Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"

uplanderguy

Scoff if you will Steve, but I'll stop just short of saying that's a timeless design, but it's sure aged better than most anything else '77 IMHO. To drive those cars at the time was a very positive experience, compared to everything else out there. As the brochure itself said, and I agreed, "You'll find it hard to believe a moving automobile can be so quiet".

I will admit that 'classic' is overused.

explorerx4

reminds me too much of this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=50IgzksUqpQ

stever

@uplanderguy said:
I will admit that 'classic' is overused.

The play on words was what caught my eye - either way, you really are buying a classic.

stickguy

wait, you have so much winter that it took 37 years to put on 131k? when nothing is close by?

stever

We drove to Wisconsin last Monday and hit snow on the drive - enough to turn the fields white. There's still plenty of piles here that the plows pushed up. Some areas got 250 inches this winter.

My wife is prepping the flower beds today but the earliest "safe" day to plant is June 1. So yeah, plenty of winter.

The Classic is ~40 miles from the "big" city of Marquette - around here, that's close by.

andre1969

I'd be curious to see the old Consumer Reports issue from '77 that compared an Impala with a 305 to an LTD-II with a 302, a Fury/Monaco with a 318, and a Cutlass Supreme stuck with a 260.

They definitely picked the Impala as the clear winner overall. But I'm curious as to how the others stacked up in terms of comfort, handling, etc. I vaguely remember the 0-60 times. The Olds pulled about 21.6 seconds, as 100-110 hp mated up to ~4200 pounds does not make for a good combo! The other three were around 12.5-13 seconds, reasonable for the time.

I don't remember how they stacked up in handling, though. Traditionally, Mopars handled very well compared to their peers, because of the torsion bar/leaf spring setup. But, the leaf springs left something to be desired when it came to a smooth ride, and were more prone to "axle hop" on rough surfaces than coil springs. So, it's possible that the Fury/Monaco might have out-handled the Impala, although it would come up short in ride, noise, etc.

I've also wondered how different, really, a '77 Impala is from a '77 Malibu? I know the '77 B-bodies were touted as "all new", but I've often wondered if they just took the old '73-77 frame and dropped a new body on it? They're a similar size, 116" wheelbase, ~212" long overall (4-door models at least), and most of the interior room increases of the Impala over the Malibu could probably be attributed to the taller, boxier design, plus a slightly wider body that hangs a bit more over the frame rails. Or, even simpler, thinner doors?

The only downsized B-body I've ever had any long-term experience with was my Grandmother's '85 LeSabre. And I can definitely feel a similarity to it, with my '76 LeMans.

uplanderguy

I'm not sure about the chassis, good question, but in driving--we had a new '77 Impala coupe and I was constantly riding in my buddy's parents' '76 Malibu Classic sedan at the time--you sat noticeably higher in the Impala. In fact, I can remember pointing out the height difference between a Monte Carlo and Impala to my Dad, when he was looking at '77's. I always thought the '77 B-bodies somewhat validated what 4-door Studebakers were doing in '63 and '64, in character and space utilization.

andre1969

Interesting point about the seat height. I wonder if it may have varied from car to car? One of my grandmother's old lady friends had a '75 Monte Carlo, a basic model with a full bench seat that had been a former rental. She used to complain about the passenger seat in my grandmother's LeSabre Limited as being too low! That car had 6-way power on the driver's side, but the passenger side just had manual fore-aft, and a power recline.

Seat height is one of the things I like about my '76 LeMans, as well. However, it has a 6-way power seat, so I can get it exactly where I want it. It's been ages since I've sat in one of these cars with just a regular, non-power seat. Now, headroom is definitely less in the LeMans, versus a '77+ B-body. And I'm sure it's worse in my coupe than it would have been in a LeMans sedan.

As for overall height, I think my LeMans coupe is about 52.9" tall, and the sedan was around 54"? With the '77+ B-body, I think the coupe was around 55.4" and the sedan was 56.7"? So, it's easy to see how the B-body had more headroom!

