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
This is solid information. I'm surprised he missed it.
Regarding any other faults in the car, I would check online buyers guides, and have it inspected by a good mechanic or even a MB dealer before purchase.
Very few Packards were sold in 1956. Dismal sales and the end of Packard as we know it. 57 and 58 "Packards" were Studebakers.
Weren't those electric pushbutton transmissions troublesome? I always heard that Chrysler's setup was a model for simplicity and durability. Chrysler's was also designed to lock out certain gears at certain speeds, to keep from damaging the transmission. For instance, you couldn't throw it into reverse if you were moving forward at more than a few mph. I guess that would make rocking the car when it got stuck in the snow a pain, though.
I know the 4-speed HydraMatic didn't have a torque converter, but didn't the Chevy PowerGlide have one? Chrysler's automatics always had it, although the semi-automatic used a fluid coupling.
The electronic transmission was pretty good as I recall. The engagement was effortless, like an elevator button.
The torque converter was a lock-up type. I don' think anybody else was using anything that sophisticated. This meant no slippage in high gear.
The self-leveler was a bit troublesome and you'd often see a Packard with its butt way up in the air, just stuck there. A simple by-pass wire usually could get it down again until the leveling sensors could be repaired.
When we were kids we used to pile on the back bumper and make the car go up, then get off and watch it go down again. We'd do this maybe 25 times until the owner came out and tried to strangle us. But he was fat and we were 10, so no chance.
The best way to rock a car that's stuck is to use the brakes, not the transmission, to change direction. That is, go forward as far as possible, apply the brakes, do the same in reverse, then again in forward, and so forth, until you either get unstuck, or give up. The notion of employing back and forth momentum by shifting the transmission is illusory, because you have to stop the car, even if only for an instant, to change direction, the same as you do when applying the brakes to achieve the same result. The difference is that application of the brakes avoids undue harm to the transmission.
"...but didn't the Chevy PowerGlide have one?"
Yes, Powerglide had a torque converter.
As for the leaking 996s, he points to "cam seals behind the flywheel" and ... i don't think I'll get this right ... but it was something like a center gearshaft "behind the transmission." Is it possible, because these require removing the tranny, it has been confused with a rear main seal?? But you do mention a new engine block, which would not be necessary for either of these. hmmmm....
Oh, and he says these are relatively easy to fix because the tranny can be removed separate from the engine. (obviously, "relative" is the key word here)
'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
They're great when they work, but I remember the lockup in my grandma's '85 LeSabre would sometimes forget to unlock when you slowed down, and the car would start to buck and sputter and occasionally stall out. Luckily it was just a switch, and a cheap repair.
How many forward speeds did the Packard unit have?
I didn't realize that body was all new for '55. Shame that they only got a 2-year run out of it before it got dumped for the Studebaker body. I think it looks good by 1955-56 standards, but I guess it would have looked pretty dated by '57 and downright obsolete if they had tried using it in '58. Still, that might have been a more dignified end than the Packardbaker that replaced it.
As for any trans. issues in the 996, I'm not familiar with that but I'll check. The rear main seal leaks are REAL, and if you see a 996 with a rear main leak, be extremely cautious. The rule is, if it doesn't leak by a certain mileage, you're fine, then it won't. It's a machining issue in the block itself. The engine design on the 996 is questionable, in terms of how they support the end of the crankshaft. I think this is what causes some of them to leak. I think the seal moves when it shouldn't.
can you even tell a rear main leak from a leak from the cam seals from behind the tranny? I would think not, but, then again, its not like I'm familiar with looking under a Porsche.
And thanks for clearing up the '87 mystery. At least there are 2 years thus far I could possibly look for.
the 996 option interests me because it seems they are getting down to a reasonable level. For instance, I saw an '01 with 50k miles for $29,995. Miles are a tad higher than I'd want on such a car, but it just put the idea in my head.
'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
The 996 will be depreciating for some time yet, but you're right, you don't want the miles to build up too much before you buy. Porsche prices are not affected as much by higher miles like Corvette or Viper or Ferrari prices are.
Excellence magazine says there is no real solution to the problem, so even if you have it fully repaired don't you have to worry that it will happen again?
Nice, but I can't read German.
Ok, aside from being a very underhanded statement, are those not sheepskin covers I see in the photo??? Never a good sign, IMHO.
'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
One for Lemko. The seats remind me of the eggcrate mattress my grandma used to have.
Doesn't look very "royal" to me.
Sleeper? Beater? Both.
Andre needs a truck, part 6,541.
Looks a bit too pretentious for a Chevy.
Naturally they are "rare". Nobody wanted one when they were new.
A very odd duck.
