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 car looks like it was originally a light brown/tan, which I think they called "Buckskin". That burgundy repaint looks close to the color of my coupe, which was repainted too, and not its original color.
It's also kind of odd how the car looks pretty decent on the driver's side, but not the passenger side. I had a friend who had a '74 Dart sedan that was the same way, and he said it was because it was usually parked at the curb in front of his parents' house. And with water runoff, grass clippings hitting the car, etc, over time it would often make the passenger side of a car rot out more quickly than the driver's side. Dunno how much truth there is to that, though. I guess if the car spends a good deal of its life parked like that, and the passenger side stays in the shade while the driver's side stays sunny and gets a chance to dry out, it could happen.
Another thing that would be kinda cool to do with this sedan would be to repaint it back to that original light brown, put some stickers on the side and a light bar on the top, and build a replica of Buford T. Justice's LeMans from "Smokey and the Bandit". The only real visual difference would be the grille inserts, which would be an easy swap. Heck, my '76 is wearing '77 Grand LeMans grille inserts. I bought some '76 LeMans inserts, identical to what that eBay sedan has, back in 2005 at Carlisle, but never got around to putting them on.
I prefer the look of the '76 LeMans grille, which has sort of a crosshair grille look, but I got used to the more intricate, fussy design of my grille, so I never bothered to switch. I guess if I get bored with the way it looks I can switch them, and then just switch them back when the mood hits me.
I wonder how hard it would be to install one of those rubber strips?
What is that unit of calculation? Is it 4 X 15 = 60 people miles per gallon PMG?
i think it is kind of cool in a 50's stove kind of way.
it's probably got a 3 speed auto. i just got a car with a 6 speed auto, but i'm not sure i am driving fast enough to get into 6th gear.
it would be a great car for my kid to drive around where they need to go in town.
Still, I always liked the sedan version of GM's '73-77 A-body. I think it's because the sedan had a modern, open, airy greenhouse, especially compared to something like a Coronet/Monaco or Torino/LTD-II. However, the coupes pretty much got trapped in the usual styling cliches of the era, such as the thick C-pillars and tiny opera windows. At the GM show in Carlisle, one guy was showing this pretty '77 Grand LeMans sedan. I even liked the color on this one, and normally I don't like brown cars. Although I guess this one is more caramel? I remember it had a split bench seat which was kinda cool, but it had crank windows and manual seat, whereas my '76 coupe is power. Oh, and this '77 had the dreaded 301.
I've been taught to fear the 301, but for a car like this, I wonder how bad it would really be? I mean, with an old car like this it's not like I'd be pressing it into severe service every day, racking up 10, 20, or 30K miles per year. It would just be a nice old car that I'd drive around in occasionally, maybe ride in it up to Carlisle, etc. I've also heard that as long as you don't push a 301 too hard, and take care of it, it's usually fine. It just can't take the abuse and strain that the 350/400/455 block could.
If that eBay 76 were local to me, I'd actually be tempted to go look at it in person. I'd never sink a boatload of money into it, but still, looking at it, it sort of calls out to me like a stray puppy.
Believe it or not, Chrysler wouldn't get a 4-speed automatic into their small cars until the 2002 Neon!
I had an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe that had the 3-speed automatic. Even though it lacked overdrive, it would still break 30 mpg on the highway if you kept your foot out of it. And around town, I don't think it ever got below 20. Now that car really went to crap after 100,000 miles, but I'm not fully convinced it was all the car's fault. When I divorced, I let the ex-wife have it, and she didn't take very good care of it. It also got stolen a few times, both while we were married and after, and I doubt if the joyriders were very nice to it.
I wonder how much of a pain something like a 1988 LeBaron convertible, with just a regular 2.5 4cyl/auto would be? I've always liked the style of them, and as long as you stayed away from the 3.0 Mitsu V-6 or the Turbo 4, they were fairly reliable.