As low-slung as the coupe was, I can actually fit in the back seat of my LeMans, and my head doesn't touch the ceiling or rear window. While I'm sure a '77 Impala/Caprice coupe would be even better, I thought it was odd that on the '91-96 Caprice sedan, my head would touch!

As for space utilization, I think the B-bodies were great, for the time. When the Panther cars came out, they boasted similar interior room, and on an even shorter body...114.3" wb versus 116, and around 210" overall, versus 212" for an Impala or Caprice. But, the Panthers always felt a bit cramped inside to me, like the dashboard, transmission/driveshaft hump, wheel wells, etc, took up more room.

Chrysler didn't have the money to come up with an all-new full-sizer to compete, so they simply took the old intermediates, and did what they could with them. They come up a bit short in headroom compared to a B-body, but are similar in other dimensions. I think published front legroom is actually a bit more. However, to have an interior that big, with a relatively inefficient design, they ended up being a bit over-sized. A 1980 Gran Fury is around 220'3" long on a 118.5" wb. Closer in size to an Electra or Park Ave, and actually slightly longer than a Town Car, than the Impala/LTD with which it was supposed to compete.

I've occasionally wondered how the AMC Matador stacked up. The EPA publishes interior volumes going back to 1978, and the Matador, while marketed as a midsize, actually WAS full-sized by EPA standards. Its passenger volume was rated at 110 cubic feet. In contrast, I think an Impala or LTD was around 110-111, while a Mopar R-body was around 108. With the older, pre-downsized intermediates, Monaco/Fury and LTD-II/Cougar were rated at 101.

So, if AMC had had the resources, they probably could have just re-skinned the Matador and turned it into something that looked more modern, but using the basic underpinnings. But, being a fairly old platform, it still might not have handled all that well. And it looks like they were falling behind on engine technology. For 1978, the sole engine they list is an AMC 360, EPA-rated at 10/16. Incidentally, that's the same rating as the '78 New Yorker with a 440!

ab348

Talking about space utilization, I remember that somehow the Plymouth and Dodge of the early/mid '60s had huge backseat room. I remember being on vacation with my parents and we were in a city (can't recall where) where we needed to take a cab, and got a '63 or '64 Fury. They commented on how big the backseat seemed. Now maybe it's because they usually never rode back there in our cars, or maybe the driver was really short, I dunno.

I do know my uncle bought a '65 Fury new, and that had what seemed like a huge back seat.

andre1969

I've never sat in one, but I've heard that the downsized '62-64 Plymouths and Dodges were still pretty big inside, despite their shrunken dimensions. I think they gave up a little shoulder room and trunk space, but maintained legroom and headroom. IIRC, the Fords were the biggest inside of the low-priced cars in those days. I vaguely remember a Consumer Reports mentioning that a '61 or '62 Ford had more legroom in back than a Cadillac. I can't remember though if they were talking overall legroom, or foot room under the seat, or a combination of both.

In '65, when the big cars were all redone, I think the Plymouth/Dodge models were the biggest inside overall, followed by the Ford/Mercury, and the GM B-bodies were the smallest. The GM cars were swoopier, which is probably what cut into interior room. For instance, they might have moved the back seat up just a bit, to accommodate that more rakish roofline. Or brought the cowl back a bit, to give a longer hood. One thing I always notice about Mopars of the '65-68 era, is when you open the hood, how little fore/aft room there is. Those engine bays are wide, but not so deep.

One reason I've tended to prefer Mopars over the years is that they usually seemed roomier inside, compared to equivalent Ford/GM cars. For instance, the Dart and Valiant always seemed roomier inside than a Falcon or Chevy II. Consumer Reports even noted that a '68 Dart sedan had more front and rear legroom than a '68 Impala!

fintail

You don't see many like this anymore

stickguy

BMW sure doesn't make pure, honest cars like that anymore. Sad.

fintail

Look at the visibility out of that thing. Of course it's a mid 70s design, with 81 being the last year...but so clean, and no doubt easy to park.

Michaell

@fintail said:
You don't see many like this anymore

Wow, that is nice.

I dated a girl my senior year of HS (82) whose dad drove one like it. Manual transmission and all. He used to race three quarter midgets and used the BMW as his towing vehicle.

