@Mr_Shiftright said:
Remember, every car at a public auction is an abandoned car.
Well, that or it was stolen as part of a DUI case (in Alaska, anyway; I'm not sure if other states work the same way). You can find some decent ones that way.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
While I was in the Honda business, every once in awhile they would come out with a horrible color that everyone disliked....except...once in awhile that would be the ONLY color a buyer would accept. In 1998 they had Raisin Pearl available on Accords. After seeing the first one we refused to order any more. It sat on our lot for almost a year. I was the one to take a call from a woman who lived almost 200 miles away asking if we had a Raisin Pearl LX Accord in stock.
When I told her we did, she was so excited and said she would make the drive the following morning. Sure enough, the store in her backyard "just happened" to call asking if we would trade that car to them. Guess what our answer was?
Curious, I pulled a "locate" and ours was the only one in all of Washington and Oregon.
Do you think we gave her a huge discount on that car?
Acura had a one year only hideous color on their Legends. I think it was 1991.
Trumpet Gold! An excellent description. I heard they sold well in Palm Springs.
I remember a gold on some early-mid 90s Buicks that I liked - it was pretty bright. Maybe a little gaudy, but it worked, at least to my eyes then.
I remember Honda had a weird kind of neon light yellow-green around 2000-2001, only Civics I think. That one didn't last long. Around that time, I knew a guy from Taiwan who was fixated on this kind of dark forest green you could get on an Accord then - and when he bought his car, he had to have it shipped in. That color is long gone, too.
I generally like light blue cars, as the fintail has taken over my mind. I also think many newer MBs look good in white, especially with a pano roof. Black and dark colors are too much maintenance for me. I do like some browns and greens, as they are unusual these days. Silver or generic grey are too common for me. If I am laying down money, I need to like the color.
The Detroit company that I always think about with short-lived, let's diplomatically say unique, colors sometimes is Ford. I guess Detroit here should be Dearborn. But Ford also puts out some very nice shades. Maybe they just take more risk with that element of styling?
I like that they do. They put some very nice, and someone unique, colors on their cars. I was disappointed that the yellow they had on the Fiesta for a couple of years (recently.... 2012/13 IIRC) didn't proliferate to more models or stick around as an option longer.
That one was a very striking color with a subtle tone. Had I bought my Fiesta new, that's the color I would have.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
If only Ford would learn to make something other than a black interior I might be more willing to consider them
I kind of agree. I guess all that black interior dash and steering wheel stuff is supposed to project an image of European sportiness or something. But to me it more reflects cost cutting and cheapness. I just don't get black steering wheels and instrument panels on a beige (OK, you can call it "Stone") interior for example.
The problem I have been experiencing with Ford products too often though is that they don't have enough legroom. That alone keeps me out of a new Explorer. Very comfortable seating up front, but kind of cramped for a six footer...and let's not even get started on the Taurus. How is it that the smaller dimensioned Toyota Highlander has more driver legroom flexibility? Seems like lousy engineering and design on the Ford in that aspect. I feel for tall cops stuck in them all day.
I think the wheels on that E21 are by "Centra", that company made identical wheels anyway.
Maybe I am biased, but any car from NJ makes me a little leery. Salvage title on an M3, I don't even want to think how it has been treated, seeing as it would attract such a mature demographic.
@stickguy said:
That m3 would need one heck of a PPI before I would even think about it. And a real cheap price. What a potential land mine.
I just did a 'price your used car' on the M3. RETAIL is under $7k for a car in 'average' condition, ignoring the salvage title! As the song goes, "Ain't no way..."
@berri said:
The problem I have been experiencing with Ford products too often though is that they don't have enough legroom. That alone keeps me out of a new Explorer. Very comfortable seating up front, but kind of cramped for a six footer...and let's not even get started on the Taurus. How is it that the smaller dimensioned Toyota Highlander has more driver legroom flexibility? Seems like lousy engineering and design on the Ford in that aspect. I feel for tall cops stuck in them all day.
>
Funny you'd mention that, because I've noticed the same thing with the newest Explorer, as well as the Taurus.
