I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, but I kinda like those 1981-82 Granadas and Cougars. Although I think I like the 4-door models better. The 2-doors look a bit awkward, I guess because they're really upright sedans rather than rakish coupes.
I saw two Mark VII's today. Ford really got a lot of mileage out of the Fox platform, using it in cars ranging from the Mustang and Fairmont on up through the Granada, T-bird, Continental, and Mark VII.
I guess you could say that they looked very simplistic, with all their no nonsense angular lines, but not something that I ever warmed up to.
But I guess their Fox ody did pay off. I remember in 1990 or so, when I was 13, and we were shopping for a family car, a salesman showed us an angular early 80s Ford LTD (which was on the fox paltform too)
My dad didn't like it's looks although I got excited about all the power options in it including the seats. My dad said he's not going to drive old looking junk, and old looking it was in 1990. Like it was said earlier in a discussion, the Taurus made almost every car look obsolete when it came out.
My grandparents had one of those too, an '85 LTD, which replaced their '81 Granada. At the time, they didn't like it, because they preferred the more "formal" look of the Granada. Plus, they wanted another 2-door car, but you couldn't get that anymore unless you went with the T-bird, and they didn't like that rounded off look.
Although 4 years later, they swapped the LTD for a 1989 Taurus LX, which was a really nice car for the time, and yeah, it did make that LTD look obsolete! They got a 1993 Taurus GL next, and I thought it was better looking, but somehow just seemed more generic and rental car-ish.
Their '89 Taurus got wrecked a few months after they bought it, when a woman in a 1974 Catalina switched lanes without looking and my grandparents got sandwiched between that car and a telephone pole. They had a 1989 Century for a rental while the Taurus was getting fixed, and that car just seemed like a dinosaur in comparison.
You're not alone. My version of a Fox 'sleeper' would be a first gen (single headlight) Fairmont 4-door with a 302 crate motor...I always thought that Fairmont had very clean styling, and it was a pretty efficient design, for the time.
If that 740il had 100,000 miles, I'd like it...yeah, they go 400k ALL the time...but I just think that model defined classy big German car (sorry, Fin!).
Putting that stripe down the side of the Caddy bustleback was a really bad idea. It comes to the rear and has nowhere to go other than to point at the pavement. Awful. :P
Here's the '51 Packard my brother bought today...runs fine, except the Ultramatic 2-speed tranny has problems. Anything I should let him know about these old beasts? See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com
Yes. When his total investment is $6500.....STOP :surprise:
They are very well built cars, straight-8s, heavy and slow but nice straight line cruisers. Tried and true engine, and with the automatic you won't break axles. These engines have a lot of torque, so not to be too fisky from the stop light.
Well, the 'I learned in a '51' will probably bust that budget at some time, but the body, frame, interior, and engine seem pretty good, the bumpers need work (obviously), and the tranny. It'll keep him busy!
Yeah, IIRC the 1980 Sevilles had an Olds 350 in California, or a Caddy 368 in the other 49 states. Of course, there was also the dreaded Diesel option, but the gas 350 and Caddy 368 were both good.
For 1981, they had the 368 V-8-6-4. Which, if you pull the plug on the thing that deactivates the cylinders, and just make it run on all 8 all the time, is supposed to be an okay engine. I'm afraid of the 1982-85 models though, which only had the little 4.1 aluminum, or the Diesel 350. I know someone who just bought a 1984 Diesel Seville, and took it to some local place called "Diesel Doctor" or something like that, and he says they did some mods to it that make it run better and more durable. Different heads for one thing, and I forget what else.
If I really had to have an '82-85 though, I think I'd look into having an Olds 307 or 350 swapped in. Or, I wonder if the later 4.5/4.9 aluminum engines would fit without too much issue?
That Seville's at least a 1997 model or older. I had a 2002 Seville STS which didn't change much from the 1998 model and I noticed a lot of the interior details were off from my car. The grille and headlamps are all differrent too.
