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

stever

$5 for towing every six months with most car insurance and you call for a tow. Same people wind up towing you but when you call, it seems like they respond quickly. My three tows last year all arrived within ten minutes. Max payment was $100.

uplanderguy

For four drivers in our household, AAA premier was the way to go--especially with an old car like I had. Even though the Studebakers are gone, my daughter goes to college four hours away so I still like that we are all part of the premier package--four drivers, four cars, but it's by number of drivers.

Being 250 miles away, in South Bend, in a 46-year old car, it was a comfort to know I had it even though I never used it.

andre1969

years ago, I learned that AAA only gives you four service calls per year before they start charging. I remember letting one of my friends use my AAA when the transmission went out on his '98 Tracker, to get it towed to the local transmission shop. Well, then my '89 Gran Fury went through a phase where it developed a voracious appetite for starters, and I had to have it towed three times. There was one final time that the starter was just about to fail, but luckily it had one last start in it, and I was able to get it to the mechanic and then walk the rest of the way to work. The mechanic had to push it into his shop, though.

I always thought there was something else wrong with the car that was making the starters fail but the mechanic said no, unfortunately there was just a run of crappily-rebuilt starters from the vendors. Fortunately, they all failed in such rapid succession that they were covered under warranty.

texases

Anyone ever see one of these? I never heard of it.

andre1969

I was always under the impression that the Fairmont was almost offered with the turbo, to the point they made prototypes and printed literature, but then it got canceled at the last minute. However, according to Wikipedia, a few were built in 1980. And the CHP tested a few of them, also according to Wikipedia.

I just went to the EPA website, and they have a listing for the Fairmont turbo. So it at least made it to EPA testing. The only number the website shows is "19", which was the raw laboratory city rating. So, maybe a few of them actually made it to the market, after all.

uplanderguy

I had never heard of, or don't remember, a Fairmont Turbo. A friend and longtime coworker had a '79 Zephyr Z-7 with 302 and 4-speed. He has never owned anything but a Ford product, from a '68 Torino new to his '14 Escape. Some on one of the other forums would tell him he's dumb for that, but he knows what he likes and it's his money.

I always thought the wheelcovers in that ad above were a good-looking wheelcover.

Do you remember that you could get the Buick Turbo V6 in the '80 and '81 Monte Carlo? 170 hp. There was a small hump on the hood with a "Turbo" script on it. Before my Dad bought his '80 Monte, I tried to get him to at least look at a Turbo the dealer had in stock, but he was not interested at all!

ab348

I always felt the Fairmont Futura was a ladies car for some reason. Maybe I knew or saw some women with them, I dunno.

I remember sitting in one in the showroom when they first came out and I couldn't fit into it - no headroom. Pretty sure it didn't have a power seat either.

fintail

You can also live in the home of tomorrow, today:



The Futura has always seemed a little off to me, like it is too narrow for its height or something. I can see how it apes the 77-79 T-Bird, a car that I actually think looks good, in the right trim.

Thanks for the towing info, maybe I will check some options - as the car and its driver age, I worry a little more on long drives.

berri

I recall the old Fairmont just like today's Nissan Altima - rental car hangar queen. Personally, I rented more than a few of them and still can't think of any redeeming features.

andre1969

fintail said:

The Futura has always seemed a little off to me, like it is too narrow for its height or something. I can see how it apes the 77-79 T-Bird, a car that I actually think looks good, in the right trim.

I think the two things that make the Futura look a bit awkward are the amount of overhang, and that "basket-handle" B-pillar. Traditionally, coupes don't have that much sheetmetal where the B-pillar is, so, in my opinion at least, it makes the car look top-heavy. And I think you're right...maybe the car is a bit too narrow for its height, and that height may add to the problem.

The '77-79 T-bird also has that basket-handle B-pillar, but it appears smaller, in relation to the car. The T-bird is also more low-slung, with a ratio of more lower door to window height.

As for the overhang, those Fairmonts and Futuras were on a stubby 105.6" wb, but were around 197" long. For comparison, my old '80 Malibu was on a longer 108.1" wb, but only 192.7". Those smallish, squared-off wheel openings on the Fairmont might accentuate the overhang as well.

One other thing that might throw them off...according to Coker Tire, at least, the standard tire on a Fairmont/Futura is a 175/75/R14. For comparison, my old Malibu was 195/75/R14, and 205/70/R14's actually made it look a bit muscular. If you got a V-8 Fairmont, it got upgraded to 185/75/14's, and the V-8 police package got 205/70/R14.

