Every once in a while, I'll just be smitten with an eBay car. I'm smitten with this Pontiac!
Usually, that happens when they look bone-stock even up-close, and it's somewhat of an unusual model.
andre, truth be told, I typically don't like the added length of the longer wheelbase, and you really notice it when you compare a Catalina to an Executive as they have quite-similar exterior trim, and you're right, it seems to be right around the rear wheel opening. I tend to really notice it on four-door pillared sedans, as until '68 there wasn't a Bonneville in that body style on the longer wheelbase. I didn't know there was added length in addition to the wheelbase. I'd prefer a Ventura, but that said, the Executive seems rare, overall, in Pontiac-land. The Ventura is pretty rare too in '66 I think but I'm guessing the Executive may be more rare. I know the Ventura was just an option on the Catalina--in '66, it gave you the Executive interior plus extra exterior moldings up to Executive-level, and in '66 only it gave you fender skirts. It also gave you the block letters on the front fender, which I like better than the huge script "Catalina" nameplate there. I know I'm digressing, but the Ventura and the 2+2 had "PONTIAC" written on the dash above the glove box. Apparently Pontiac didn't expect enough volume with either to make their own identification panels there.
I like the '65 instrument panel better than the '66, as I like the round center instruments as opposed to square. But the '65's, except Grand Prix and Bonneville, all were black below the pad and I see in '66 this area was color-keyed (good!). I do think there's something a bit odd or square about the panel around the speedometer. All that said, I could very much enjoy owning this Pontiac.
I'll be following to see what this car ends up bringing.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Oops, reading comprehension fail. In this case, I wonder if it would be fine to have the non-matching panel re-done to match the rest - the remainder of the car is in such amazing condition, that would really finish it off. I know paint matching tech has improved over the years. Maybe not a great move from a ROI standpoint, but I think I might do it to have the car "just right".
Huh. I like it, too, but not for very much money. Maybe I'm being picky on the condition, and I certainly don't know the market on such cars, but with some of the problems I'm seeing (the aforementioned fender, what looks to be some rust starting in a couple of places, the carpet I'd want to replace), I just can't come to terms with a 5-figure pricetag. I'm feeling like $8500.
'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 market on full-size four-door hardtops of that era isn't great, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want a GTO. I like originality and I'll take some patina too...they're only original once. I'll be 57 in a couple months, but that's about as good a metallic match as I remember cars getting 'back in the day' when there was a fender bender. Other than original condition, I really like that it's the Executive model, largely forgotten by Pontiac buyers even back then.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I don't think the market for 4-door hardtops will ever be that great. In general, they give you most of the disadvantages of a convertible (squeaks, rattles, leaks, shaking, etc), and a 4-door sedan (less popular, often less stylish, lower value, etc).
However, the one 4-door hardtop I had, a '69 Bonneville, felt pretty solid. The doors had a nice, solid feel and sound when you closed them, regardless of whether the windows were up or down. And I don't remember seeing any flex to the body while driving, or when a door got slammed. The only area where that car seemed cheap was the trunk lid. It felt a bit thin, and sounded tinny when you closed it. Now that I think about it, my '67 Catalina convertible's trunk lid is similar, in that regard.
Personally, I've always been a fan of 4-door hardtops. But it's probably best to find the nicest one you can, because it's going to cost a fortune to restore one with needs...especially if it's something that's not so common. If that thing was a '66 GTO, you could probably go online and order all the interior parts for it, and they'd be in stock. But with an Executive, especially a 4-door hardtop, you might have to have it custom-ordered, and that's going to get expensive.
Oh, THAT particular car looks great to me, except for the details like the rust coming out in the lower parts and that mis-matched fender. I just meant that in general, 4-door hardtops tend to be less coveted, harder to restore, so it's best to get a really nice one. I'd be perfectly happy with that '66 Executive, although not at $12,500.
I'll be interested in seeing what it goes for. I mean really, how many similar vehicles out there have sold in the past few years to make any kind of reasonable comparison to? I don't know how high I'd go. It's too bad there are no shots of the underneath of the car though. It's at $7,100 right now but hasn't hit reserve. I'd pay $7,100 for it if it is as mechanically ready-to-go as the seller says. Good pics sell cars and it appears he hasn't tried to hide anything, on top of the car, anyway.