I liked the interior of the old 500/Montego. Its front seat didn't go back very far either, but at least it sat up pretty high, sort of like a pickup truck. So that helped a little bit. And in the back, that sucker felt almost like a limousine! The 500/Montego was probably a better car, in most respects, than the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, although it would have lacked some attributes, such as ruggedness, that made the Panther better at towing, cop/taxi duties, etc.
The seat on the new Taurus feels like it goes back a little further, but unfortunately it's not as high, so overall the position feels worse to me. And then they've done other things, such as made the center console too big, made the footwells too narrow, etc, that the car just feels claustrophobic inside. I actually prefer the Fusion to the Taurus these days. It has a smaller trunk and a bit less shoulder room, but as a 4-seater, I think it's every bit as adequate.
I used to have that problem with GM, where it seemed like the Malibu made better use of interior room than the bigger Impala did. But GM has somewhat gotten their act together, as the Impala now seems decently sized, and makes good use of its interior room. The Malibu, IMO, is a bit too tight in the back seat for the midsized market, though.
Even in the days of 55mph, it would take a good 30 seconds to get there.
Yeah, this was in the mid-80's when they owned it. Was very stable on the highway, once you got it up to speed. However, there was no cruise and the throttle spring was the stiffest I've ever encountered.
@andre1969 said:
And in the back, that sucker felt almost like a limousine!
Speaking of limousine, the Flex is downright cavernous on the inside. I think that thing must have been designed with 7-footer basketball players in mind with the amount of personal space for each passenger. The car appeals to me in many ways, but I don't think I'm going to buy another gasoline vehicle anytime soon. I'd really like to see Ford branch into diesel more. With diesel and Ecoboost in their lineup, they'd have a great combination of fuel-efficient offerings!
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Funny, the stiff throttle is a MB tradition, esp for diesels - even new ones have it. Maybe helps prevent people from revving too much.
@Michaell said:
Yeah, this was in the mid-80's when they owned it. Was very stable on the highway, once you got it up to speed. However, there was no cruise and the throttle spring was the stiffest I've ever encountered.
@xwesx said:
Speaking of limousine, the Flex is downright cavernous on the inside. I think that thing must have been designed with 7-footer basketball players in mind with the amount of personal space for each passenger. The car appeals to me in many ways, but I don't think I'm going to buy another gasoline vehicle anytime soon. I'd really like to see Ford branch into diesel more. With diesel and Ecoboost in their lineup, they'd have a great combination of fuel-efficient offerings!
>
Same here; I've always liked the Flex, as well. Interestingly, some of those better-designed crossovers actually seem to have more legroom than the full-sized, truck-based SUVs. I'm really disappointed that even something as big as a Suburban or long-version Expedition really doesn't seem all that huge inside.
But, to some degree, that's always been true, as cars are often designed with a focus on style moreso than function. As a result, something boring and boxy like a '68 Dodge Dart sedan on a tiny 111" wheelbase and only about 196" overall, ends up with more legroom, front and rear, than a sleek and swoopy '68 Impala, which was on a 119" wb and probably around 212" or so, overall.
And then, you run into instances where a more modern design might have better space efficiency than an older one. For example, I don't know the exact measurements, but I'm pretty sure GM's '73-77 intermediates have a bit more legroom, up front at least, than the big '71-76 cars. So, as inefficient as they still were, I guess GM did learn something about space efficiency, between '71 and '73!
Years ago, I remember reading that the auto makers tended to design cars to fit an "average" male driver of around 5'10-5'11, and about 185 lb. So any driver who falls outside of that range might not feel optimal comfort. I wonder if there's any truth to that?
Also, I swore I'd never buy anything like an SUV or crossover to drive on a daily basis, as I'd rather have a full-sized car. But, after getting more and more accustomed to driving a Ram around on a regular basis, I can see the appeal of sitting up high. I could see myself in something like a Dodge Durango. Their styling makes me think more of a jacked up station wagon than an SUV or crossover, anyway.