Photographed in the natural setting for a British car
I wonder if this guy learned a lesson
70s SUV
Lemko-mobile
Or maybe even this
I kinda like that Cadillac, but never liked those tufted button seats. I think that's what they called the D'Elegance package. I like the base leather better, which had more of a ribbed pattern. I think the Caddy Fintail posted has the base interior.
I remember when that composite headlight style of Monte Carlo came out, for 1986. I didn't like it back then. I much prefered the more common style with the quad headlights. I'm starting to like it more now, though. And with the 4.3 V-6 and 4-speed automatic, that car might actually get fairly reasonable fuel economy, without giving up too much power over the V-8. At least it's not a slug like the old Chevy 229 was.
And that Chevy truck is cool. Almost makes me wish that my '85 would start acting up so I could put it out of its misery and get something more classic!
A Triumph 2000 automatic sedan without wheels? Even the Brits aren't crazy enough to restore that!
'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
Yeah, but there's just something about the buttons on the Chrysler that I like better. The seats are a bit more rounded and plush, kinda like an old Lazy Boy recliner. On that Cadillac, the seat just has sort of a flat look to it. Like they took a piece of foam and just poked holes in it. I mean, it's not horrible, but I just think the ribbed pattern looks better.
They offered a button-tufted leather interior on the 1979-81 New Yorker. I think that midnight blue '80 we saw at the Chrysler Carlisle show in 2006 had it. It was actually a popular option. In fact, a lot of buyers preferred it to the leather pattern that the more expensive 5th Ave had, which had fewer buttons and was less over-stuffed looking, and more cleanly styled. Enough so that for 1981, Chrysler switched up and made the smoother style an option on the base NYer and put the pimpy button tufted stuff on the 5th Ave.
Those big, mammoth class '74-78 NYer Brougham models also offered a button tufted leather interior. But on a car like that, it was well suited for it.
As the resident Mopar expert, please correct me if I'm wrong, andre, but wasn't that generation of large body Mopar actually a little trimmer, dimensionally, than the preceding generation? It seemed that cars only grew during that era, making the '74s one of the few times when a new generation of cars didn't get bigger, and sometimes substantially bigger, but actually got smaller, if only slightly so. Actually, Plymouths and Dodges, and maybe Chryslers too, got smaller twice before that, in '53 and '62. Each of these downsizings seemed to coincide with a deterioration in the marketplace.
I like that '74 Dodge, too. And agree, it's a really nice color scheme. I've always been a sucker for a nice shade of green. And, IMO at least, that shade is pretty nice!
Even though I've always had a preference for Mopars, I usually thought their older trucks were kind of ugly compared to a GMC or Chevy of the same year. But by that time, I think they're pretty nice looking.
It also seems like Mopar put a little more power into their engines back then than GM or Ford. For instance, my old car book lists the 1974 Mopar 400 as having 185, 205, 240, or 250 hp depending on the configuration. Being a 400-2bbl, I imagine that Dodge truck only has 185 hp. Still, for comparison, the Chevy 400 smallblock only put out 150 or 180 hp that year. I guess that's 2bbl/4bbl? Ford had a 400, which I think was a 2-bbl, that put out 170 hp. Pontiac had 400's with 175, 190, 200, or 225 hp, so at least they were *somewhat* trying.
Unfortunately Mopar had the added *bonus* that year of having Lean Burn on the 400 and 440 big-blocks. Supposedly when it worked it worked great, but when it didn't, you were screwed. For 1975 they added it to the smallblock 318/360 and the slant six.
I imagine that, in that fuel-starved era, having more horsepower than your competition wasn't exactly something to brag about.
I'm not sure on that one. I know that wheelbases remained unchanged when the new 1974 Mopars came out. Chryslers stayed at 124", although the Town & Country wagon grew slightly from 122 to 124". Dodges stayed at 122", although the wagons grew to 124". Plymouths remained at 120" for most of the lineup, 124" for wagons. And then for 1975, that 120" wheelbase would grow to 122", probably to save costs in differentiating it from the Dodge Monacos.
Weight went up, but that could be simply because of the bumpers. My old car book lists a 1973 Chrysler Newport 4-door sedan at 4200 pounds base, whereas the 1974 was up to 4430. This book also states that the 1974 Chryslers were about 5 inches shorter than the 1969-73 "fuselage" generation. I have an old used car book that covers 1977-86, and it lists the 1977-78 Newport/New Yorker at 225" long, so that would, theoretically, put the '73 model at 230". But I think I've seen old sales brochures that put the '74-78 style at 228", which, while still smaller, ain't smaller by much!