I think one of the better-balanced compact/midsized cars from that era, when it comes to proportioning, was the M-body LeBaron/Diplomat/Gran Fury...at least until the coupes went to the shorter 108.1" wb for '80. The longer cars were on a 112.7" wb, and around 205-206" long. They were also a bit wider than your typical car in that class, which I thought balanced them out nicely. And, one other detail...they came standard with 15" wheels, so that gave them a better-planted look.

ab348

I remember when the Fairmont was introduced in the fall of 1977, CR gave it an absolutely glowing review, comparing it to a Volvo and saying it was totally unlike any Ford ever made. The other magazines all loved it too. But when I checked them out in the showroom later, I was unimpressed. Everything felt light and flimsy, and the interior finishes were very low-rent. Later on I drove a few and was similarly unimpressed. While it wasn't soft and floaty like a Maverick and the steering had some feel, it did not give the feeling of a quality car at all - about as far from a Volvo in that respect as possible.

uplanderguy

I don't know how CR viewed the '78 GM mid-sizes, but I always felt they seemed more subtantial than rental Fairmonts I drove. A Fairmont was the only rental car that left me stranded too! LOL I do remember GM getting beat up for its high sticker prices, no-roll-down rear sedan windows, and mini spares (did Fairmonts have those too? I can't recall). The '78 downsize was even more dramatic, and probably less successful in my mind, than the '77 GM full-sizes. But I'd have to say they were probably the last GM cars that I liked a lot. I could still enjoy a '78 Malibu Classic coupe, black, gold pinstripe, gold cloth 50/50 front seat with dual center armrests, optional round gauge cluster, F41, and the silver honeycomb scooped plastic wheel covers, 305. It'd have to be built later in the run though, when they started putting the black splash shield in front of the front tires, so you didn't look in there and just see air and no fender brace.

andre1969

I seem to remember the Fairmont had a large number of recalls its first year or so out. I never drove a "pure" Fairmont, but when I was practicing driving, I logged a lot of miles on my grandparents' '85 LTD, which was a tarted up Fairmont. I was just a kid at the time, and my experience with a variety of cars was limited. The main thing I remember was that it was easier to parallel park than my Mom's '80 Malibu, despite being a couple inches longer, and it just felt more nimble in general...probably the narrower body, shorter wheelbase, and sloping hood. It was also a bit quicker than the Malibu. But, the Malibu felt roomier, more comfortable, and more substantial.

I think Uplanderguy said it perfectly in the past, where one of them felt more like a "smaller big car" while the other felt like a "bigger small car".

uplanderguy

One thing I used to notice about V8 Malibus, was that the front springs sagged noticeably in three years or so. My friend's Dad bought new '78 and '81 Malibu Classics, and both had that affliction. Surprisingly, I did not notice that on Monte Carlos, which had more front-end overhang. A friend who used to work in the parts dept. at a Chevy/Buick dealership told me that Montes of that '78-80 era actually came with the F40 suspension instead of F41. I think (not sure) F40 was the trailering or heavy-duty suspension. If I bought a Malibu now I'd probably upgrade to the F40.

andre1969

CR's review of the downsized intermediates was fairly favorable, as I recall, but they weren't wowed over by them like they were with the B bodies for '77. I think they did mention about how the downsizing was more extreme, and almost went too far in some regards, such as the stationary rear door windows and compact spare tires. But overall, I think they viewed it much the way Motortrend did...more of the same, when they were looking for something really revolutionary and different.

I do remember them comparing a '78 LeMans to a Volare, and they complimented the LeMans on its more integrated, plastic-covered bumpers, stating that they would resist damage, whereas the Volare would not. I don't know how true that is, but since the bumpers on the LeMans didn't jut out, maybe they were less likely to snag on something. I know those plastic covers will warp and buckle over time, and do scratch up pretty easily. And with today's latest cars, you hit them just right and the whole thing will pop off.

One reason the intermediates might not have wow'ed CR as much is that by that time, they were comparing them to the existing crop of compacts. When the B/C body debuted for '77, it pretty much made every old-school full-sizer obsolete, as well as the intermediates of that year. But, the Malibu, in CR's eyes, competed with cars like the Fairmont, Granada, Nova, Aspen/Volare, and Diplomat/LeBaron. And the Fairmont was lighter, more maneuverable, and more economical...and cheaper.