Some time ago, I found a site that let one search cars in junkyards, and you could see pics and sometimes even read comments by parts pickers. I lost the URL, but found This, which seems different, but very similar
Craziest thing I've found yet, looks like something from Mad Max:
So fin, you were driving on some mountain back road, lost control and ended up in a chicken coup, or did you import that from one of your southern adventures in a Wal-Mart parking lot?
The sad part is that the rockers anyway look solid - CA car, probably some salvageable structural bits. Looks like the headlight surrounds were already claimed. The paint looks like wallpaper or something adhesive. And those mirrors, nice.
The site has a few other fintails, and even a lowline ponton - still going off to the junkyard in 2014.
Neat car, those are really scarce in even halfway decent condition. A minor collectible now, should bring a few good bids, esp from rust belt areas where those cars vanished 20 years ago.
does look awfully similar to the Toyota I posted above.
Only thing I notice different is that Bruce's foglights seem to be receded in the valance, of which the opening extends end to end, while the valance opening isn't as wide in the '73 I posted, and the fogs are outside of it and protrude more.
'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
Man, you have better eyesight than I do. I thought it was a shadow. I looked again and it was still hard to tell. The door on that side looks more faded than the rest but, heck, it's 52 years old!
Comments
Well, that or it was stolen as part of a DUI case (in Alaska, anyway; I'm not sure if other states work the same way). You can find some decent ones that way.
Hmm, I like this - this is a true Euro car, yes, those are hubcaps, and yes, they are correct.
Color combo would irritate me, but it'd be a lot better to buy one like this than renovate a heap.
Looks like a nice car. Pricey though. Miles are right in any event. I'd put it at about $5500 retail.
And he says he is open to offers.
Too bad it's a low option car in colors I don't prefer. But if it checks out, it could be a bargain for someone.
It's a funny thing about car colors.
While I was in the Honda business, every once in awhile they would come out with a horrible color that everyone disliked....except...once in awhile that would be the ONLY color a buyer would accept. In 1998 they had Raisin Pearl available on Accords. After seeing the first one we refused to order any more. It sat on our lot for almost a year. I was the one to take a call from a woman who lived almost 200 miles away asking if we had a Raisin Pearl LX Accord in stock.
When I told her we did, she was so excited and said she would make the drive the following morning. Sure enough, the store in her backyard "just happened" to call asking if we would trade that car to them. Guess what our answer was?
Curious, I pulled a "locate" and ours was the only one in all of Washington and Oregon.
Do you think we gave her a huge discount on that car?
Acura had a one year only hideous color on their Legends. I think it was 1991.
Trumpet Gold! An excellent description. I heard they sold well in Palm Springs.
I remember a gold on some early-mid 90s Buicks that I liked - it was pretty bright. Maybe a little gaudy, but it worked, at least to my eyes then.
I remember Honda had a weird kind of neon light yellow-green around 2000-2001, only Civics I think. That one didn't last long. Around that time, I knew a guy from Taiwan who was fixated on this kind of dark forest green you could get on an Accord then - and when he bought his car, he had to have it shipped in. That color is long gone, too.
I generally like light blue cars, as the fintail has taken over my mind. I also think many newer MBs look good in white, especially with a pano roof. Black and dark colors are too much maintenance for me. I do like some browns and greens, as they are unusual these days. Silver or generic grey are too common for me. If I am laying down money, I need to like the color.
The Detroit company that I always think about with short-lived, let's diplomatically say unique, colors sometimes is Ford. I guess Detroit here should be Dearborn. But Ford also puts out some very nice shades. Maybe they just take more risk with that element of styling?
I like that they do. They put some very nice, and someone unique, colors on their cars. I was disappointed that the yellow they had on the Fiesta for a couple of years (recently.... 2012/13 IIRC) didn't proliferate to more models or stick around as an option longer.
That one was a very striking color with a subtle tone. Had I bought my Fiesta new, that's the color I would have.
If only Ford would learn to make something other than a black interior I might be more willing to consider them.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
This might be the slowest car on Craigslist
If only Ford would learn to make something other than a black interior I might be more willing to consider them
I kind of agree. I guess all that black interior dash and steering wheel stuff is supposed to project an image of European sportiness or something. But to me it more reflects cost cutting and cheapness. I just don't get black steering wheels and instrument panels on a beige (OK, you can call it "Stone") interior for example.
