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
To be honest, I too have no use for the vast majority of them. I vividly remember my uncle's 1977 VW Dasher. What a stinking piece of mediocrity.
But I am pretty grossed out by 76 Eldorados and Lincoln Mark V "cartier" editions and the like....
Yeah, but then there's a lot of people who like that kind of stuff, so for them, the 70's was almost a golden era. Luxury, or at least a somewhat reasonable facsimile of it, became all the rage once factors such as rising insurance, environmental concerns, and fuel economy pressures pretty much dictated selling on performance wasn't so feasible anymore. As a result, even cars like the Mercury Bobcat and AMC Pacer ended up with arrogant, pretentious little stand-up grilles.
It was also sort of a last hurrah for a wide variety of options and body styles and engines and colors that truly allowed you to make your car "personal". While my '76 LeMans could be had in about 20 different exterior colors, probably 7-8 interior choices, 3 body styles, 6 or 7 engine choices, three trim levels, etc, my 2000 Intrepid could only be had in one body style, three trim levels, maybe 10 exterior colors, 3 engine choices (well okay 4, if you count the variable intake version of the 2.7), and 3 interior colors.
Of course, many of those choices weren't very wise ones. For example, I wouldn't want a base '76 LeMans sedan with a 250-6 cyl painted up in bile yellow!
Also, if you like big, comfy, roomy cars, there was still a wide range of them in the 70's to choose from, although their ranks would ultimately thin. 1976 saw the last big convertible (Eldorado). 1978 saw the last hardtop coupe and sedan (Newport/New Yorker), and 1979 saw the last big-block (the Lincoln's 400, down to a meager 159 hp). Lincoln was also the last brand to downsize. The '79 models were something like 230" for the Mark V and 233" for the Continental Town Sedan and Town Coupe. These cars would finally get downsized for 1980, as the hedonistic decade of the seventies drew to a close.
The 70's might also be the last decade where the cars were styled first, and built later. Basically, it was decided more or less how the cars would look, and then they'd decide later on how to build them and get the people and cargo to fit into them. Once they started downsizing, they had to start paying attention to space efficiency, and the philosophy began to reverse...design the car to fit the people and the cargo in, and then try to style it around that. It's a better way to go, to be sure, but it does make the cars harder to style.
I had forgotten all about those:
Oh cool, you were able to find one in butterscotch yellow, with just a hint of bile!
I think often with 70's cars, color could make all the difference in the world. There were a lot of nice greens and blues available, and some pretty hues of red/burgundy. But there were also an awful lot of earth-tones. Unholy combinations of brown, green, orange, etc, that mixed in the right combination, could be truly horrifying.
I think the nastiest color I ever had was on a 1969 Bonneville. It was sort of a goldish/green metallic, with a black vinyl roof. And the interior was coordinated with the exterior. The 70's cars I've had have been pretty peaceful in comparison...creme, 2-tone creme/beige, midnight blue, and burgundy.
Fortunately, my '70s cars were very conservative. My 1975 Cadillac Sedan Deville was silver and my 1979 Buick Park Avenue was dark gray metallic. The wildest color was my 1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency which was light yellow.
The "variable intake" 2.7 used a dual intake runner, which gave it a broader horsepower and torque range for heavy-footed moments. It actually did very little for peak power/torue. I think hp jumped from 200 to 202, while peak torque jumped from 190 ft-lb to 195.
This was the standard engine on the Intrepid ES from 1998-2001, with the 225 hp 3.2 being a $500 or so option. For 2002 they wisened up and just made a slightly de-tuned version of the 300M/Intrepid RT 3.5 standard in the ES, eliminating both the 3.2 and the variable intake 2.7.
Nominally, I guess it was a cost-cutting move, but I don't know how much they really saved in doing so. The 2.7 is a more complex, pricey engine to build than the 3.2/3.5. At least, when it fails out in the "real world", it's a lot more expensive to replace, so I'd presume that means it's more costly to build in the first place?
For only having 2 more hp and 5 more ft-lb of torque, there actually was a noticeable improvement in performance. IIRC, Edmund's has the following 0-60 times for the various LH engines...
2.7 V-6: ~9.5 seconds
2.7 dual intake: ~8.9 seconds
3.2: ~8.4 seconds
3.5: 7.8-8 seconds.
So the 2.7 dual intake basically split the difference between the base 2.7 and the 3.2. Too bad they didn't just go ahead and make the dual intake standard on the 2.7 once they made the 3.5 standard on the ES. I think it would've definitely helped with the image of the low-end models, especially with the Concorde LX.
They are barely controllable. It's like nobody went to engineering school and that they were built in RV factories or furniture stores.
Typically Germans over engineered to the max
Why am I getting everyone offering me lower than $5,000?
because that's about all it is worth, you idiot. :P
Someone out there might have a use for this battlecruiser
Not many of these around
$25K Impala
Glad it's 'rare'
Nice Nova
Does this have headers?