As for suspensions back then, I always thought F41 was just the rear sway bar?

uplanderguy

I thought it was a thicker front bar and the addition of the rear sway bar, and I thought it was bigger springs but now I'm not sure. I'll have to look online somewhere. But I remember Malibus with rear sway bars, that still looked like they were going downhill in front.

hpmctorque

uplanderguy said:

One thing I used to notice about V8 Malibus, was that the front springs sagged noticeably in three years or so. My friend's Dad bought new '78 and '81 Malibu Classics, and both had that affliction. Surprisingly, I did not notice that on Monte Carlos, which had more front-end overhang. A friend who used to work in the parts dept. at a Chevy/Buick dealership told me that Montes of that '78-80 era actually came with the F40 suspension instead of F41. I think (not sure) F40 was the trailering or heavy-duty suspension. If I bought a Malibu now I'd probably upgrade to the F40.

I owned a '78 Pontiac LeMans 4 door 305 V8 with the handling suspension, or whatever they called the upgraded suspension back then. It also developed the sagging front springs problem you described, and it was more pronounced on the left front side. I resolved it ala cheap by installing spacers to equalize the left-right sides height, and to bring the front ground clearance up to spec. Surprisingly, this fix didn't affect the ride or handling noticeably from before the springs sagged, and it was a lot cheaper and simpler than replacing the springs.

Regarding the Fairmont/Zephyr vs, '78-?? GM intermediates, the GM cars were considerably heavier than the Fords. One significant structural difference, if I recall correctly, was that the Fords were unibodies while the GMs were body-on-frame. I drove several variations from each manufacturer, and each had its pluses and minuses. However, the GM intermediates definitely felt more substantial than the Fords. My conclusion is that your preference depended on the attributes you valued most.

hpmctorque

Another minor tidbit regarding the downsized LeMans, I recall reading that the upgraded suspension was improved on the '79 vs. the'78, I don't recall just what those improvements were, but the net result, according to one test, was that the '79 with the optional suspension handled better than its predecessor.

My '78 met its end when, at 114,000 plus miles it was t-boned when my teen age daughter was driving it. Luckily, she had minimal injuries, as did the driver of the panel truck that hit her. Both vehicles were totalled, however.

stevedebi

I owned a '78 4 door Fairmont with the 302. I had it for 13 years. I really liked the car. It was lighter in weight, but that made it perform better with the V8. Most people hated the horn (on a stalk to the left), but for a couple of years after I got rid of my Fairmont I kept trying to hit the horn there - it made more sense to me. Probably one of the few who liked that feature. I recall getting 22 MPG in town or on the road.

fintail

All of that could be what I am seeing too - maybe the Futura wheelbase looks too short. Somehow, the proportions are just slightly off to me.

Speaking of all the Fairmont memories, when I took driver's ed in the early 90s, my school still had one in the fleet. I assume it was a late run car, so probably not much more than 10 years old at the time. Like many cars of that era, it had a bad reputation for stalling - not fun for nervous new drivers. It was an odd powder blue color. I got lucky, and the car for my group was a nearly new Plymouth Acclaim, which seemed like a Bentley in comparison.

When I was a kid, my uncle had a Fairmont wagon, I think he crashed it - seemed like a nice enough car to my young eyes. It was a replaced with a now-rare Datsun 810 wagon, which seemed cooler to me because it was louder, and my uncle would talk about the "Z car engine".

andre1969 said:

<
I think one of the better-balanced compact/midsized cars from that era, when it comes to proportioning, was the M-body LeBaron/Diplomat/Gran Fury...at least until the coupes went to the shorter 108.1" wb for '80. The longer cars were on a 112.7" wb, and around 205-206" long. They were also a bit wider than your typical car in that class, which I thought balanced them out nicely. And, one other detail...they came standard with 15" wheels, so that gave them a better-planted look.

sda

fintail said:

All of that could be what I am seeing too - maybe the Futura wheelbase looks too short. Somehow, the proportions are just slightly off to me.

Speaking of all the Fairmont memories, when I took driver's ed in the early 90s, my school still had one in the fleet. I assume it was a late run car, so probably not much more than 10 years old at the time. Like many cars of that era, it had a bad reputation for stalling - not fun for nervous new drivers. It was an odd powder blue color. I got lucky, and the car for my group was a nearly new Plymouth Acclaim, which seemed like a Bentley in comparison.