Part of it may have also been a visual trick. The 1969-73 "fuselage" style cars were long and low, with fairly high beltlines and small windows. That might have made them look bigger than they really were. The 1974 was actually a pretty modern style, with huge windows, a fairly low beltline, and a more upright, boxy look. Well, modern except for the fact that it was just too darn big!
I'd be curious to find some old brochures, so I could see how much the '74 models changed compared to the '73. I have a feeling that the Chryslers really were a bit smaller, although the Dodges and Plymouths might have been a bit bigger. I remember seeing a '77 Gran Fury ex police car at the Carlisle Mopar show this past year, and that sucker just seemed huge. Even compared to, say, a '71-76 Impala or '73-78 LTD, it seemed big. Oh, and I remember one year at Carlisle, a '78 New Yorker parked next to my '79, and we tried to align the front bumpers to see how much of a difference there was in the back. Just eyeballing it, it really didn't look like much. Most sources I've read put my NYer at 221.5", so if the '78 really is 225", 3.5" isn't much difference. However, the bumpers on my '79 jut out a lot more than they do on the '78. Visually, that can make a big difference, since a bumper that juts out really doesn't make the car look longer. Harder to park, yes, but visually, it can fool you.
It was this difference, small as it is, that I was referring to. It doesn't surprise me that the '74s weighed more than the '73s, due to the bumpers and, maybe, other federal regulation associated factors. If I were to guess, I'd also say the more slab sided shape of the '74 Chrysler may have been a little narrower than its fuselage style predecessors, but I'm only guessing. Perhaps you have a reference that would support or contradict this notion. In my opinion, the '74s were handsome cars, and more to my liking than the fuselage cars. In fact, I prefer the pre-fuselage generation to the fuselage one.
My used car book lists the 1977-78 Newport/New Yorker at 79.7", which is probably about as wide as most cars got. I think once you go over 80 inches, the vehicle has to be classified as a medium duty truck in some states. I think most half-ton trucks are just shy of 80", too. I think the 1960 Fords were 80.5", and did have to be registered as trucks in some states.
I think Chrysler's '74-78 C-bodies are pretty handsome too, although I never cared for those Gran Furys with the big single headlight, which I think showed up on the top level model for 1975, but was on all of them for '76-77. And then for '78, the Gran Fury (and Dodge Monaco) were dropped, although the Newport/New Yorker continued to sell. I think the '74-75 Plymouths with the quad headlights were really handsome cars. As were the Dodge Monacos. They had sort of a Buick-ish look to them.
I think I actually prefer a LeSabre or Delta to the Newport, or the Electra/98 to the New Yorker, but heck, I like 'em all!
I know 1962 was a bad year for Chrysler, but wasn't sure about 1953. My old car book states that they combined 1951-52 production totals, so it's hard to compare 1952 to 1953. They were able to make an estimate though. Dodge sold about 206,000 cars in 1952, compared with 320,000 in 1953. However, I don't think it was the new body style, necessarily, that boosted sales. The country was in a bit of a downturn in 1951-52, and because of the Korean War, the gov't ordered caps on civilian production. So 1953 was probably partly a return to a more rosy ecomic outlook, as well as supplying a pent-up demand.
Plymouth sold about 400,000 1952 cars, but that jumped to about 650,000 for 1953.
In contrast, DeSoto, which stayed the same size but got freshened sheetmetal, went from about 80,000 units in 1953 to around 130,000 for 1953. I think that was their second best year ever, behind 1950.
1953 must have just been a temporary spike in the economy though, or maybe they saturated demand, because 1954 saw sales of a lot of cars fall back down to 1952 levels, or worse. Or perhaps, people were just holding off on buying because radical new designs were coming for 1955.
As for the downsizing Mopar did in the early 60's, it was a mixed bag. Some of that downsizing actually started in 1957, when DeSoto launched a Dodge-sized car, the Firesweep. Then Chrysler moved the Windsor down to that size for 1958, going from a wheelbase of 126" to 122". I guess this wasn't really downsizing so much, as badge-engineering.
When the 1960 Dodge Dart was launched, on the smaller 118" Plymouth wheelbase, it was a smash hit. Something like 320,000 Darts were sold. Dodge only sold about 156,000 total cars in 1959! The Matador and Polara, which replaced the Royal and Custom Royal, and remained on the 122" wheelbase, sold about 43,000 units. It's hard to say whether that was an increase or not, though, because Polara/Matador production included wagons (and my book doesn't break out figures by body style for that year). Plus, Darts had their own wagon, on the longer 122" wheelbase. For 1959, the station wagon was its own series, offered as Sierra or Custom trim lines.