You are right re: STS - as you certainly know, the 98+ models were facelifted, with softer lines - that one is the more angular 92-97 style. I don't know why some sellers lie about the year, I have seen this before...and others will simply neglect to include the year, hoping people assume it is newer than it is.
I'd guess with the bustleback originally designed for larger engines, you could swap many units into it...why not a more powerful 90s V8 like from an Impala SS or even a Corvette. Of course, any of this would be a labor of love, as the cars aren't worth much, and that's probably not going to change.
I have never seen, in my entire long life, while messing with cars, going to car shows, appraising cars, fixing cars, traveling all over the world looking at cars---never have I seen a car with 400K registered on the odometer.
I know they exist here and there, but to suggest that cars routinely achieve this is rather hyperbolic to say the least.
Even IF the odometer read 400,000, the car could have had a new engine, transmission and who knows what else. Unless they are the original owner or original family, and totally up front, they can't prove anything to back up their claims. And without info on repair and maintenance costs during the 400K journey, it could be that taking the car to 400,000 miles was in fact a financially dumb idea.
To imply a car routinely goes 400k, you would have to infer that there are enougfh drivers logging those type of miles to prove it and there isn't
I think it would take a very special type of driver an situation to get a car to 400,000 miles. For instance, someone who does a lot of business travel and logs a lot of highway miles AND takes good care of their car. But even in a situation like this, I imagine most people would either get rentals if they do a lot of business travel. Or write off the car as a business expense and depreciate it over the years, and then get a new one when it's cost-effective.
I put 13,000 miles on my Mom's 1986 Monte Carlo in the 3 short months I had it. So that would come out to 52,000 miles per year, with 400,000 miles being attained in roughly 7 years, 8 months. But to get that kind of miles I was delivering pizzas 5 nights a week, on top of my regular job. With that kind of brutality, I doubt most cars would make it to 400K miles, at least not without having a lot of work done over the years.
FWIW, I think my Mom and stepdad are up to around 300,000 miles on their 1999 Altima. They carpool to work together, and probably put around 130 miles per day on it. Plus, when it was newer they used to travel a lot with it, going down to Florida pretty regularly. Back when gas was cheaper though, they'd often use their '98 Expedition for longer trips.
Do they still use 15,000 miles per year as a rough annual average? If so, then it would take almost 27 years to get to 400K miles! So a kid who gets his first car at the age of 16 would have to be driving the same car at the age of 43!
How long to taxis usually go before they're retired, I wonder?
Depends on where the taxi operates. In NYC they run 'em pretty hard, so you'll see anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 miles on them, even though they might be a 2006 model.
I have seen a few with 300,000. Our volvo service department has a handful of Volvos past 300,000 and lots of them at past 200,000 or 250,000.
On these cars we sold them new and have done nearly all the service so it really is 300,000 miles. A customer I have sold a couple of cars to has a S70 with 320,000 on it. No motor work at all but I think two clutches. Another couple I know has a 96 850 with 260,000 on it original clutch no motor work.
Lots of service work sure but never a motor or a trans maybe a head gasket or some kind of valvetrain work.
We have this button on our computer system for service called TVA(Total Value Added) it adds up all the money a customer has ever spent at the dealership. It is not on my screen cause I don't have a service login but one of the other guys has.
I wonder how much money it actually took to get some of those Volvos to 300,000 miles?
I am not sure if you can limit the TVA to just one vehicle or it if pulls up all the vehicles under that customers name. I will have to check.
That should be interesting. To be fair, one should also try to calculate warranty expenditures from the factory.
I don't think I'd want to go past 300,000 miles even if I could get the car to do it---there are safety issues, structural integrity, metal fatigue. Cars are not built to go that long.
Warranty costs all show up as internal but sometimes their are dollar amounts attached to those internal costs. They wouldn't be exactly right but they would be close to what it costs the manufacturer.
....I'm fairly certain my mom's 300E had at least that many when the trans finally crapped out, but as was pointed out, the odometer was broken (right after 300k) and the part about cars going indefinitely with enough money thrown at them certainly applied in this case. I don't know why she didn't just replace the trans, really, I doubt it would have been a whole lot worse than a lot of the other services she put in, especially since the rest of the car was A-OK.