A widow of a friend from my hometown put their '65 Studebaker Commander two-door sedan on eBay last week. It was sold new in our hometown by my dealer friend and has been in the area its whole life. It had an amateur restoration done by the owner's son, but the family hadn't had luck trying to sell it in the area for a couple years. It was sold on eBay with an asking price or best offer, within twelve hours. In fact, I found out about it by chatter on the Studebaker Drivers' Club site. Good pics, honest description, and reasonable price will sell them quickly every time I think.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My estimate of $12,500 was for show quality. The more I examine these photos the less I think of the car as a #1 automobile. More like a low #2. And I haven't looked underneath. The underside of a car tells us the most.
Oh, I knew it wasn't a #1 before even clicking on the link. True #1 cars are mythical beasts, and almost never spotted in the wild. Most of what people try to push off as #1 are nice #2 cars, or even a #3.
And I'd second Uplanderguy. If I was in the market, I'd pay $7100 for it. Maybe even $7200. My biggest beef with the car is actually a nitpick...I'd want power windows in something that big. My '67 Catalina has something like 62.5" of shoulder room up front, so I imagine that '66 would be close. My car has crank windows, but the passenger side is too far away to reach easily. My '57 DeSoto is probably almost as wide inside, and has crank windows. The only reason I used to be able to reach them in the past, when I drove the car, was that it didn't have seat belts, so it was easy to just slide over and reach them!
The crank windows on the convertible didn't used to bother me, when the top motor didn't work. I had to get out of the car to put it down by hand, anyway, so while I was out of the car, I'd just reach in and put down the rest of the windows. And, same with getting the top back up, and putting up the windows. But, ever since I got the top fixed, the crank windows have annoyed me a bit.
Andre, your story reminds me of one. My first college roommate was a school friend from home who was a year ahead of me. His car was his parents' former '68 Bonneville Brougham 4-door hardtop (this is in '75-76). It was silver with a black vinyl top but he had the car painted a navy blue which was nice. I remember the first time he picked me up for a ride in it. I couldn't stop playing with the power windows, much to his chagrin! I remember them going up and down much faster than later power windows in cars. After a year as college roommates we couldn't stand each other. Lesson learned!
The black nylon Brougham interior looked great, but I remember thinking the seatbacks felt thinly padded for such a plush car. They were those bucket-back seats which were somewhat hard. But that interior looked new all those years later.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
As I recall, the power windows in my '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop went up and down pretty quick. Mine was just a regular Bonneville, with a vinyl interior, but it was still pretty nice. The only cheap part I remember was on the dashboard, in the fake woodgrain on the right, over top of the glove box, where it said "Bonneville". I sprayed something on it to clean it, can't remember what, but it rubbed the "Bonneville" letters right off!
That Bonneville's seats seemed pretty thick, almost over-stuffed. In contrast, my '67 Catalina's seats seem a bit thin in spots, but I think that's because they're just getting old.
I miss that Bonneville sometimes. I only paid $400 for it, back when I was still in college, but had to cut it loose at what was probably the lowest point in my life, financially, just weeks before I took a second job delivering pizzas, and a couple months before I started divorce proceedings. Remember that scene from "Gone with the Wind", where Scarlett O'Hara digs a scrawny radish out of the ground and says "As God as my witness, I'll never go hungry again!" Well, that was about where I was, when I got rid of that car.
Best weather of the year, so far. Put the battery charger on the Mustang for a few hours later this afternoon. It stayed solid red the whole time, but I decided to start it anyway after about 4 hours. No problem, started and idles great. Car shows are starting early. First local one is next week. Won't be putting the insurance back on that soon. At some point, this car is going to be worth some money(10-15 years?), but not sure I want to hang onto it that long. It's 24 years old and just turned 38k miles. Looks showroom new but does have some expensive issues, A/C doesn't work and rear seal has a small leak. I have 2 kids and don't want to decide which one would get it, although only one of them ever asked to drive it. Neither has an indoor place to store it. Last emissions test this year in a few months, so I think that would be a good selling point if it passes.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I brought this car to a friend's attention a state over--he has the wherewithal and space and sent the seller an eBay message several days ago, asking for undercarriage photos. The seller said he would....but never did. I'll never understand something like that. It's lazy.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Hi all- Havent been around in awhile. Still looks like the same core bunch thats been here for years. Andre and his love for full size Pontiacs remains intact! Hope everyone is well!
