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
Still, if you can do some of the mechanical work, the body looks to be mostly intact and the interior, save carpet and perhaps headliner (can't tell) could probably be "freshened up".
As it is, not running, I'd go as far as maybe $3,500. After that, I'd have to definetly get my hands on it and check it out personally before going above that.
As long as it is left alone, the seller can maintain the fiction that with a little effort is can be made whole. Once cleaned up, all the warts and irreparable flaws become more obvious. :sick:
james
I agree, the engine looks awful. I have all the books to put it together though :P but not THIS car....
Have you driven the automatic? Pretty clunky....it's an old Borg Warner unit.
These are the kind of cars that you really have to get up and personally inspect. I don't think I'd be comfortable buying anything more than a parts car over ebay.
Shifty, actually my 3.4 began life as one of those automatics and was later converted to a "moss box" manual. Kind of both a blessing and a curse ;-)
That shift from 1 to 2, you basically need to do your taxes in between in order to avoid grinding!
One area I'd always check on the 3.8 is the frame rails just under the engine.
Yeah, one day I'll probably put in a modern 5 speed, as I think it would really breathe new life into her, but that's a "down the road" project....which means (cough) no way the wife would approve those kind of funds right now (cough).
1) If it "just needs a battery to run" something is seriously wrong with it. Walk away. Otherwise surely the seller wouldn't be so stupid as to not put "only a battery" in the car when selling.
2) If the car is seriously dirty, there's probably a reason. Otherwise the seller would take the hour or so to clean it all up to make it look as good as possible.
3) If it "only needs a belt to work"...again, something is seriously wrong with it. Otherwise the seller would probably spend the $20 bucks for the belt and put it on.
I'm sure you guys have some others to add as well.....
I really like the sellers who tell the buying public how stupid they are, that they're "sick of the lowball offers" and "people just don't have a clue about these cars"....it's like Saddam Hussein killing off 350 of his relatives...at what point does someone look in the mirror and say "gee, maybe it's me?"
This thing has been for sale for a long time...it looks nice anyway
Too bad this pic isn't bigger, these are fairly handsome cars. 8 lugs on a sedan?
And re: the Fairmont, ever since I was a kid I have thought that style made the wheels look very small, out of proportion. Strange car...although I remember seeing tons of them around once, so they must have sold.
He's valuing it about triple actual market value---it's not easy to be that wrong.
That might explain this ad....
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/car/306004078.html
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/car/305604170.html
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/car/303515705.html
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/car/303360519.html
How low can they go?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
As for the Jag, that is so tempting. I always loved the lines of those XKs, but at 200k, a lot of money has to be sunk in of things start breaking down.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Ford was trying to go for that "basket handle" roofline look on the Futura coupe, trying to tie the styling in line with the '77-79 T-bird and, to a degree, those old 50's Crown Victorias with that chrome strip that went up over the roof.
I thought the look worked on the '77-79 T-bird, which had a wide, low look to it. Also, the distance between the bottom of the door window and the bottom of the rear window wasn't as great on the T-bird.
I think a '77-79 T-bird has a sleeker look to it as well, whereas the Fairmont is sort of boxy. As for proportioning, I think one problem with the Fairmont is that it's actually on a pretty stubby wheelbase for something this size. IIRC, they're about 196" long, but ride a fairly short 105.5" wheelbase. In comparison, something like a 1978-83 Chevy Malibu is only about 193" long, but rides a longer 108.1" wheelbase, so I think that gives the coupe version, at least, better proportioning. The Malibu sedan had a big roofline though, which I thought was too big for the body. They cleaned it up for 1981 though, with a more formal roofline that shortened the roof and lengthened the rear deck.
I think Fairmonts used 14" wheels, just like a Chevy Malibu or a Plymouth Volare, but I'd imagine that the tires themselves were smaller. I remember my '80 Malibu came with 195/75/R14 tires, so I'd imagine a Fairmont had 185 or maybe even 175 series tires?
My grandparents had two Fairmont-based cars. First, a 1981 Granada coupe. It was a two-tone brown/beige, thankfully no vinyl top, and I thought it was actually a pretty sharp looking car for the time. The sheetmetal was a bit crisper and beefed up than the Fairmont, which gave it a more substantial, upscale look, but it also seemed to overpower the wheels more, giving it a look like it would be tipsy in spirited driving. They didn't have any problems, but then they only had it about 4 years. Still, given the era, I guess that's a pretty good track record!
The second was a 1985 LTD. It was reskinned to give it a more modern look, with a sloping front, sloping rear, and sides that were tucked under a bit more, so it didn't look like it was spilling over the wheels as bad. I guess by that time it's possible that they were putting larger tires on them, as well. It actually seemed like a pretty nice car for the times, and I thought did a good job at hiding its Fairmont underpinnings. It had a fuel injected 232 CID V-6 with 120 hp, and was a good highway car. My grandparents took me to Florida for spring break in 1987, and they let me do a lot of the driving. That car would hit 80-85 mph if you didn't watch your speed. I remember my grandmom getting on me for going so fast, but then Granddad would get behind the wheel and go just as fast, if not faster!
The LTD wasn't as reliable as the Granada, though. I remember it overheating several times, one of them on that trip to Florida. And towards the end of its time with my grandparents, it started stalling out. It gave way to a 1989 Taurus LX.
I never liked that style of Lincoln because it just looks too diminutive to me. IMO, it just doesn't look like a very upscale car compared to something like a Chrysler/Imperial, Cadillac, or even a Buick, Olds, or DeSoto. I've heard they were pretty good handlers though, for the time.