I guess now that I own one, I'm noticing more '80s clunkers lately. Just discovered that someone in my alley has an '80s RWD Toyota Corolla wagon, looks good (and not even rusty(!!), it is brown, and garage-kept, though) and unmolested. Someone a block over has an '80s BMW 3-series sedan, not so unusual. I just saw, for sale (don't know how much) one of those tall, '84ish Toyota Tercel wagon, obviously re-painted, maybe even restored. Maybe I'll drive by it today and see how much they want, just for kicks.
Those old Tercel 4WD wagons are kinda neat. Good on gas and versatile. Not really an off-roader of course but still for $2500 bucks or so you could probably find a pretty nice one.
those are probably pretty nice for a road trip (seats look comfy), but lord, the styling gives new meaning to the word 'bulbous'. The rear end is crazy.
Oh those wagons will go 400K easy. They get 30 mpg, too
Actually, the 1994-96 Roadhazzard wagons, with the LT-1 350, were EPA-rated at 17/26. In raw laboratory numbers they scored 19/33. So, driven gently enough, in the right wind conditions, and on flat enough terrain, you might actually get 30 mpg! Hey, my granparents managed to get 29 mpg out of an '85 LeSabre sedan with an Olds 307 once, on one leg of a cross-country road trip. Early spring, flat desert terrain, and with Granddad rolling around 55-60 (back in the 55 mph speed limit days). Now if Grandmom had been driving, they would've gotten lower 20's and a speeding ticket or two.
Now that 1992 has a TBI 350, with only 180 hp. Lotta torque though. They were rated at 16/25, but in raw EPA numbers, scored 18/32. So I guess even here, in under the right conditions, you just might hit 30 mpg every once in awhile.
GM tended to gear their cars pretty tall back then, so out on the highway, they'd loaf along at maybe 5 rpm above stall-out speed.
I'd eat that car if it got 30 mpg at normal highway speeds. :P Even 20 would be impressive. Especially given that they're all clapped out by now. But of course since it's going to run 400K with no problems I can afford the gas.
Well I'd hope that it would be able to break 20...I mean, I can get 21-22 out of my '79 5th Ave on a tank of pure highway, flow-of-traffic driving. Of course, throw in a bit of stop and go, and that drops really quickly. But yeah, I doubt it it would make 30 mpg on the highway with any consistency. Maybe in the right conditions, when the planets are in perfect alignment, and in a tailwind...
Besides, it's not fair to "cherry-pick" a portion of your trip and quote the mileage. A logbook with the average MPG over the course of a few months is as good an estimate as you'll ever need or get. I can "get" 32 mpg on my car but the actual MPG is 24.8.
I wonder if some of those taxis come with some sort of certification or license or something, that makes them more valuable? I'm guessing that to be a cabbie in NYC, they make the driver, and the car, jump through a lot of hoops?
Kinda makes me wonder though, how much does the typical cab driver in NYC make in an average year? I'm sure whatever it is, it's probably not worth it given the traffic they have to deal with, annoying customers, and not to mention the fact that your life is on the line every time you punch in.
Besides, it's not fair to "cherry-pick" a portion of your trip and quote the mileage. A logbook with the average MPG over the course of a few months is as good an estimate as you'll ever need or get. I can "get" 32 mpg on my car but the actual MPG is 24.8.
Well, I don't see a problem with mentioning your best fuel economy, as long as you also cite the conditions of it, and don't try to pass it off as something the car will easily attain, day in and day out. For instance, the best mpg my Intrepid ever got was about 32.4 mpg. However, that was basically pure highway, no a/c, and runninga round 55-60 mph with occasional bursts to 65-70. Worst I ever got was something like 16.6, in the winter time, mostly local, very short-trip driving (my commute to work is about 3.5 miles), and overdue for a tuneup. But over the course of its life, it's probably gotten around 22 mpg.