Yeah, but for ~$500 a problematic engine just becomes part of the charm and challenge of beating the system. I mean, the bragging rights of being able to crow "the 301 was a weak engine but mine went ------- miles" has to be worth something, not to mention the exclusivity factor in owning this Pontiac engine. Heck, you'll pay >$500 for a decent bicycle these days.
Are parts starting to become scarce for these cars? I know Chrysler built lots and lots of them, but they must be dropping like flies these days.
I'd imagine that you'd still be able to find parts for these cars. Just about anything mechanical, like the engine, tranny, suspension, a/c, etc, shouldn't be a big deal. And there are probably still enough of them in the junkyards that if you needed a body part or trim/interior piece, it wouldn't be too hard to find.
It's weird to think that something like that '89 Reliant is almost 20 years old now! They really don't look that out of date, especially with the way cars have gone back to being a bit boxy. Yet in 1989, when I bought my '69 Dart GT, that 20 year old car seemed like it was from a whole different era.
I wonder if I can do that with my Intrepid yet? Can I brag that I'm at 139,000 miles on the original sludge-free 2.7 and original, supposedly troubleprone transmission? :P
I think the thing I worry about with the 301 is that I see a lot of '77 LeManses that look like they're in really good shape with that engine. Not $500 beaters. I guess I'd just be leery about paying decent money for one with that engine. In 1976 I think the 350 was the most common engine and the 301 wasn't even out yet, but it seemed like the 301 just took over for '77, with the 350 and 400/403 becoming pretty rare.
I'm wondering if I should rule out an otherwise nice car just because it has an engine with a bad reputation. Or I guess another way to look at it, is that if there are still that many 301's out there, maybe it's not THAT bad of an engine?
What would a Can Am in decent shape go for these days? I'd thought about maybe moving up to one someday, if I ever decided that I wanted to replace my '76 Grand LeMans with something similar but more powerful.
I don't consider the 2.7 a bad engine. Sure, it's vulnerable to sludge, but if you know that you can compensate by following the recommended schedule on oil changes, or, if you want to extend the changes some and get optimum wear protection, use synthetic oil. Although I can't point to any examples, it wouldn't surprise me if there are 2.7s with >250,000 miles on them.
Insofar as the transmission is concerned, hadn't the issues been resolved by about the '98 model year?
"I'm wondering if I should rule out an otherwise nice car just because it has an engine with a bad reputation."
I say that when you pay $500, or even $1,000, virtually all design weaknesses are factored into the price, because if you it'll go 5,000 or 10,000 miles the car owes you nothing. Any additional mileage is a bonus. Price is the equalizer. This is especially true if you're aware of the potential problems, because you can mitigate them by driving less aggressively, better maintenance, or whatever. Would I pay the same price for a car equipped with the 301 as I would for a similar car with the 305, all else being the same? No, but that doesn't mean I'd shy away from the 301 if I liked the car and the price was reasonable.
"...if there are still that many 301's out there, maybe it's not THAT bad of an engine?"
Yeah, good point. I don't think we're talking about Vega bad here.
Yeah, but think about this hypothetical scenario, "in 1959, when I bought my '54 Chevy/Ford/Plymouth, that 5 year old car seemed like it was from a whole different era." And it was!
Now in retrospect, that Malibu was no technological showcase. And there was probably really nothing in it that was any more advanced than the LeMans, except for its space saver compact spare. Oh, and a lockup torque converter, I guess. I don't think they had those in 1975. The Malibu was just a smaller, lighter, boxier car. It got its space efficiency from being more upright and boxy, and got the improved fuel economy by virtue of being lighter and able to use a smaller engine. But overall the car just seemed so much more modern...even if it was just a facade.
Last Spring, a Can Am went for something like $27K at a Barrett Jackson auction, and I think that might have made every Can Am owner think they were sitting on a pot of gold. Never mind the fact that this was a pristine model that only had like 20-30K miles on it, and was probably bid way up by a bunch of rich drunks trying to out-bluff each other.