Hi all- Havent been around in awhile. Still looks like the same core bunch thats been here for years. Andre and his love for full size Pontiacs remains intact! Hope everyone is well!
Yeah, I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. And neither is my '67 Catalina. Actually, it can't. My '79 Chrysler is blocking it in, and has no battery in it!
Maybe some unscrupulous owner of a similar-year 6-cylinder plain-jane Chevelle convertible will buy it for the tags and magically double the value of his car once he drops in a V-8.
That is really the only value I see in something this bad.
IIRC, that 2002 Intrepid ES should have a 3.5 V-6, not a 3.2. I think the 3.2 was '98-01 only. But yeah, something's going on with those leather seats, especially for only 60,000 miles. They almost look like they got wet a few times too many. FWIW, the leather seats in my 2000 Park Ave, with about 104,000 miles, don't look that bad...well, other than the rip on the driver's seat!
IIRC, that 2002 Intrepid ES should have a 3.5 V-6, not a 3.2. I think the 3.2 was '98-01 only. But yeah, something's going on with those leather seats, especially for only 60,000 miles. They almost look like they got wet a few times too many. FWIW, the leather seats in my 2000 Park Ave, with about 104,000 miles, don't look that bad...well, other than the rip on the driver's seat!
Andre, do you like your Park Ave? Yours is the Ultra with the supercharged 3.8? Always liked that car, though don't have first hand experience with one. I did have an 01 Aurora 4.0. I believe it shared the same platform.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
Andre, do you like your Park Ave? Yours is the Ultra with the supercharged 3.8? Always liked that car, though don't have first hand experience with one. I did have an 01 Aurora 4.0. I believe it shared the same platform.
Yeah, I like it, although it is starting to show its age. It only has about 104,000 miles, but it's 15 1/2 years old. It's a roomy, comfy car, fairly quiet, quick when it needs to be, and gets good highway mileage. In short-trip local driving it's a bit of a guzzler. I don't think it's the best handler in the world...about the best way to describe it is that GM tried to make it feel bigger than it really is. Fit and finish isn't the greatest, but not horrible.
As for trouble spots, I've had to replace some swaybar links in the suspension, a brake caliper or two, and something in the front...axle, bearing hub, or something like that? Also a few emissions issues (MAF sensor?), as well as some pulleys and tensioners. It also has an intermittent short somewhere, where it will momentarily lose the memory for the trip odometer/computer functions and the clock, and the gas gauge needle will go all the way around and end up on the wrong end of the needle. Imidazol97 taught me a trick, where you can take some magnets and coax the needle back around, but the last time it did it, I just left it. Oh, and some brake lines rusted out.
A lot of this stuff is just old age related though, and not any real fault of GM. The car only had 56,372 miles on it when I bought it, but it was 10 years old. I bought it to replace my 2000 Intrepid, which I had bought new, but got totaled in a parking lot hit-and run.
How did you like your Aurora? After my Intrepid got totaled, I initially wanted to try seeking out a 2000-2005 era Bonneville, but also did a search on Auroras. I really like the '95-99 Aurora, but didn't want something quite *that* old for a daily driver. Plus I heard the newer ones were better. I never got to try out an Aurora in person though, because I happened to find the Park Ave at the local Cadillac dealer, went out to look at it, and before I knew it, I was filling out the paperwork!
Here's a pic I took of it, at the dealer, the weekend I bought it back in December 2009:
I like the looks of those big Buicks. Very nice design, both this one and the generation before it.