And with my grandparents' LeSabre, while they got 29 mpg on that one stretch, the best I'd ever get on the highway was more like 22-23. Delivering pizzas, in the cold of winter, more like 14-15. Basically just depends on your definition of "normal".
A one-time spike in MPG is probably wrong data anyway, since you really need multiple fill-ups to compensate for incomplete filling, the car tilting one way or the other, etc.
Still as heavy as my wife's SUV, but at least in '94 it had 260hp and 330lb-ft. And I prefer the clean looks of the Caprice without all that horrible fake woodgrain. Hmmmm... I dunno if the wife would go for this. Probably not.
'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 saw one of these in West VA on I-64 last spring. The owners had turned it into a "Ghostbusters" car with a fake satellite dish of the roof and even grafted-on fins like those of an early 60s Caddy on the quarter panels! Plus it had the Ghostbusters logo on the front doors.
How does someone totally destroy a steering wheel like that in only 80K miles? Otherwise with a full detail (including the engine) it would probably look great. Swap out a set of factory alloys from a loaded up sedan and start cruising!
I noticed the wheel too. I wonder if GM had a problem with those back in the day, somewhat like the disintegrating color found on early Lexus steering wheels.
A co-worker of mine inherited an 80K mile 94 LeSabre a couple years ago, and the wheel on it was discolored just like that.
Talk about bass--ackwards. He puts an expensive diesel engine conversion package into a totally funky body. The engine conversion should have been the LAST thing to go into a project like this. Now he's buried and probably will only get offers from parts hunters.
How does someone totally destroy a steering wheel like that in only 80K miles?
Oh it's doable. The steering wheel on my Intrepid started breaking down around 70K miles, at the spots where I'd grip it the most. Either I just have naturally oily hands that reacted with it, or I got something on my hands without realizing it, and it got on the steering wheel.
Another thing I noticed a bit odd about that Caprice wagon is the front seat is vinyl, like maybe it came out of a police car or something? But then, would a police car have had a split bench seat with an armrest? The back seat is the more period-correct looking cloth, and I'm pretty sure the third row seat in these cars was almost always just vinyl. The carpeting up front also looks filthy...maybe this car was used a lot on the job by a construction worker or farmer, or just someone who's rough on cars? Maybe the original front seat fabric wore out and got replaced?
Hmmm... there are some interesting details there. I did notice the different front and back seat, but for some reason that didn't strike me as strange. The carpet, on the other hand, shows more than just dirt.
1. Looks like some rust streaks in the carpet of the rear seat. 2. What's with the carpet being bunched up and ripped in the driver's footwell? 3. What 79-year-old woman has a car phone? (its attached to the carpeted floor, hence the connection ;b)
#3 doesn't say much, other than I don't think the owner is who the seller claims. The first 2, however .... I dunno. You think this thing saw water maybe?
'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
Comments
I saw two Mark VII's today. Ford really got a lot of mileage out of the Fox platform, using it in cars ranging from the Mustang and Fairmont on up through the Granada, T-bird, Continental, and Mark VII.
But I guess their Fox ody did pay off. I remember in 1990 or so, when I was 13, and we were shopping for a family car, a salesman showed us an angular early 80s Ford LTD (which was on the fox paltform too)
My dad didn't like it's looks although I got excited about all the power options in it including the seats. My dad said he's not going to drive old looking junk, and old looking it was in 1990. Like it was said earlier in a discussion, the Taurus made almost every car look obsolete when it came out.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Although 4 years later, they swapped the LTD for a 1989 Taurus LX, which was a really nice car for the time, and yeah, it did make that LTD look obsolete! They got a 1993 Taurus GL next, and I thought it was better looking, but somehow just seemed more generic and rental car-ish.
Their '89 Taurus got wrecked a few months after they bought it, when a woman in a 1974 Catalina switched lanes without looking and my grandparents got sandwiched between that car and a telephone pole. They had a 1989 Century for a rental while the Taurus was getting fixed, and that car just seemed like a dinosaur in comparison.
Why are you embarrassed? We all know you like those old, ugly cars! :P
a "very fast" 190D
Bet you've never seen one of these!