The problem I have been experiencing with Ford products too often though is that they don't have enough legroom. That alone keeps me out of a new Explorer. Very comfortable seating up front, but kind of cramped for a six footer...and let's not even get started on the Taurus. How is it that the smaller dimensioned Toyota Highlander has more driver legroom flexibility? Seems like lousy engineering and design on the Ford in that aspect. I feel for tall cops stuck in them all day.
My folks had a 1972 220D in that period red/orange color.
I got them a vanity plate that read REAL SLO.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
one way to feel out the market...
just keep listing it over and over with a lowered price each time. This is the 3rd time I've seen it posted. Last time it had a $9k tag. I think the first time was $10k. I like it, but maybe for $4k-4500.
Now that's how you write a detailed description of a high-strung, popular luxo car. Note the salvage title.
'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 think the wheels on that E21 are by "Centra", that company made identical wheels anyway.
Maybe I am biased, but any car from NJ makes me a little leery. Salvage title on an M3, I don't even want to think how it has been treated, seeing as it would attract such a mature demographic.
Automatic?
Even in the days of 55mph, it would take a good 30 seconds to get there.
That m3 would need one heck of a PPI before I would even think about it. And a real cheap price. What a potential land mine.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I just did a 'price your used car' on the M3. RETAIL is under $7k for a car in 'average' condition, ignoring the salvage title! As the song goes, "Ain't no way..."
>
Funny you'd mention that, because I've noticed the same thing with the newest Explorer, as well as the Taurus.
I liked the interior of the old 500/Montego. Its front seat didn't go back very far either, but at least it sat up pretty high, sort of like a pickup truck. So that helped a little bit. And in the back, that sucker felt almost like a limousine! The 500/Montego was probably a better car, in most respects, than the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, although it would have lacked some attributes, such as ruggedness, that made the Panther better at towing, cop/taxi duties, etc.
The seat on the new Taurus feels like it goes back a little further, but unfortunately it's not as high, so overall the position feels worse to me. And then they've done other things, such as made the center console too big, made the footwells too narrow, etc, that the car just feels claustrophobic inside. I actually prefer the Fusion to the Taurus these days. It has a smaller trunk and a bit less shoulder room, but as a 4-seater, I think it's every bit as adequate.
I used to have that problem with GM, where it seemed like the Malibu made better use of interior room than the bigger Impala did. But GM has somewhat gotten their act together, as the Impala now seems decently sized, and makes good use of its interior room. The Malibu, IMO, is a bit too tight in the back seat for the midsized market, though.
Yeah, this was in the mid-80's when they owned it. Was very stable on the highway, once you got it up to speed. However, there was no cruise and the throttle spring was the stiffest I've ever encountered.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
Speaking of limousine, the Flex is downright cavernous on the inside. I think that thing must have been designed with 7-footer basketball players in mind with the amount of personal space for each passenger. The car appeals to me in many ways, but I don't think I'm going to buy another gasoline vehicle anytime soon. I'd really like to see Ford branch into diesel more. With diesel and Ecoboost in their lineup, they'd have a great combination of fuel-efficient offerings!
Funny, the stiff throttle is a MB tradition, esp for diesels - even new ones have it. Maybe helps prevent people from revving too much.
our automatic E30 was the same way. Very tough pedal.
By comparison, my '86 Benz is actually quite a bit easier than the '87 bimmer was.
'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
>
Same here; I've always liked the Flex, as well. Interestingly, some of those better-designed crossovers actually seem to have more legroom than the full-sized, truck-based SUVs. I'm really disappointed that even something as big as a Suburban or long-version Expedition really doesn't seem all that huge inside.
But, to some degree, that's always been true, as cars are often designed with a focus on style moreso than function. As a result, something boring and boxy like a '68 Dodge Dart sedan on a tiny 111" wheelbase and only about 196" overall, ends up with more legroom, front and rear, than a sleek and swoopy '68 Impala, which was on a 119" wb and probably around 212" or so, overall.