I have a feeling that most of the Dart's success came at the expense of Plymouth. And Plymouth's full-sized car sales were pretty bad that year, only around 250,000 I guess. Plymouth did have the Valiant though (marketed as a separate brand that year but included in Plymouth's production totals), which was pretty successful and helped boost overall sales.
Chrysler division sales bottomed out in 1958, with about 63,000 units sold. That was down from about 124,000 in 1957. They recovered a bit to around 70,000 units for 1959 and 77,000 units for 1960. In this case, its possible that a lot of that gain was coming at the expense of DeSoto, which was being phased out. DeSoto went from 117K units in 1957 to around 49K in 1958. Then 46K in 1959. The lineup was drastically cut for 1960, with all cars being moved to the smaller 122" wheelbase, and sales were down to about 26K units. In 1961, Chrysler introduced the Newport, with pricing starting at something like $2964 for a 4-door sedan. The last time a Chrysler had been cheaper than that was the $2870 Windsor sedan from 1956!
Chrysler sold about 96,000 cars in 1961. DeSoto, in an abbreviated run that ended around Thanksgiving 1960, ran off 3,034 cars. Dodge made another step downmarket in 1961, eliminating the Matador and only offering the Polara on the 122" wheelbase. It sold about 14,000 units, despite being about $100-200 less than the '60 Polara had been.
In 1962, those shrunken, oddly styled Dodges and Plymouths really saw sales plummet. Sales were bad enough that in mid-year, Dodge came out with the Custom 880 model, basically a 1962 Newport with a 1961 Dodge front clip, and it sold about 17K units. Nothing to crow about, but much better than the shrunken '62 Polara, which only moved about 12K units despite being offered for the whole year!
For 1963, Chrysler division put all of its cars on a smallish 122" wheelbase. They were actually pretty popular, but most of the sales were coming from the cheap Newport or the sporty non-letter 300 series, which sort of replaced the old Windsor in the lineup. The New Yorker wasn't that hot of a seller. Probably looked too diminutive compared to an Olds 98 or Buick Electra. Plus, the main reason that Chrysler division did so well was that the company basically eliminated most of its internal competition. DeSoto was gone, as were most of the pricier Dodges. Chrysler was starting to become a mass market nameplate, rather the upper-medium price niche that it had once been.
Or if not bio-diesel, perhaps just regular Diesel? While 25 mpg isn't going make a Prius driver start lusting after it, when was the last time a full-sized Chevy could get 25 mpg? And I mean a REAL one, not this little W-body Impala they're trying to pass off as one. :P Now, there have been a few. The '94-96 LT-1 350 was actually rated at 26 on the highway. I think the older 80's style with the 4.3 V-6/4-speed automatic was actually rated at 27 on the highway. But for the most part, I imagine the only way you would've broken 20 mpg on the highway with those 60's cars was with a 6-cyl engine or 283, and a VERY mild foot!
Incidentally, I'm among the minority who thought the new-for-'62 Plymouths and Dodges were neat looking cars, and that the size reduction was a good thing. To me, they acquired a more sophisticated, European look. For the same reason, I thought the '60 Valiant represented a gutsy and creative styling departure from the past.
This could be a good commuter car or 1st car
Interesting ad I wonder if this is real because a 323 should have a 2.3 liter, right?
Pretty good winter price Not a bad driver and cheap entry to cruise night
Nice car but I doubt that the price is too good
D is for depreciation These cars have such weird proportions
Let's drag this out of the back yard before tying to get almost 2 grand for it Anyone beleive those 54,000 miles are original?
This was gettign rare by 1990 due to the poor engineering
Fiero---the 6 cylinder 5 speed is the ONLY one you want. The 4cyl/4spd is a mess.
One interesting thing to ponder, though, is how would the '53 Dodge and Plymouth have sold if they had not been shrunken down? Even though the '53 models, as-is, did outsell the '52 counterparts, I wonder if they might have sold even better had they not been shrunken down. And for 1954, Dodge plummeted to 154,000 units, down by about half, over 1953! I think Plymouth ran off around 440,000 units. Down pretty sharply, but not as bad. But then '54 was a bad year in general. DeSoto was down from 130K to something like 76K units.
And oddly, while 1955 was a record year for the industry, Plymouth only ran off something like 401,000 of the 1955 models. I heard they were actually popular cars, but Chrysler had problems with production capacity and just couldn't keep up with demand. Maybe they downscaled their assembly line as 1954 sales were pretty low, figured the '55 wouldn't be that popular, and then weren't able to ramp back up fast enough to keep up with demand? Now for calendar 1955, which includes part of 1956 model year sales, Plymouth ran off something like 730,000 units!