Was there a larger engine model available as well?

uplanderguy

Did you guys hear the story about the 14-year-old girl who died in a '97 BMW which her brother locked her in so she could take a nap? In CA only a few days ago. Apparently until '99 they had a dual-lock system where you can't open the doors from the inside...coupled with the fact that the horn doesn't work without a key. Why would those two features be deliberately designed into a car?

stever

Anti-theft deterrent apparently, at least the locks. Here's a photo of the owner's manual page about it.

qbrozen

Pics are not that great, but something doesn't look right about that whole passenger side of that ebay 5-series. Like its been repainted at some point.

Also found this 6-series in NJ with about the worst collection of pics you can imagine.

uplanderguy

Supposedly the car in which the girl died didn't have an owner's manual. I'm definitely not litigious by nature, but I do wonder why someone would design something so that you can't get out of the car without keys. That seems so....dumb. I can't come up with a fancier-sounding word than that. And of course, she couldn't blow the horn either.

stever

She probably could have kicked a window out, so I wonder if she fell asleep and didn't wake up. Or was too weak when she did wake up. Hard to imagine.

fintail

I think the iffy look of the passenger side there is a lot of wax residue stuck in the rub strip on the door - wasn't cleaned up properly when detailed.

Those 635 pics look like pics of pics.

BMW lock thing is freaky, but it is in the manual, and its an old car. I wonder if there have been any other problems.

uplanderguy

I don't know anything about the cars at all, but someone else posted some place that in '99 they changed that feature to not work like that. Someone posted that the doors should open on the second try, but it seems a stretch to believe the girl wouldn't have tried that.

stever

@fintail said:
I wonder if there have been any other problems.

There were links to three other BMW forums in my link above but I didn't go look at them.

qbrozen

@fintail said:
I think the iffy look of the passenger side there is a lot of wax residue stuck in the rub strip on the door - wasn't cleaned up properly when detailed.

Maybe. But the reflection seems a lot duller, too. Like orange peel.

Mr_Shiftright

CARFAX on that 5 series checks out okay. California car since new. It's the kind of car you want to drive before bidding on it--I wouldn't say the term "fast" describes it, (0-60 in about 8.5 seconds, so beware of new mini-vans!) and with a manual transmission, it's a rather large car to be rowing with a gearshift. I wouldn't mind having it, though, but it is already fully priced and then some. I'd say $2500 is all the money here. It's big, it's comfy, it's slow, and it costs a lot of money to fix. And good luck finding trim parts.

texases

I went looking for that-era 528i years ago, gave up the hunt when I couldn't find a clean one (in Anchorage, not much of a market there). It was a 'best bargain used BMW' for a while, it combined a good engine with workable emissions controls (cat instead of thermal reactor). The mag 'European Car' did a resto on one, called 'Barnyard Bimmer'. They overdid it, big engine, hard suspension, never did get it to handle right. And never did say how much $$$ they sank into it...

The paint on that one's passenger side looks OK to me, I'd be surprised if that seller would lie about something that's pretty easy to check.

isellhondas

@MrShift@Edmunds said:
CARFAX on that 5 series checks out okay. California car since new. It's the kind of car you want to drive before bidding on it--I wouldn't say the term "fast" describes it, (0-60 in about 8.5 seconds, so beware of new mini-vans!) and with a manual transmission, it's a rather large car to be rowing with a gearshift. I wouldn't mind having it, though, but it is already fully priced and then some. I'd say $2500 is all the money here. It's big, it's comfy, it's slow, and it costs a lot of money to fix. And good luck finding trim parts.

That BMW had Vasek Polak license frames on it that brought back memories.

For MANY years Vasek had that dealership on Pacific Coast Hwy. in Hermosa Beach.

He ran a tight ship and he had a hot temper but he sold a LOT of cars!

fintail

It might have even been broken, botched repair, or the girl panicked - kind of like pedal misapplication people who point to the car. I am not trying to denigrate the tragedy, but there might be logical explanations, or it is just a dumb design. Would it be different from 80s era "child" locks, where you could prevent the rear doors from being opened from inside? I remember I used to play that trick in our Tempo.