When I was a kid, my uncle had a Fairmont wagon, I think he crashed it - seemed like a nice enough car to my young eyes. It was a replaced with a now-rare Datsun 810 wagon, which seemed cooler to me because it was louder, and my uncle would talk about the "Z car engine".


The Datsun wasn't that quick, 0-60 in 14 seconds or so. Remember the diesels? 0-60 in 20 seconds. This was 55 mph America, however. They were reliable which GM diesels were not.

andre1969 said:

<
I think one of the better-balanced compact/midsized cars from that era, when it comes to proportioning, was the M-body LeBaron/Diplomat/Gran Fury...at least until the coupes went to the shorter 108.1" wb for '80. The longer cars were on a 112.7" wb, and around 205-206" long. They were also a bit wider than your typical car in that class, which I thought balanced them out nicely. And, one other detail...they came standard with 15" wheels, so that gave them a better-planted look.

uplanderguy

I never heard anything bad about the GM V6 diesel used in cars like the Cutlass Ciera. I was with a friend when he was looking at a used one (maybe three or four years old). I don't remember much about it. Sadly, they botched the V8 Diesels and those are the ones that were hyped all over the place when they came out. In '82 there was a diesel V8 Monte Carlo I considered for a nanosecond, but my friend's service manager Dad told me even then to avoid it.

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

I never heard anything bad about the GM V6 diesel used in cars like the Cutlass Ciera. I was with a friend when he was looking at a used one (maybe three or four years old). I don't remember much about it. Sadly, they botched the V8 Diesels and those are the ones that were hyped all over the place when they came out. In '82 there was a diesel V8 Monte Carlo I considered for a nanosecond, but my friend's service manager Dad told me even then to avoid it.

I almost bought an Escort diesel when I graduated from college in 1985. I ended up with a one year old Accord LX hatch. Much better choice!

sda

uplanderguy said:

I never heard anything bad about the GM V6 diesel used in cars like the Cutlass Ciera. I was with a friend when he was looking at a used one (maybe three or four years old). I don't remember much about it. Sadly, they botched the V8 Diesels and those are the ones that were hyped all over the place when they came out. In '82 there was a diesel V8 Monte Carlo I considered for a nanosecond, but my friend's service manager Dad told me even then to avoid it.

You're right I never heard anything negative about the V6 diesels and they performed pretty well. Dad's 79 Eldorado diesel had the 120hp which they reduced to 105hp in 1980. The 79 was surprisingly quick and pulled steadily, if not fast, to 70. Got around 20 mpg in town and 30 on the interstate cruising around 60-63. 55 mph limit was not fun.

andre1969

My understanding with GM's Diesel is that they went through a fairly major redesign for 1980, and that improved them somewhat. I always wondered if one reason the hp dropped during that redesign is because they made it weaker on purpose, so it wouldn't stress out the block as much?

Then again, it may have simply been stricter emissions that year. Now that I think about it, the 360 that's used in my '79 New Yorker went from 150 hp to 130 in 1980, and some other engines saw reduced output as well.

As for the Olds Diesel V-6, I haven't heard anything really bad about it, either. It came out in 1982, mainly as a Diesel option for the new FWD A-body (Celebrity et al), but they put them in Malibus, Monte Carlos, Regals, and Cutlass Supremes for a few years as well. For some reason, the Diesel V-6 didn't pass California emissions...but the 350 did. So if you were in one of the other 49 states, you could get your '83 Monte Carlo with a Chevy 229 V-6, Chevy 305 V-6, or the Olds Diesel V-6 or V-8. But in California, you got a Buick 231 V-6, Chevy 305, or the Diesel V-8.

I know someone who had an '80 or so Cadillac Seville D'Elegance with a Diesel, a few years ago. When he first bought it, he had nothing but praise for it. He took it to some place called "The Diesel Doctor" or something like that, and apparently they got some of the kinks worked out and it ran for awhile. But then he got tired of it, and finally sold it.

Mr_Shiftright

There were a bunch of problems with that engine. For one thing, GM used too many parts from the 350 gas engine (even though the diesel engine was a new design); for instance, the knuckleheads used the same head bolts as for the gas engine. Then they decided not to put in a water separator, leading to all kinds of internal rust issues; and finally, somebody forgot to train the GM techs at the dealerships. OTHER THAN THAT>......

ab348

Michaell said:

I almost bought an Escort diesel when I graduated from college in 1985. I ended up with a one year old Accord LX hatch. Much better choice!