Andre , Hard to believe you've had the Buick 6 years! I bought the Aurora in 2003. Fully loaded except nav. Thought it drove well, confident, heavy feeling but not nimble. The north star sounded great thou you really had to punch it for it to feel alive. It was surprisingly troublesome but didn't leave me stranded. Thankfully an extended warranty covered most of the repairs. Put about 40k on it. I sold it after dad gave me his 95 Ciera. I thought I would use the Ciera as my daily driver to work and back, and we would use the wife's Odyssey for family travel. Didn't really have room for 3 cars. I put almost 30k relatively trouble free miles on the Ciera. The ac quit, too expensive to fix, it was time to move on.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
andre, I see your car was traded in at a Buick dealership. I always like that kind of thing when looking at used cars, although the last two used cars I've bought I bought on eBay and did well on price.
I always liked that sort-of bright green they offered on those PA's one of the years like yours. They're rarely seen today.
I've heard that LeSabres of that general era are pretty bulletproof, but I don't know why I don't hear that about PA's.
Speaking of sda's Ciera needing A/C repair...I think A/C is better now than it was ten or fifteen years ago. My Cavalier made a brief funny noise while still under warranty when I'd turn the A/C on. Dealer checked it out and found nothing. At 59K miles it crapped out. Dealer fixed for free since I had brought it in under warranty for an A/C issue...no arguing. It never gave me any other trouble in the 113K miles I put on it. Still looked like new too but I wanted a new car.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Originally, it was a Cadillac-only dealership, Capitol Cadillac, about 6 miles from my house. I remember as a kid, they would stick their logo above the Cadillac script, in the same cursive font, so it would almost look like it said "Capitol Cadillac" right from the factory. In later years, they added Buick, GMC, Pontiac, Hummer, and Saab, although now I guess now that would just leave them with Cadillac/Buick/GMC. They used to put on a classic Cadillac show in the fall...wonder if they've expanded it to other GM brands nowadays?
Every once in awhile I see a Lucerne pop up on their website and get kind of tempted to go look at it, but then talk myself out of it. I don't think the V-6 models, either the 3.8 or 3.9, would be fast enough, in relation to what I've gotten used to. And I worry about maintenance on the Northstar V-8 as it ages, and especially buying one as a used car. Plus, I don't think it's any quicker than my Park Ave, still requires premium fuel, and has lower fuel economy, so I don't really think of it as that much of a step up.
As for reliability, I think the Park Ave was rated pretty high. Apparently, the supercharged models don't have the intake problems that the non-supercharged 3.8's had, because they were beefed up. But, you run the risk of the supercharger failing, I guess. Compared to a LeSabre, I don't know that a Park Ave would really have that much more complexity to it. By that time, I'd imagine they both had power everything. A Park Ave would be more likely to have a power sunroof, but that's probably about it. I guess the LeSabre became famous for its reliability simply because they were a lot more common?
GM also got a bit out of phase with redesigning these cars. The Park Ave was redesigned for 1991, when it dropped the Electra name, and was a pretty big deal at the time. The LeSabre was given a similar treatment for 1992. But then the Park Ave was redone for 1997, and while it was bigger, I'm not so sure it was that much of an improvement. It was roomier, but it seemed a bit more plasticky. And the '91-96 just seems a bit more high-quality. The, the LeSabre was redone for 2000, and while it might have gotten a few more plastic bits here and there, it still seemed like an improvement over the previous model, enough that it may have taken some sales from the Park Ave.
Something I just thought of...they never did put a supercharged 3.8 in the LeSabre, did they? I know the Bonneville, 88, and Park Ave got it. And some of the W-body cars. But I don't think the LeSabre did.
My latest barn finds. Sorry for the poor photos but it was dark and nasty in there, with treacherous levels of debris that one had to walk on. The cars were crammed together so couldn't get any distance shots. It's a shame they were all left to deteriorate to this state:
If you'd like to comment, don't use the "quote" feature so that we don't repeat all these photos!
I don't know what that car in the 4th picture is, but it has great art-deco styling.
I can't identify that 4th one either. Something about it seems GM-ish to me, but I don't know for sure. I imagine those circles on the sides of the hood ventilation are a pretty solid clue, make it look Buick-ish, but Buick didn't go with those until 1949.
I would guess it's a 1935-37 something-or-other. I've searched a bunch of pics, but I'm stumped!