The horn thing is funny too - fintail is like that, needs key for horn. I suspect MB moved past that by the 70s.

@uplanderguy said:
I don't know anything about the cars at all, but someone else posted some place that in '99 they changed that feature to not work like that. Someone posted that the doors should open on the second try, but it seems a stretch to believe the girl wouldn't have tried that.

explorerx4

the manual page does say 'Impossible to open from the inside if locked from the outside using the key or fob'.

Mr_Shiftright

They put an unlock button on the console in later years.

fintail

I had my old beast out today, beat the rain - first time in 5 weeks I had driven it. Started right up on the first turn without complaint - but there's a new issue. Generator light stays on at lower engine speeds - nothing when driving, but when idling, it's on. I think it's starting to go. I had it rebuilt in 1999, so I guess this happens. Yay more expense. Turn signals weren't being very cooperative either.

Looking pretty good today, got a couple compliments and lots of looks. The most interesting thing in this lineup:

berri

What's with all the big trucks out there in Green Weenie town - Just Kidding!

isellhondas

You should have been at the Triple XXX in Issaquah today. Lots of nice cars.

Your fintail would have fit right in.

fintail

Out here in the suburbs/boomburbs, many people - probably too many, still have a thing for large SUVs and pickups. They make me think of requiring license endorsements for such vehicles. I suppose navigating the office park garages is technically being off road. The real greenie weenies tend to live in Seattle proper.

A few years ago, the local MB club had a meeting at XXX - but maybe only 20 cars showed up, at most. I'll have to remember to check their site and make it out there sometime when they are having a general gathering - don't want to roll up in that thing to a lot full of Camaros or Tr--Chevies etc.

texases

Fin - sure it's not just a worn/loose generator belt?

gsemike

NY Craigs
http://newyork.craigslist.org/wch/cto/4466310368.html So it's not real

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/cto/4477104008.html Don't barn finds not need frame off restos?

http://newyork.craigslist.org/que/cto/4477062538.html Doesn't know how to spell Camaro; doesn't know how to take pictures; doesn't know what pinstripes are. I'm sure it's worth all that money

http://newyork.craigslist.org/wch/cto/4430294940.html Nice for what it is, but I don't know if anyone cares about numbers matching

http://newyork.craigslist.org/que/cto/4476468912.html MGB looks good for not much money

http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/cto/4476343813.html Andre? How many bags of groceries could this carry?

http://newyork.craigslist.org/jsy/cto/4476083327.html Alfa mod

http://newyork.craigslist.org/brx/cto/4476032758.html Datsun 1200

http://newyork.craigslist.org/jsy/cto/4456826979.html Mazda RX 4

http://newyork.craigslist.org/lgi/cto/4475963832.html Don't see this every day

http://newyork.craigslist.org/fct/cto/4475935807.html Mod 2002 and big money

http://newyork.craigslist.org/stn/cto/4471553471.html These seem to be really up these days

http://newyork.craigslist.org/que/cto/4475531308.html Drive something different

http://newyork.craigslist.org/lgi/cto/4475356382.html How much is this car being parked on the street while Pacino walks by supposed to be worth? This is a few blocks from me. Paint doesn't look great in person. Used to advertise that it had an 8 and really low miles. Either way, it's a rat

stickguy

some interesting stuff. That MGB looks like a good deal, if it is a solid runner and they didn't paint over the rust.

that Datsun 1200 - no bumpers at all parking in NYC? Brave.

I like that 1970 Camaro. Perfect set up to me. Probably not a real Z28, but by then, did it matter that much?

fintail

RX-4 looks pretty cool, wacky price though. Interesting wheels on that fuselage. Porsche color is pretty interesting, notice how the pics don't show the Targa roof, seems people don't like them as much.

I never thought of a slipping belt, I guess it would be more evident at low speeds, like a squealing belt. I'll check it out next time I drive the car. A belt would make me happier than a generator rebuild.

Mr_Shiftright

70 Z-28: Nope, definitely not real. Looks a bit tired.

74 Porsche---hmmm, only one photo, and in a paint booth....seems pricey. Hard to say with one one snap and very little info.