You must have not lived in the salt belt.

ab348

andre1969 said:

I know someone who had an '80 or so Cadillac Seville D'Elegance with a Diesel, a few years ago. When he first bought it, he had nothing but praise for it. He took it to some place called "The Diesel Doctor" or something like that, and apparently they got some of the kinks worked out and it ran for awhile. But then he got tired of it, and finally sold it.

A fellow locally I used to know slightly was a former GM dealer mechanic who trained on the diesels. After he left for a job in a shipyard, he would pick up GM cars equipped with the diesel that owners has given up on for peanuts and make them run. He would use them as drivers for a while until a better one came along.

Mr_Shiftright

If you didn't add strengthened head bolts you were doomed. That was crucial. Many of the techs fixed the problem but then installed the gas engine head bolts. So 'round and 'round it went.

Michaell

ab348 said:

I almost bought an Escort diesel when I graduated from college in 1985. I ended up with a one year old Accord LX hatch. Much better choice!

You must have not lived in the salt belt.

The escort would have been bought in Phoenix. The accord was bought in southern California. 

fintail

It was loud though, that was worth something to me. Probably because mufflers seemed to rot out faster back then.

I think my uncle replaced the Datsun with a Datsun or early Nissan 200SX, then a Chrysler E-class, both things seldom seen anymore. He went through cars pretty fast, wasn't easy on them. Now he drives a Buick that probably never gets above 2K RPM.

sda said:

The Datsun wasn't that quick, 0-60 in 14 seconds or so. Remember the diesels? 0-60 in 20 seconds. This was 55 mph America, however. They were reliable which GM diesels were not.

isellhondas

The GM mechanics HATED the diesels and declared them to be pure junk.

I did work with a guy who bought an early 80's Cutlass with not only a diesel but a five speed manual!

How he managed to drive that car without incident for over 100,000 miles nobody could figure out but he did it!

bhill2

isellhondas said:

The GM mechanics HATED the diesels and declared them to be pure junk.

I did work with a guy who bought an early 80's Cutlass with not only a diesel but a five speed manual!

How he managed to drive that car without incident for over 100,000 miles nobody could figure out but he did it!

Was it the 4.3L V-6 or the 5.7L V-8? As someone mentioned above, I've never heard of any serious problems with the V-6.

ab348

isellhondas said:

The GM mechanics HATED the diesels and declared them to be pure junk.

The guy I knew loved them.

gsemike

Not a project car question, but let me tap the combined knowledge here.

I'm looking for a CPO Outback for my wife. To what extent is a no haggle dealership truly no haggle ?

andre1969

bhill2 said:

isellhondas said:

The GM mechanics HATED the diesels and declared them to be pure junk.

I did work with a guy who bought an early 80's Cutlass with not only a diesel but a five speed manual!

How he managed to drive that car without incident for over 100,000 miles nobody could figure out but he did it!

Was it the 4.3L V-6 or the 5.7L V-8? As someone mentioned above, I've never heard of any serious problems with the V-6.

If it was a 5-speed, then it should have been a '79 Cutlass with the 260 Olds V-8 Diesel. IIRC, that was a one-year only offering. I think that one was pretty troublesome. To be fair though, most 1979 cars were going to be more troublesome than their '78 predecessors, because emissions regs tightened down that year...and would get even stricter for '80. I don't think the

Oddly, that year you could get a 3-speed manual with the V-6 (3 on the tree), 5-speed floor shift with the 260 (gas or Diesel), and a 4-speed floor shift with the 305 V-8.

Also, to add to the confusion, the Olds 260 V-8 also comes out to 4.3 liters if you do the math and round off. I think the 4.3 Diesel V-6 actually rounds off to 262.5 CID.

Chevy caused similar confusion in 1994-96, when they came out with the 4.3 version of the 5.7 LT-1 V-8, which was only used in the Caprice sedan. Try bringing that engine up in conversation, and there's a good chance you'll get "corrected" when someone tells you that was a V6. Try to explain it to them, that it was offered for a few years at the same time as the 4.3 V-6, and often you'll get an argument.

uplanderguy

andre, after '77, there were no more "three-on-the-trees" in midsize GM's...the standard 3-speed was a floor-shifter. I have seen a few of them over the years, including a new Malibu wagon at our local dealer's. The '79 Nova et al were the last GM cars with "three-on-the-tree" available.

isellhondas

gsemike said:

Not a project car question, but let me tap the combined knowledge here.