Oh, that's a tricky one. What it is is a 1936 Ford Cabriolet. Back in the day, you could order custom pieces from cataloges---so that grille is the stock grille with those wrap around pieces, hood ornament, top fender parking lights, etc, are all pre-war "hot rod" add-ons. Also kinda cool to find these period pieces. Still the car is a disaster. Value? All done, fully restored to the nines, maybe $75K. Cost to restore? 75K !
The others are a '27 Model T, a ??? Chevy truck, a '60 T-Bird, a '30 Ford Model A pickup, and the yellow one is a '54 Ford Crestliner convertible, V8 w/ overdrive.
Originally, it was a Cadillac-only dealership, Capitol Cadillac, about 6 miles from my house. I remember as a kid, they would stick their logo above the Cadillac script, in the same cursive font, so it would almost look like it said "Capitol Cadillac" right from the factory. In later years, they added Buick, GMC, Pontiac, Hummer, and Saab, although now I guess now that would just leave them with Cadillac/Buick/GMC. They used to put on a classic Cadillac show in the fall...wonder if they've expanded it to other GM brands nowadays?
Every once in awhile I see a Lucerne pop up on their website and get kind of tempted to go look at it, but then talk myself out of it. I don't think the V-6 models, either the 3.8 or 3.9, would be fast enough, in relation to what I've gotten used to. And I worry about maintenance on the Northstar V-8 as it ages, and especially buying one as a used car. Plus, I don't think it's any quicker than my Park Ave, still requires premium fuel, and has lower fuel economy, so I don't really think of it as that much of a step up.
As for reliability, I think the Park Ave was rated pretty high. Apparently, the supercharged models don't have the intake problems that the non-supercharged 3.8's had, because they were beefed up. But, you run the risk of the supercharger failing, I guess. Compared to a LeSabre, I don't know that a Park Ave would really have that much more complexity to it. By that time, I'd imagine they both had power everything. A Park Ave would be more likely to have a power sunroof, but that's probably about it. I guess the LeSabre became famous for its reliability simply because they were a lot more common?
GM also got a bit out of phase with redesigning these cars. The Park Ave was redesigned for 1991, when it dropped the Electra name, and was a pretty big deal at the time. The LeSabre was given a similar treatment for 1992. But then the Park Ave was redone for 1997, and while it was bigger, I'm not so sure it was that much of an improvement. It was roomier, but it seemed a bit more plasticky. And the '91-96 just seems a bit more high-quality. The, the LeSabre was redone for 2000, and while it might have gotten a few more plastic bits here and there, it still seemed like an improvement over the previous model, enough that it may have taken some sales from the Park Ave.
Something I just thought of...they never did put a supercharged 3.8 in the LeSabre, did they? I know the Bonneville, 88, and Park Ave got it. And some of the W body cars. But I don't think the LeSabre did.
I don't know about other Northstar applications, but the smaller 4.0 version used by Olds was revised somewhat in 2001 and no longer required premium gas. Regular gas specified, no change in hp, 250. From what I recall it would run 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. I would get around 21 mpg in my everyday driving and 27 on the road. I don't know how the later model Northstars have held up but earlier versions not so good. Seems like it was a 100-130k engine. Stretched head bolts and weakened aluminum block mounting points created a less than practical rebuild and created early and expensive junk. My parent's 98 Aurora, gently driven, I doubt mom ever accelerated quickly, she is so conservative, had blown head gaskets at 103k. They gave it to my sister for her sons to drive. They had a used engine installed and are still driving it.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
The 36 Ford with all of the prewar Pep Boys addons is pretty cool - I thought I saw a Ford oval there. The 54 could have potential too - but all of these look like cars to just clean up and enjoy as Sunday drivers, rather than actually restore. It's the thing to do these days, and it does make sense in many ways.
From andre's post #22,399, "...GM also got a bit out of phase with redesigning these cars. The Park Ave was redesigned for 1991, when it dropped the Electra name, and was a pretty big deal at the time. The LeSabre was given a similar treatment for 1992. But then the Park Ave was redone for 1997, and while it was bigger, I'm not so sure it was that much of an improvement. It was roomier, but it seemed a bit more plasticky. And the '91-96 just seems a bit more high-quality. The, the LeSabre was redone for 2000, and while it might have gotten a few more plastic bits here and there, it still seemed like an improvement over the previous model, enough that it may have taken some sales from the Park Ave..."