**Edit: Just found a url for that B-J Can Am. Turns out it only had 4495 miles on it, and it went for $23,220. So I was off a little bit. :shades:
Yeah, I noticed that too. Heck, I was thinking that if I was ever fool enough to purchase a "project" like that, I'd be tempted to try salvaging the sedan, too! Actually, if the engine and driveline in the Can Am are in decent shape, it might be kinda fun, if not financially prudent, to swap it into the sedan! You'd never get your money out of it, but I'm sure it wouldn't be the most financially foolish thing to do to a car.
$5,000 to repair a Rolls engine---YEAH RIGHT---given that a brake overhaul costs $8,000, I don't THINK so.
I don't think you could put an American V8 in it, because the suspension is integrated into hydraulic pumps off the engine, etc. It would be quite the engineering task. And besides, you still have all the other troublesome parts to deal with at great expense.
What you'd need to so is lower the Rolls body onto an entirely new frame and drivetrain from a Cadillac or whatever.
What IS the point?
Lest you think me cruel, Sports Car Market just did an article on something like Ten Worst Mistakes You Can Make (can't remember exact title) and one of them was "buying a car where the repairs cost more than the car did", and, you guessed it, a Silver Shadow was used as the example.
In contrast, I can't remember the last time I've seen a '76-77 LeMans other than at a car show. Heck, even expanding it to cover '73-75, I can't remember. Years ago, there was a faded blue '74 coupe I'd see at work occasionally.
I'm trying to hold off on getting any more cars though, at least until I can learn to part with what I already have. I'm kinda in the mood for a GM behemoth. The convertibles might be getting pretty pricey, but I'm sure a 2- or 4-door hardtop could be had pretty cheap.
If you get another LeMans, you need to use the idea you had and make a replica Buford T Justice police cruiser. I see there are now meets of those Bandit Trans Ams...I am sure such people would get a kick out of the LeMans too.
"gas saving slant 6"
"rare bedliner with bed mat" Not hauling the trash to the dump in this one.
Is 32 years enough to qualify as "antique"?
Keep on dreaming.
If this was 1970, we'd sure think of a 1938 as an antique, but I sure DON'T want to think of a 1976 as one, or else I am, too! :surprise:
And a 1976 car is not 'antique'
Yeah, it's funny how time goes by quicker than we think it does. I keep thinking of my '57 DeSoto as "about 30 years old". Which, to be fair, it was when I bought it in 1990. But now all of a sudden it's in its 50's and it won't be long before my R-bodies are in their 30's! I think my 5th Ave was built in October 1978.
How about the Firebird? Maybe it's not as far gone as it looks in the pics? Maybe it's worth 5?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Yeah, it probably would help economy too. By 1980, the slant six was down to 85 hp, and it never did take very well to emissions controls. In EPA testing, model for model, the slant six would get maybe 1 mpg combined better than the 318 V-8, but I'm sure out in the real world, you'd have to stomp that poor 85 hp engine so hard to get it to move that in most situations it would get worse mileage than a 318.
I always liked that style of pickup, at least until they facelifted it with rectangular headlights, and then subsequent facelifts just became more ill-fitting.
Yeah, that was about the end of the decent-looking Dodge pickups until 1994. The '80s were kind to very few, if any, domestic vehicles. :P
one time he was cruising home, with us trailing, after a day of boating. a state trooper pulled up on our left and was trying to check out the license plate on the trailer(it was on the right side), but i wouldn't give him enough room the get between us. fortunately for us, he decided not to push the issue, and moved on.
point is, those 460's were not necessarily boat anchors. sometime they were the boat propulsion!
A friend of mine has two 1978 Mark V's, both of them with 460's. One of them was hopped up a bit, and while it's not that fast from, say, 0-60, at higher speeds it gets downright scary. No car that's that big and heavy and ill-handling should be able to go that fast! :surprise:
What's the verdict on that torque? We had a 460 Ford truck in the late '70s, and it sure didn't feel like 550 ft/lbs.