Cheaper Impala
Look like James Bond for under 6 grand Enjoy it until it needs absolutely anything. This car would cost so much to fix that a flat tire could total it
This is probably good for a grand
It is one of only 62 RS's originally painted black.
So why did you paint it white dope?
Don't see these this orignal anymore The first paragraph explains how great it is and the second paragraph explains why he's dumping it
So much wrong with this ad That is not a pinstripe. The car is not fast and after saying that you want 2 thousnad, you don't say you'll take 1600 or 1700 cash. Doesn't he know anything about negotiating?
btw: The $400 Alpha - It had no top for a number of years? How long do you let it go before you think 'I better get a top on that?
That 6 cylinder Mustang looks like a real REAL rat. Price is silly. Try half that and be grateful. The car is a mess. If body has no rust, take it off the chassis and put it on a REAL Mustang.
65 Impala convertible -- he must have lost his SS emblems because at that price, that's what this car had better be.
HotRod Nova -- price is fair enough!
BMW 850 -- absolutely, buy it and have fun until one of the warning lights goes off, then quietly turn off the engine and donate it to charity. Your hand held calculator doesn't have enough zeroes in the display window to fix this car.
Poor car investments
CPI is a much better book for 'average' (#3) pricing on Classic cars. The best of the bunch, really.
'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
Looks like a reasonable survivor
Car had good but not awesome power, drove and handled very well (new suspension, new radials, HD sway bars, new shocks, rear disc brake kit), very pleasant drive.
My only complaint was that I've forgotten how much 70s American convertibles flex. Take some getting used to--your instinct is to want to jump out of the car. If a modern car did that, I'd freak out.
The owner bought the car "restored", which is was cosmetically, but it took another $15,000 to make a real usable car out of it.
Nicest feature was a completely hidden 600 watt stereo system that worked off a remote. You absolutely could not see this system anywhere in the car or the trunk. Very slick. No visible speakers, amps, etc anywhere, just a tiny pick-up module under the dash where you aimed the remote. AND I-Pod ready!
But I was pleased that it was so easy to drive--only goes to show ya'--when you do the work to make 'em right, they will respond, old as they are.
#2 car, value I'd guess $40K give or take.
james
I was thinking of the earlier, plastic-nosed GTOs, like this 1968 (not so bad): :shades:
james
Not many cars get prettier in their 2nd and 3rd generations. Mustangs sure didn't, but I guess Corvette did (for a while there).
If I needed a truck
Brassy
I wonder what kind of mileage it gets?
james
It's a 1-ton, so it's probably a 4:10 rear end or maybe even a 4.56 :surprise: Mileage is going to be down in the lower half of the teens. Those old Eaton rear ends are pretty obscure these days, so you can forget about a gear swap. I don't remember if the 1-tons had trailing arms or leaf springs then, but a 1-ton 14-bolt ('73+) will fit under the earlier leaf spring frame. There is a 0.7 overdrive bolt-on auxiliary tranny for the TH-400 which will help out on the highway.
Edit: it might have a Dana 70 rear end if GMC was still using those that late. Still no help on the gears, though.
Chevy's had leaf, GMC were coil. At least, that is the way they were in the earlier generation.
'67-72 was the generation where GMCs steadily devolved into rebadged Chevies, and I don't know how much GMC was left by 1972.
There was a guy at work who had a '69 Catalina 4-door with the Ventura package. It was a nice car. The Ventura trim level was a real step up from the Catalina. It also had full gauges, which I thought was interesting for a full-size GM of that era. I guess that was a stand alone option, though.
"Let's face it, Mercedes has a lot of years where there cars just weren't attractive." Gave me a laugh when talking about a W110
NOVA: Hmmm....an "inline V-6". How did they do that, with one o' them engine-stretchers?
I wouldn't mind having that Nova. 'Course, I'd change a few little things, like maybe add a 400 HP crate engine with a Roush blower on it hooked up to a Tremec 6-speed...but other than that, I wouldn't touch it.
"GMC 1000 can be Short bed or long bed, will have 6 lugs on the wheels, 1960-1962 will have torsion
bar front suspension, and coil rear. 1963-1966 will be coil front suspension with leaf in the rear.
Can be 4 wheel drive model also, which would have leaf springs on all four corners.
GMC 1500 will be long bed only, but may not have a pickup box, will have 8 lugs on the wheels,
1960-1962 will have torsion bar front suspension, and coil rear. 1963-1966 will be coil front
suspension with leaf in the rear. Can be 4 wheel drive model also.
GMC 2500 will be cab/chassis, Stake bed, or may have a 9 foot pickup box, will have 8 lugs on the
wheels, may have dual wheels, 1960-1962 will have torsion bar front suspension, and leaf rear.
1963-1966 will be coil front suspension with leaf in the rear. No Four Wheel drive offered."
Since that is a php page, I'm not sure if it will bring up the correct slideset for everyone. If not, it is a collection of, I believe, 8 frankencars from ebay. The descriptions go by pretty quick.
That 190SL makes me wanna cry.
'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