As for those shrunken 1962 models, I don't like the Plymouths, but think the Dodges are kinda cool. I've heard they were actually pretty good cars, although not what the public wanted at the time. They were noticeably smaller than a competing Ford or Chevy. I think a '62 Dodge was around 202" long, and rode a 116" wheelbase. A Ford or Chevy would've been on a 119" wheelbase, and probably be around 210-212 inches long. Supposedly though, the Dodges and Plymouths gave up very little interior room to their rivals, and were lighter and more nimble.
With a slant six, one of these cars, stripped down, was just under 3,000 pounds. With a 318, about 3100. In contrast, a '62 Chevy stripper was around 3500 with the 6-cyl, but they were still using that heavy old Stovebolt thing, so the V-8 was actually a bit lighter, at 3400. When the '63 standard-sized Chevies went to the newer 230 inline 6 for 1963, that alone knocked a couple hundred pounds off.
And while the GTO might get credit for the first musclecar, these '62 Mopars, when equipped correctly, would easily embarrass a GTO owner. The '62 Dart/Polara could be ordered with a 420 hp 413 V-8! In '63-64 it was a 425 hp 426, but it was the Wedge and not the Hemi. I don't think they put the Hemi head on until 1965.
In contrast the GTO never broke 400 hp. Closest it got was in 1969, with a Ram Air 400. For 1970 it got a 455, but was down a bit to 360 hp.
And since these shrunken Mopars were designed from the get-go to accommodate a big-block, they were pretty beefy cars. I've wondered if the reason they didn't sell was not necessarily because of their size, but because of their style? They did sell better once the 1963 styling cleaned them up. But then, the economy continued to improve as well. And Dodge punched their wheelbase out to 119" for '63, to make the cars look more important, which no doubt helped.
Also all the aftermarket hot rodders jumped on the small block Chevy engine and never let go to this day. Once the Chevy block gained supremacy, those old heavy Hemi engines (not to be confused with the Hemis of the 60s) took a back seat in the street racing world except for a few diehards who wanted something different to play with. Also advertising, movies, etc. all jumped on the GM and Ford cars as symbols.
The only flatheads Chrysler was using in 1955 was in the 6-cyl Dodges and Plymouths. Everything else was a modern V-8, poly-heads for the Plymouth, a mix of Hemi and Poly heads for the Dodge and Chrysler, and Hemi all the way with DeSoto. The flathead six was ditched for 1960, when the Slant Six replaced it.
While the Chevy stovebolt 6 was more modern, if ultra-heavy, wasn't Ford still using some pretty crude 6-cyl engines?
1955 is also commonly known as the year that Chrysler started to wrest styling leadership from GM, something that GM would take back in 1959. While 1955 was an excellent year, sales-wise, for just about everybody but the independents, Chrysler started to gain market share in 1956, and even more with the dramatic 1957 models.
Also, even back then, people learned to fear those old Hemis. The Chevy V-8 didn't really take off until 1957, when it got enlarged to 283 CID, the year it put out 270 hp with dual quads, or 283 with fuel injection. Back in college, I worked for Denny's restaurant, and I had a manager who, back in the day, had a 1957 DeSoto Fireflite and then a '57 Chevy Bel Air convertible. The Fireflite had the 341-4bbl, while the Bel Air just had some low-suds 283. While the DeSoto was viewed as a loser car in the mid 60's, it would still blow the doors off the Bel Air. My manager said he used to have fun embarrassing people with his loser car, but he was still glad when he got the Bel Air, because it was just a cooler car to have.
It was also quite common for those old Hemis to get pulled out of the DeSotos and Chryslers and Imperials, and put into hotrods. As for weight? Well a Dodge Hemi is 645 pounds. A DeSoto Hemi, 675. The Chrysler Hemi was a bit more monstrous at around 745 or so. A Chevy smallblock, while it had low reciprocating mass, was also a fragile thing with a weak bottom end, and instead of redesigning it properly from the get-go, GM just threw a bunch of after-the-fact bracing on it. As a result, you ended up with an engine that weighed about 575 pounds, and still wasn't all that durable back then.
The main reason the Chevy engine won out back then, as well as being the GM smallblock that stayed in production after the Buick, Olds, and Pontiac engines were phased out was because it was cheap to manufacture, and cheapness always wins out to the bean counters.
As for Chrysler's Hemis, people moaned and groaned back in the day when they started phasing them out in favor of the wedge heads...even if, in many cases, the Wedges performed better. I think the 1959 300E with the 413 Wedge was 3 seconds quicker in the flying mile than the 1958 300D, with the 392 Hemi had been. Of course, it also had an extra 21 cubes working for it.