The redesigned 1997 Park Avenues had much stiffer bodies than the 1991-1996s (these looked all-new and larger than the 1985-1990s, but they were actually built on GM's first large-body FWD platform). The 2000 LeSabre shared the '97 PA platform, albeit modified a little, resulting in a little less weight, after adjusting for size differences. The '97 PA and last generation Bonnevilles shared their platforms with the Aurora. Although I'm not certain, I think the first generation Aurora platform was derived from the '92 Cadillac STS's platform.
By the time GM was designing the '92 STS and first generation Aurora, which shared its platform with the last generation Riviera and the last generation Bonneville, they incorporated what the Germans had known all along; that making the body stiffer was an important factor in tuning the suspension for optimal ride/handling dynamics. In other words, you could get a supple ride and good handling rather than compromising one for the other. However, while the Germans were able to accomplish the desired stiffness while keeping weight within desired limits, the Aurora and Riv were heavy, even when adjusted for their size. However, even when factoring in the added weight, the '97 PA was significantly improved overall over the '96, in my opinion.
The new Cadillacs prove that GM has learned how to design light, yet stiff bodies very well. They're every bit as good, and maybe a little better, than Audi, BMW and Mercedes in this respect.
Regarding the supercharger on your PA, have you ever had it serviced? I've heard that changing the fluid (or something of that sort) prolongs its life. Does the Owners Manual have a service interval for the supercharger?
yes it is pretty cool indeed. I'm afraid though that these cars are beyond "clean up", although it would be interesting to spend 3-4 days in a HAZMAT suit and see how far you could bring some of them back.
Personally, I'd built the '36 cabriolet into a ratrod, ditto with the Model A Ford pickup and just let the rest of the cars go for whatever I could get for them as is. The '54 Ford is a dying ember in the collector car world, and a 60 T-Bird is just another '60 T-Bird. I suppose you could take the sheet metal off the Model T and make yourself a T-bucket hotrod. They sell complete modern frames for As and Ts so you can just plop your restored body on one of those and have something that can actually steer, stop and handle.
The 36 Ford with all of the prewar Pep Boys addons is pretty cool - I thought I saw a Ford oval there. The 54 could have potential too - but all of these look like cars to just clean up and enjoy as Sunday drivers, rather than actually restore. It's the thing to do these days, and it does make sense in many ways.
Is the 36 Ford a cabrio, roadster, phaeton, or convertible sedan? I really like the convertible sedan, elegant car. The 2 door models still must have tons of demand in the rodding community, so I am sure it will bring decent money even if it's a heap. It'd be cool to see the accessories preserved.
I think a 54 Ford convertible in that pale yellow color would be a pretty car. Factory continental kit? I don't find it offensive on one of those. The A and T are a hard sell, but someone can do something with them, and even mint original squarebirds aren't worth a lot, but someone could enjoy it for the right money . I assume these are "dry" California cars.
yeah they are generally rust-free, but they are real disasters. You could just go buy a nice squarebird for 1/3rd the price of restoring what is a fairly common car. You'd have to be kind of crazy to do it.
The '36 is a cabriolet. They also made roadsters (the most desirable), club cabriolets (trunk instead of rumble seat, pretty rare) phaetons, and convertible sedans (4 door convertibles).
Yeah, that's the problem. At today's restoration costs, trying to bring that squarebird back to life could be just a huge waste of money. Probably only good as an organ donor after sitting that long.
A really nice driver quality squarebird HT might be a 10-12K (?) car today, you can't do much good work for that anymore. Sounds like restoring a fintail, put in 50K to have a 20K car.
If the finishes are good, just filthy, I bet a grand or so spent with a sympathetic detailer could make it livable.
I don't think a detailer would touch it because of all the rodent excrement. Decidedly unhealthy. Tires are shot, seats pulled out, carpeting rotted, stained door panels and dash, tires shot, hasn't run in at least 30 years. I don't mean to be discouraging, but.......you know, sometimes an old car just has to die.