I'm looking for a CPO Outback for my wife. To what extent is a no haggle dealership truly no haggle ?

It's funny how some people say they don't want to haggle but these same people will ask a question like this.

Just offer them less than they are asking and see what happens!

No haggle stores never work especially on new cars. People simply write down the "no haggle" price and go merrily on their way shopping the number they were given.

Used cars are different since no two are going to be exactly the same.

sda

andre1969 said:

bhill2 said:

isellhondas said:

The GM mechanics HATED the diesels and declared them to be pure junk.

I did work with a guy who bought an early 80's Cutlass with not only a diesel but a five speed manual!

How he managed to drive that car without incident for over 100,000 miles nobody could figure out but he did it!

Was it the 4.3L V-6 or the 5.7L V-8? As someone mentioned above, I've never heard of any serious problems with the V-6.

If it was a 5-speed, then it should have been a '79 Cutlass with the 260 Olds V-8 Diesel. IIRC, that was a one-year only offering. I think that one was pretty troublesome. To be fair though, most 1979 cars were going to be more troublesome than their '78 predecessors, because emissions regs tightened down that year...and would get even stricter for '80. I don't think the

Oddly, that year you could get a 3-speed manual with the V-6 (3 on the tree), 5-speed floor shift with the 260 (gas or Diesel), and a 4-speed floor shift with the 305 V-8.

Also, to add to the confusion, the Olds 260 V-8 also comes out to 4.3 liters if you do the math and round off. I think the 4.3 Diesel V-6 actually rounds off to 262.5 CID.

Chevy caused similar confusion in 1994-96, when they came out with the 4.3 version of the 5.7 LT-1 V-8, which was only used in the Caprice sedan. Try bringing that engine up in conversation, and there's a good chance you'll get "corrected" when someone tells you that was a V6. Try to explain it to them, that it was offered for a few years at the same time as the 4.3 V-6, and often you'll get an argument.

The 260 diesel only had 90 hp and was a real dog. The 5speed trans was the same as they used in the H bodies. My Sunbird had that same trans with the 231 V6. It had 1st gear in the spot where most had 2nd. When shifting 1-2 you had go through the gate and shift up, where 3rd gear is normally in a standard H shift pattern. It was a noisy transmission, and you had to be slow an deliberate when shifting gears. It did not like quick shifts, and speed shifting would almost guarantee a grinding of gears or missed shift entirely. From what I recall it wasn't that stout of a transmission and was prone to bearing failure. When I traded my 76 Sunbird in 84, it had 82000 miles. The trans would start getting loud, something very wrong, after driving on the interstate more than an hour. Never had it looked at as I was fairly certain I knew the answer, time for a rebuild. It wasn't worth it, though in retrospect I wish I still had that car. I've never seen one just like it again.

andre1969

gsemike said:

Not a project car question, but let me tap the combined knowledge here.

I'm looking for a CPO Outback for my wife. To what extent is a no haggle dealership truly no haggle ?

I bought my 2000 Intrepid at a no haggle dealership. The price they quoted me seemed like a good deal off of the MSRP, so I almost bit. Only problem is, the only two on the lot were silver and I didn't want another silver car. I wanted green, but they couldn't find one in the area. I also wasn't so crazy about the fact that it didn't have a CD player. The sales manager asked the old "what would it take to get you into this car today" routine and I said "throw in a CD changer", and they said "deal". It was a 12 disc changer, mounted in the trunk, and had a remote control. I have no idea what it would've been valued at, but it was enough to make me happy.

I bought my Ram at a dealer that while I don't know if they're "no haggle", they do have "internet pricing". On the website it had a price of $17,500, but said to "call or email for special internet price". So I emailed, and all I got was a response that said "$17,500". Well, I didn't read all the fine print, and it turns out that price didn't include freight, and assumed you would qualify for every single incentive they had. Also, in Maryland, they tax rebates and incentives, so the sales tax was a bit higher than I had estimated. So, I became disillusioned and was ready to walk, but my uncle, who was with me, talked some sense into me, reminding me that even at the higher price, it was still a decent deal. We got them to throw in a sliding rear window and a third key fob. Out the door, it was something like $20,751. I think the MSRP on it was around $25,800, including freight.