I like the '56-57 Lincoln, though. Big, massive cars with presence, but still pretty sleek and cleanly styled. And in a garish sort of way, I'll admit I like the hideous '58-60 models.
Fox variants
One of my high school chums had a Zepher wagon with a 302 and another had a BASE Fairmont with the Pinto engine. I don't know if the back windows even went down on the Fairmont or not.
Another reason is I don't drive enough to justify keeping the Sebring. I think I go through about a 1/2 tank of gas in 2 weeks with the Durango. That was one of the reasons I traded the Ram off, just wasn't driving it and couldn't justify its payment anymore.
I dropped the price on the car to $1250. Hopefully it goes. :sick:
$8900 is still way too much for it.
'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
Was the Fairmont also a wagon model? If so, it should have had roll-down back windows. They rolled down maybe 3/4 of the way, which was pretty good in an era when many back windows only rolled down about half-way, or in the case of GM's downsized 1978 intermediates, didn't roll down at all!
With the GM cars, you actually got a minor side benefit of losing the roll-down rear windows. They hollowed out the back doors and recessed the armrests, which gave the cars elbow and hip room comparable to many full-sized cars. And GM claimed that, with the flip-out vent windows they provided back there (in the C-pillars of sedans and in the door quarter window of wagons), air flow to the back seat passengers was actually better than if they had a roll-down window. Probably just marketing bs though, and an excuse to force you to spring for air conditioning. And I'd rather have the roll-down window than the extra elbow room. Even without the little recesses, GM's downsized midsizers were still wider inside than something like a Granada, Fairmont, or Aspen/Volare.
Chrysler tried eliminating the roll-down back windows on the 1981 Aries/Reliant, giving you just a little flip-out vent. Enough buyers must have complained though, because at some point during the 1982 model year, they switched to roll-down rear windows.
Y'know, I could almost excuse Chrysler for elminating roll-down windows on a K-car, or Ford doing it on a Fairmont, because these were entry level compacts. However, GM's Malibu et. al. were upmarket from these cars, in a class where something like that shouldn't be tolerated. I'm impressed that Chrysler addressed this issue in the second model year. GM left those downsized RWD intermediates with stationary rear windows right up through the end in 1987, when the Cutlass Supreme sedan was finally cancelled.
My Grandparents (on my Mom's side...it was my Dad's parents who bought the Fords) had a 1982 Malibu wagon. They bought it in February of 1982, and nobody even thought about rolling down the back windows. I remember the first hot day in April though, I went with them to church, and Grandmom sat in the back seat. She was fumbling around, and finally asked "how the hell do you roll down the window?!" After that, they tended to refer to that thing as "the most expensive cheap car we ever owned!" I think it stickered for something like $11,000 new.
I think Ford did a pretty good job on the '83-88 T-bird/Cougar, disguising the Fairmont underpinnings. They usually seem better finished than GM's models of the era, like the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, etc. And Ford did a better job keeping them up-to-date, with fuel injection and such, and I think Ford tried harder to make them handle better, whereas the GM models tended to shoot for that floaty, big-car ride.
I think I still prefer the GM cars, because they feel roomier inside and just fit me better, but I do like the Ford models, too.
I remember the GM midsized RWDs getting ruled out for that reason too. I do remember sitting in the nausea seat of other people's GM wagons alot.
" It just needs a battery"
" It just needs to be driven"
" I'm sure it's something minor"
" It's probably just a fuse"
" I haven't had the time to clean it up"
" The A/C just needs a charge"
" I think the bands just need to be adjusted"
" It was running fine when I parked it three years ago"
" It doesn't smoke when it warms up"
Yeah...right!
Right now, there is a 1949 Buick Suoer Woody. It's a total rustbucket and the wood is SHOT!
I forget what it's up to but I was astounded!
Can Barret-Jackson be the cause of this?
Also that woody is a rare car---it's not like people have a lot of choices on what to buy.
As the sign says in the famous restoration shop near me:
"All the easy restorations have been done already".
Woodies were hot before B-J, and compared to the Dodge taxi cabs being sold with Hemi engines in them for $200K, they are still a bargain at $75,000.
Another "When I was in HS story"
I was in a junkyard looking for some part for whatever clunker I was driving when I spotted a decent looking 1951 Ford Woody. I asked the guy what he was going to do with it and he told me he was going to part it out and have what was left crushed.
Well, this was in the days of the Beach Boys and Jan & Dean and I lived in a beach town. He told me it had a bad rear end and otherwise it seemed to run good. He sold it to me for 100.00. Done deal!
My parents didn't like the idea of me owning one more car nor did they like it sitting in front of thier house so I sold it, after installing a junkyard third member.
I think I sold it for 200.00. It was a So. Calif car, rust free, not cherry but really not bad overall.
The guy who bought it from me loaded three other kids in it and set out to visit an old buddy in Minnesota.
It didn't make it. The flathead let go in the Dakotas somewhere and a guy in a shop was kind enough to trade my buddy a RUST BUCKET, POS '56 Chevy that actually got them home after several mishaps including a night in jail when my broke buddy got caught stealing a battery for it.
His parents were out of town so, in desperation he called my mother who wired him bail money.
:shades:
I put this in Shiftright's BNT file
(Big Nasty Thing)
I like big nasty things, though.
If I had to get a SUV, I would want one of those...a grey market G. I like the bad colors many of them came in too...lots of pukey greens.
I am sure we have all been there in one way or another. In the end we can only prepare them as well as possible - the rest they just have to figure out for themselves.