And then, you run into instances where a more modern design might have better space efficiency than an older one. For example, I don't know the exact measurements, but I'm pretty sure GM's '73-77 intermediates have a bit more legroom, up front at least, than the big '71-76 cars. So, as inefficient as they still were, I guess GM did learn something about space efficiency, between '71 and '73!
Years ago, I remember reading that the auto makers tended to design cars to fit an "average" male driver of around 5'10-5'11, and about 185 lb. So any driver who falls outside of that range might not feel optimal comfort. I wonder if there's any truth to that?
Also, I swore I'd never buy anything like an SUV or crossover to drive on a daily basis, as I'd rather have a full-sized car. But, after getting more and more accustomed to driving a Ram around on a regular basis, I can see the appeal of sitting up high. I could see myself in something like a Dodge Durango. Their styling makes me think more of a jacked up station wagon than an SUV or crossover, anyway.
Some time ago, I found a site that let one search cars in junkyards, and you could see pics and sometimes even read comments by parts pickers. I lost the URL, but found This, which seems different, but very similar
Craziest thing I've found yet, looks like something from Mad Max:
So fin, you were driving on some mountain back road, lost control and ended up in a chicken coup, or did you import that from one of your southern adventures in a Wal-Mart parking lot?
OK, I want to be on record as saying THAT'S JUST WRONG!!!
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
The sad part is that the rockers anyway look solid - CA car, probably some salvageable structural bits. Looks like the headlight surrounds were already claimed. The paint looks like wallpaper or something adhesive. And those mirrors, nice.
The site has a few other fintails, and even a lowline ponton - still going off to the junkyard in 2014.
I kinda like it. I don't need another coupe, though.
'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
Neat car, those are really scarce in even halfway decent condition. A minor collectible now, should bring a few good bids, esp from rust belt areas where those cars vanished 20 years ago.
Neat little cars, but I hear that changing a tire can be difficult. It can really bring out the beast in you...
Looks like an early '70s Celica.
does look awfully similar to the Toyota I posted above.
Only thing I notice different is that Bruce's foglights seem to be receded in the valance, of which the opening extends end to end, while the valance opening isn't as wide in the '73 I posted, and the fogs are outside of it and protrude more.
'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
Re: Mercedes Cageback, Reminds me of the movie Hatari.
Where's fintail??
Look what just popped up on craigslist!!!
http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/cto/4563876541.html
In Bellevue no less in the Somerset area!!
Seriously, if my garage wasn't full, I'ld be tempted!
I didn't know those had disc brakes!
nice big gash in the front fender.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Man, you have better eyesight than I do. I thought it was a shadow. I looked again and it was still hard to tell. The door on that side looks more faded than the rest but, heck, it's 52 years old!
Parts car!
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Heck, for $995, I think that fintail looks decent. Call me twisted, but I think that gash adds character!
I think Fintail should call up and make arrangements to go see it. will freak them out when he shows up in a twin.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
$49 for new brake calipers? I don't think so.................
Deleted now.
And yes, fintails from 1963+ have disc brakes.
No idea if the price is "right" but here's a nice example of a 1955 Ford F-100 Pickup, apparently being used to drive showroom traffic to the dealer.
Too custom-y for my tastes. Wheels, tires, interior, bumpers, I like stock.
Regrettable choice of colors but yeah, they can sell for that price if done well.
Now, if those hubcaps turn up missing....
I'm just sure the local O'Reilleys is going to have rebuilt calipers in stock for a 1966 Mercedes!
And, you're right...49.00???
I was thinking the same thing! Same color even!
Too bad you didn't get to see it. Amazing two blue ones in Bellevue!
Come to think of it, I'm almost positive that a 1960 MGA that I once owned had front discs.
Yes, the MGA 1600 Mk I was fitted with disc brakes and the much rarer 1600 Deluxe was fitted with 4-wheel discs. 1959-1961.
I love these cars. and believe that there are getting really hard to find in clean condition (as in not rusted out).
this one, makes me want to cry.
http://tampa.craigslist.org/hdo/cto/4554451272.html
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Those were great little cars! I haven't seen one in years.