'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
No ideas if these are good cars or if this is a good price
Sorry Mustang
Live your Sanford & Son dream
Someone is having cash flow problems
Probably a good deal for the person looking for this At least, I've seen others with higher asking prices
Tells a sad story about Cadillac depreciation
Clean but overpriced probably
A 190D should be faster than a 240D anyway.
I think the only year bustleback to to touch is an 80, due to the crap engines of later years.
They are very well built cars, straight-8s, heavy and slow but nice straight line cruisers. Tried and true engine, and with the automatic you won't break axles. These engines have a lot of torque, so not to be too fisky from the stop light.
For 1981, they had the 368 V-8-6-4. Which, if you pull the plug on the thing that deactivates the cylinders, and just make it run on all 8 all the time, is supposed to be an okay engine. I'm afraid of the 1982-85 models though, which only had the little 4.1 aluminum, or the Diesel 350. I know someone who just bought a 1984 Diesel Seville, and took it to some local place called "Diesel Doctor" or something like that, and he says they did some mods to it that make it run better and more durable. Different heads for one thing, and I forget what else.
If I really had to have an '82-85 though, I think I'd look into having an Olds 307 or 350 swapped in. Or, I wonder if the later 4.5/4.9 aluminum engines would fit without too much issue?
I think even $1/mile won't keep an old 750 going.
I know they exist here and there, but to suggest that cars routinely achieve this is rather hyperbolic to say the least.
To imply a car routinely goes 400k, you would have to infer that there are enougfh drivers logging those type of miles to prove it and there isn't
I think it would take a very special type of driver an situation to get a car to 400,000 miles. For instance, someone who does a lot of business travel and logs a lot of highway miles AND takes good care of their car. But even in a situation like this, I imagine most people would either get rentals if they do a lot of business travel. Or write off the car as a business expense and depreciate it over the years, and then get a new one when it's cost-effective.
I put 13,000 miles on my Mom's 1986 Monte Carlo in the 3 short months I had it. So that would come out to 52,000 miles per year, with 400,000 miles being attained in roughly 7 years, 8 months. But to get that kind of miles I was delivering pizzas 5 nights a week, on top of my regular job. With that kind of brutality, I doubt most cars would make it to 400K miles, at least not without having a lot of work done over the years.
FWIW, I think my Mom and stepdad are up to around 300,000 miles on their 1999 Altima. They carpool to work together, and probably put around 130 miles per day on it. Plus, when it was newer they used to travel a lot with it, going down to Florida pretty regularly. Back when gas was cheaper though, they'd often use their '98 Expedition for longer trips.
Do they still use 15,000 miles per year as a rough annual average? If so, then it would take almost 27 years to get to 400K miles! So a kid who gets his first car at the age of 16 would have to be driving the same car at the age of 43!
How long to taxis usually go before they're retired, I wonder?
If you want to buy one, shop here:
New York Taxis For Sale
On these cars we sold them new and have done nearly all the service so it really is 300,000 miles. A customer I have sold a couple of cars to has a S70 with 320,000 on it. No motor work at all but I think two clutches. Another couple I know has a 96 850 with 260,000 on it original clutch no motor work.
Lots of service work sure but never a motor or a trans maybe a head gasket or some kind of valvetrain work.
We have this button on our computer system for service called TVA(Total Value Added) it adds up all the money a customer has ever spent at the dealership. It is not on my screen cause I don't have a service login but one of the other guys has.
I wonder how much money it actually took to get some of those Volvos to 300,000 miles?
I am not sure if you can limit the TVA to just one vehicle or it if pulls up all the vehicles under that customers name. I will have to check.
I don't think I'd want to go past 300,000 miles even if I could get the car to do it---there are safety issues, structural integrity, metal fatigue. Cars are not built to go that long.
I guess now that I own one, I'm noticing more '80s clunkers lately. Just discovered that someone in my alley has an '80s RWD Toyota Corolla wagon, looks good (and not even rusty(!!), it is brown, and garage-kept, though) and unmolested. Someone a block over has an '80s BMW 3-series sedan, not so unusual. I just saw, for sale (don't know how much) one of those tall, '84ish Toyota Tercel wagon, obviously re-painted, maybe even restored. Maybe I'll drive by it today and see how much they want, just for kicks.