One of my friends has bought two used Panthers from CarMax, and he's just gone in and paid the no haggle price. My uncle bought a new 2013 Camry LE from them, and got what I thought was a pretty good deal. My memory's fading on it, but I think it was around $21K out the door. I don't think he tried to negotiate anything, but they gave him $2K for his beat-up, high-mileage '03 Corolla, which is about $1999 more than I would have paid for it. (I know they're good cars, but this thing was too trashed even for me to put up with !) And he got some ultra-low financing, like 0.9% or close to it.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

andre, after '77, there were no more "three-on-the-trees" in midsize GM's...the standard 3-speed was a floor-shifter. I have seen a few of them over the years, including a new Malibu wagon at our local dealer's. The '79 Nova et al were the last GM cars with "three-on-the-tree" available.

Thanks for the clarification on that. I was getting my info from those text files you can download on the EPA's website, and they just list the transmission as "3M", "3A", "4M", "5M" etc.

Incidentally, that '79 Cutlass 260/5-speed Diesel had a raw EPA city rating of 25 mpg. Pretty impressive...presuming you could really get that. The city rating on my '79 5th Ave 360-2bbl is 14, and I'm lucky to break 10 mpg in local driving, although it's managed to break 20 on the highway.

uplanderguy

I believe the 3-speed floor-shift was a Nova option until the very end, while for some reason they made it standard on the new mid-sizes for '78.

andre1969

Interesting...I guess that would explain why they didn't offer that 5-speed with any of the bigger engines. I had wondered about that...why they'd give you a 5-speed with the small 260, but bigger engines just got a 4-speed, if any stick at all.

I think there was one year, maybe '76, that Pontiac offered a 5-speed with the 400 on the LeMans. I remember some reviewer saying it was the closest thing to a GTO you could get that year. Hopefully, that 5-speed was a beefier unit!

Back in high school, I knew a guy with a '79 Sunbird hatchback, light blue, that had the 2.5 Iron Duke with a stick. I don't know how many speeds though. According to the EPA you could get a 4- or 5-speed stick with the Iron Duke. I remember it seemed pretty fast, at the time, but remember this was around 1987, and in my peer group we didn't have a lot of exotic cars to choose from at the time!

omarman

If Pontiac found a way to hook up a 5 speed to their 400 V8 for 1976 then it must have been embarrassing to the Chevy division with their 350 small block and only 4 forward gears. The Corvette was stuck with the Nash 4+3 for a long time before finally getting a 6-speed manual.

andre1969 said:

I think there was one year, maybe '76, that Pontiac offered a 5-speed with the 400 on the LeMans. I remember some reviewer saying it was the closest thing to a GTO you could get that year. Hopefully, that 5-speed was a beefier unit!

andre1969

omarman said:

If Pontiac found a way to hook up a 5 speed to their 400 V8 for 1976 then it must have been embarrassing to the Chevy division with their 350 small block and only 4 forward gears. The Corvette was stuck with the Nash 4+3 for a long time before finally getting a 6-speed manual.

andre1969 said:

I think there was one year, maybe '76, that Pontiac offered a 5-speed with the 400 on the LeMans. I remember some reviewer saying it was the closest thing to a GTO you could get that year. Hopefully, that 5-speed was a beefier unit!

I was wrong. I think I found the source of my confusion, right in the 1976 Pontiac full line brochure. It states:

"There's an impressive list of available gear to order from.

Order a 400 V-8. Or the new fully synchronized 5-speed manual transmission. Notice how your reasons for owning a LeMans Sport Coupe keep getting stronger?

But don't decide yet. Not until you get acquainted with our 455 4-bbl. It's acquired quite a following in recent years."

So, that's how they get you...through creative writing, and hoping the reader doesn't pay close enough attention. According to Wikipedia, the 5-speed was only offered with the Olds 260 V-8 in the LeMans range. And IIRC, 1976 was the only year the LeMans offered the 260.

I wonder how many LeManses even had a 400 or 455 in '76? My guess is that other than wagons and police cars, very few. Although years ago, I remember seeing a blue '76 LeMans coupe for sale at one of the Carlisle PA swap meets, and it had a 400. That was a couple years before I got my '76 Grand LeMans, so probably back around 2002 or so. I think the 400 was actually standard in the wagon, but I could be wrong. Interestingly, Pontiac dropped the 455 from the LeMans range in '75, although the Grand Am still offered it. However, for whatever reason, they offered it again in the LeMans for '76, before dropping the engine entirely.

sda

andre1969 said:

omarman said:

If Pontiac found a way to hook up a 5 speed to their 400 V8 for 1976 then it must have been embarrassing to the Chevy division with their 350 small block and only 4 forward gears. The Corvette was stuck with the Nash 4+3 for a long time before finally getting a 6-speed manual.

andre1969 said:

I think there was one year, maybe '76, that Pontiac offered a 5-speed with the 400 on the LeMans. I remember some reviewer saying it was the closest thing to a GTO you could get that year. Hopefully, that 5-speed was a beefier unit!

