I was really in a hurry or not, I would start in Montecito and take Gibraltar up to East Camino Cielo and take that across the ridge to the top of 154.
Man I miss it out there
RE: Mini Cooper S -- in my opinion, more fun than any other car in the known world to drive.
New MINIS are fun but they don't have that gut-level rawness of a "machine"....a Mini Cooper S is like diving and strafing the enemy in a bi-plane.
I agree with that. My 2004 MINI Cooper S was a blast to drive but the original mini was raw. You didn't get in that car you put it on like a glove.
He loved taking a last SECOND right (or left)turn without notice at 60 MPH! It was, literally, like a go-kart!
I would love an original Mini but they are always either way to expensive or way to rough.
While it isn't one single thing that accounts for the smoothness and refinement of new versus old cars, I think that fuel injection is a key factor, in that it greatly reduces the ebbs and surges of fuel delivery of carburetors. Fuel delivery from carburetors was less even and predictable, thereby requiring more driver involvement. This and the reduction of other sensory inputs isolate the driver from the machine in new cars, diminishing the fun factor, even as acceleration, braking, and handling at the limits is much greater in the new cars.
Scary thing is that it doesn't look horribly done...but why bother when a normal SL isn't exactly rare.
Still, such a tremendous amount of work to create a virtually worthless car. It's not like REAL convertible 450SLs are either rare or expensive---that's the weird part of this conversion.
It's like chopping a Chrysler Sebring and saying---hey, now I've got a Sebring convertible, just like Avis and Hertz!
I don't think it looks all that hot with the top up, but then, honestly, the hardtop upon which it's based was a pretty awkward style anyway. Top down though, it looks pretty sharp.
Hmmmmm.........
:P
At the current price, I'm interested, but too much more and it could start to be a loosing proposition.
One thing is, why not try and tidy up the seats. yeah the carpet is shot, but the seats are covered in crud. Why not at least clean 'em up and try to make 'em spiffy? I'd also like to have closer shots of the chrome work. The rear light chrome pieces look like they could be a little dodgy in some of those shots.
I'd say it's a good parts car,that's it. I certainly wouldn't restore it, speaking for myself---if you could find a 4-speed car that needs some of what this car has, that would be a better strategy I think.
If the car were running, it might be worth $5,000 as it sits.