I was actually considering it for myself for about 90 seconds. Then I looked up the specs. Nearly 4500 lbs, 180 hp, and 18 mpg.
'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
Actually, the 1994-96 Roadhazzard wagons, with the LT-1 350, were EPA-rated at 17/26. In raw laboratory numbers they scored 19/33. So, driven gently enough, in the right wind conditions, and on flat enough terrain, you might actually get 30 mpg! Hey, my granparents managed to get 29 mpg out of an '85 LeSabre sedan with an Olds 307 once, on one leg of a cross-country road trip. Early spring, flat desert terrain, and with Granddad rolling around 55-60 (back in the 55 mph speed limit days). Now if Grandmom had been driving, they would've gotten lower 20's and a speeding ticket or two.
Now that 1992 has a TBI 350, with only 180 hp. Lotta torque though. They were rated at 16/25, but in raw EPA numbers, scored 18/32. So I guess even here, in under the right conditions, you just might hit 30 mpg every once in awhile.
GM tended to gear their cars pretty tall back then, so out on the highway, they'd loaf along at maybe 5 rpm above stall-out speed.
Besides, it's not fair to "cherry-pick" a portion of your trip and quote the mileage. A logbook with the average MPG over the course of a few months is as good an estimate as you'll ever need or get. I can "get" 32 mpg on my car but the actual MPG is 24.8.
Kinda makes me wonder though, how much does the typical cab driver in NYC make in an average year? I'm sure whatever it is, it's probably not worth it given the traffic they have to deal with, annoying customers, and not to mention the fact that your life is on the line every time you punch in.
Well, I don't see a problem with mentioning your best fuel economy, as long as you also cite the conditions of it, and don't try to pass it off as something the car will easily attain, day in and day out. For instance, the best mpg my Intrepid ever got was about 32.4 mpg. However, that was basically pure highway, no a/c, and runninga round 55-60 mph with occasional bursts to 65-70. Worst I ever got was something like 16.6, in the winter time, mostly local, very short-trip driving (my commute to work is about 3.5 miles), and overdue for a tuneup. But over the course of its life, it's probably gotten around 22 mpg.
And with my grandparents' LeSabre, while they got 29 mpg on that one stretch, the best I'd ever get on the highway was more like 22-23. Delivering pizzas, in the cold of winter, more like 14-15. Basically just depends on your definition of "normal".
Still as heavy as my wife's SUV, but at least in '94 it had 260hp and 330lb-ft. And I prefer the clean looks of the Caprice without all that horrible fake woodgrain. Hmmmm... I dunno if the wife would go for this. Probably not.
'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
VW Syncro
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
A co-worker of mine inherited an 80K mile 94 LeSabre a couple years ago, and the wheel on it was discolored just like that.
Oh it's doable. The steering wheel on my Intrepid started breaking down around 70K miles, at the spots where I'd grip it the most. Either I just have naturally oily hands that reacted with it, or I got something on my hands without realizing it, and it got on the steering wheel.
Another thing I noticed a bit odd about that Caprice wagon is the front seat is vinyl, like maybe it came out of a police car or something? But then, would a police car have had a split bench seat with an armrest? The back seat is the more period-correct looking cloth, and I'm pretty sure the third row seat in these cars was almost always just vinyl. The carpeting up front also looks filthy...maybe this car was used a lot on the job by a construction worker or farmer, or just someone who's rough on cars? Maybe the original front seat fabric wore out and got replaced?
1. Looks like some rust streaks in the carpet of the rear seat.
2. What's with the carpet being bunched up and ripped in the driver's footwell?
3. What 79-year-old woman has a car phone? (its attached to the carpeted floor, hence the connection ;b)
#3 doesn't say much, other than I don't think the owner is who the seller claims. The first 2, however .... I dunno. You think this thing saw water maybe?
'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