I was wrong. I think I found the source of my confusion, right in the 1976 Pontiac full line brochure. It states:

"There's an impressive list of available gear to order from.

Order a 400 V-8. Or the new fully synchronized 5-speed manual transmission. Notice how your reasons for owning a LeMans Sport Coupe keep getting stronger?

But don't decide yet. Not until you get acquainted with our 455 4-bbl. It's acquired quite a following in recent years."

So, that's how they get you...through creative writing, and hoping the reader doesn't pay close enough attention. According to Wikipedia, the 5-speed was only offered with the Olds 260 V-8 in the LeMans range. And IIRC, 1976 was the only year the LeMans offered the 260.

I wonder how many LeManses even had a 400 or 455 in '76? My guess is that other than wagons and police cars, very few. Although years ago, I remember seeing a blue '76 LeMans coupe for sale at one of the Carlisle PA swap meets, and it had a 400. That was a couple years before I got my '76 Grand LeMans, so probably back around 2002 or so. I think the 400 was actually standard in the wagon, but I could be wrong. Interestingly, Pontiac dropped the 455 from the LeMans range in '75, although the Grand Am still offered it. However, for whatever reason, they offered it again in the LeMans for '76, before dropping the engine entirely.

The 260 Olds was a smooth and quiet engine but weak. I remember driving a 75 Omega hatchback before I bought the Sunbird and was really surprised it was so sluggish. It wasn't that great on gas either. The Omega didn't have a/c which is something I was wanting. Can't imagine how weak it would be in the larger Cutlass or LeMans. The a/c in the Sunbird was GM cold, but it put a noticeable drag on power when it was on, and it was the V6.

toomanyfumes

I've posted before about my '76 Cutlass Supreme with the 260 V-8. As you mentioned, it was smooth and quiet, but really a dog. A friend at the time had a similar Malibu with the 250 six, and it felt just as quick. I thought the mileage wasn't too bad though, definitely better than the 350.

uplanderguy

Similarly, after not liking the sounds my parents' '80 Monte Carlo V6 made for a car like that, I searched for a V8 in my new '81 Monte. I bought one with the 4.4 liter (267) V8. While it sounded like a V8, and was smooth, it was slow.

andre1969

I know I've brought this up before, so sorry for the repeat...but CR tested a '77 Cutlass Supreme with the 260 V-8, and got 0-60 in around 21.6 seconds. I always thought it was an unfair test, because the other cars were an Impala (or Caprice?) with a 305, an LTD-II with a 302, and a Fury (or Monaco? same difference by that time) with a 318. The other three had 0-60 times in the 13 second range.

The most common engine in the Cutlass Supreme that year was the Olds 350-4bbl, which put out a fairly healthy (for the era) 170 hp. A 403 with 185 hp was the top option. However, the Cutlass didn't offer anything to bridge the gap between the 260 and the 350, so there was no way to equip one for a fair fight in this test. For comparison, the 318-2bbl and 305-2bbl both had 145 hp in 1977. The 302, according to my auto encyclopedia, only had 130 hp that year...but still probably had torque comparable to the 305 or 318.

I wonder why CR didn't just get a Malibu with the 305-2-bbl for this test, which would have made it comparable to the Impala.

As for a 260 vs a Chevy 250 6-cyl, both usually had the same hp, around 100-110, depending on the year. From what I could find on Wikipedia, the 250 had 190 ft-lb of torque, while the 260 had 205 ft-lb. I'm sure the 250 was lighter, though. So, put all those factors together, and I imagine performance was comparable.

One of my friends had an '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260. By that time I think it was down to 100 hp. I don't remember it being too bad at the time, but my friend looks back on it as the low point in his automotive history. He started with a '76 Cordoba with a 360, then a '78 Newport with a 400, then the Olds 260, and followed that up with three Panthers: a '95, '04, and '09. So I guess looking at it from that perspective, it was pretty lame.

uplanderguy

I'm thinking my 267 was either 115 or 120 hp. and the Chevy V6 (229) was either 110 or 115.