70 MGB -- uh-oh---Weber carburetor, not a good sign. But that can be corrected.

74 BMW 2002 -- strange, he did all that work and apparently didn't mod the anemic '74 motor.

73 Cadillac -- oh, the humanity!

73 Bronco---yep, early Broncos are a hot item.

fintail

"IT WONT NEED ANYTHING!!!" ...oh give it time, it'll need plenty. Nice car though, and I think that stereo is sought after, and was one of the first non 8-track cassette players.

Mr_Shiftright

Very interesting but complex car with some unobtainium parts. Same engine as the Mercedes 600 Pullman. He might get close to that price if he can find just the right buyer. Fully priced right now.

bhill2

@Mr_Shiftright said:
Very interesting but complex car with some unobtainium parts. Same engine as the Mercedes 600 Pullman. He might get close to that price if he can find just the right buyer. Fully priced right now.

Oh yeah. Definitely on my short list of "if I won the lottery" cars (unless I decided on a short-wheelbase 600 instead). But until reality conveniently suspends itself it ain't going to happen.

gsemike

For this money, how about some period correct tires

http://www.mecum.com/auctions/lot_detail.cfm?LOT_ID=SC0514-184397&entryRow=171&lottype=&startRow=161

Checks all the right boxes but feels off

andre1969

@gsemike said:
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/cto/4476343813.html Andre? How many bags of groceries could this carry?

Those '69-73 Newports and New Yorkers were massive cars. The wheelbase was 124", which isn't huge by that era, as an Electra or Ninety-Eight, by 1971 at least, was 127". However, I think Chrysler added some rear-end length to these cars to make overall lengths comparable or even a bit longer.

I'm not positive on the details, but I think when the big cars were redone for '74, they were actually a bit smaller overall than the '73's. Same 124" wb though, for the Chryslers. I looked up some specs though, and found 230.1" for a '73 New Yorker, 224.6" for a '74 New Yorker, but by '78, the New Yorker was back up to 231".

I guess the '73's length could be inflated because of those black rubber blocks they put on the bumper guards in a vain attempt to pass the 5 mph bumper tests. Those probably added about 3" up front and another 3" in the back, but without actually making the car LOOK longer. The '74, however, would have had the more "proper" 5-mph bumpers that jutted out, which means the body itself would have most likely been a bit shorter, just inflated because of the bumpers.

I don't know what made it pork back up to 231" by '78 though, except that for '76, the New Yorker was given the '74-75 Imperial's front end and rear treatment. So maybe that puffed it up some?

Anyway, those "fuselage" era cars had some huge trunks as I recall. They were wide and deep. For some reason, the '74-78 trunks were a lot shallower. However, I think they dropped the height of the decklid a bit, and that might have caused that.

qbrozen

@gsemike‌ I can't same I'm a big follower on stuff like this, but that price has to be complete dreaming. I remember watching one of those episodes of what's my car worth (I think that was it) and they had a black over yellow W30 convertible. IIRC, I imagined it would come close to 6 figures and it only hit something like $50k.

So I guess the question is: does this being "the only known example to have original documentation showing factory W-27 aluminum axle carrier" really make it worth 6-8 times the value of another?

Mr_Shiftright

The bid was market correct. Seller should have taken it. These W-30s have jumped a lot in value the past few year but they are flattening out so I think IF it was a real bid at all, the seller should have let the car go. 1/4 mil isn't exactly an insult.

qbrozen

I obviously fail to understand the market on them

gsemike

I know that these are worth money, but that one just doesn't look polished enough for astronomical 6 figure dollars. Cheapo tires, not period correct. Lug nuts are rusted to hell. Interior needs a good cleaning. I think cars are meant to be driven, but if you're going for a quarter mil, it should look pristine and correct.

gsemike

Never knew that these existed

http://jerseyshore.craigslist.org/cto/4469690973.html

Sure, the price is nutso but you think that you've seen them all

qbrozen

as Shifty says, just cause its rare don't make it collectible. haha.

stickguy

Crazy price. Insane.