Exactly. Many people don't realize that the best thing you can do with some old cars is to use them as organ donors. Quite a few of these old wrecks are worth far more as parts than as a whole car!
Comments
Usually, that happens when they look bone-stock even up-close, and it's somewhat of an unusual model.
andre, truth be told, I typically don't like the added length of the longer wheelbase, and you really notice it when you compare a Catalina to an Executive as they have quite-similar exterior trim, and you're right, it seems to be right around the rear wheel opening. I tend to really notice it on four-door pillared sedans, as until '68 there wasn't a Bonneville in that body style on the longer wheelbase. I didn't know there was added length in addition to the wheelbase. I'd prefer a Ventura, but that said, the Executive seems rare, overall, in Pontiac-land. The Ventura is pretty rare too in '66 I think but I'm guessing the Executive may be more rare. I know the Ventura was just an option on the Catalina--in '66, it gave you the Executive interior plus extra exterior moldings up to Executive-level, and in '66 only it gave you fender skirts. It also gave you the block letters on the front fender, which I like better than the huge script "Catalina" nameplate there. I know I'm digressing, but the Ventura and the 2+2 had "PONTIAC" written on the dash above the glove box. Apparently Pontiac didn't expect enough volume with either to make their own identification panels there.
I like the '65 instrument panel better than the '66, as I like the round center instruments as opposed to square. But the '65's, except Grand Prix and Bonneville, all were black below the pad and I see in '66 this area was color-keyed (good!). I do think there's something a bit odd or square about the panel around the speedometer. All that said, I could very much enjoy owning this Pontiac.
I'll be following to see what this car ends up bringing.
'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
However, the one 4-door hardtop I had, a '69 Bonneville, felt pretty solid. The doors had a nice, solid feel and sound when you closed them, regardless of whether the windows were up or down. And I don't remember seeing any flex to the body while driving, or when a door got slammed. The only area where that car seemed cheap was the trunk lid. It felt a bit thin, and sounded tinny when you closed it. Now that I think about it, my '67 Catalina convertible's trunk lid is similar, in that regard.
Personally, I've always been a fan of 4-door hardtops. But it's probably best to find the nicest one you can, because it's going to cost a fortune to restore one with needs...especially if it's something that's not so common. If that thing was a '66 GTO, you could probably go online and order all the interior parts for it, and they'd be in stock. But with an Executive, especially a 4-door hardtop, you might have to have it custom-ordered, and that's going to get expensive.
Unless I missed something (definitely possible), that carpeting looks good to me.
A widow of a friend from my hometown put their '65 Studebaker Commander two-door sedan on eBay last week. It was sold new in our hometown by my dealer friend and has been in the area its whole life. It had an amateur restoration done by the owner's son, but the family hadn't had luck trying to sell it in the area for a couple years. It was sold on eBay with an asking price or best offer, within twelve hours. In fact, I found out about it by chatter on the Studebaker Drivers' Club site. Good pics, honest description, and reasonable price will sell them quickly every time I think.
'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
And I'd second Uplanderguy. If I was in the market, I'd pay $7100 for it. Maybe even $7200.
The crank windows on the convertible didn't used to bother me, when the top motor didn't work. I had to get out of the car to put it down by hand, anyway, so while I was out of the car, I'd just reach in and put down the rest of the windows. And, same with getting the top back up, and putting up the windows. But, ever since I got the top fixed, the crank windows have annoyed me a bit.
The black nylon Brougham interior looked great, but I remember thinking the seatbacks felt thinly padded for such a plush car. They were those bucket-back seats which were somewhat hard. But that interior looked new all those years later.
That Bonneville's seats seemed pretty thick, almost over-stuffed. In contrast, my '67 Catalina's seats seem a bit thin in spots, but I think that's because they're just getting old.
I miss that Bonneville sometimes. I only paid $400 for it, back when I was still in college, but had to cut it loose at what was probably the lowest point in my life, financially, just weeks before I took a second job delivering pizzas, and a couple months before I started divorce proceedings. Remember that scene from "Gone with the Wind", where Scarlett O'Hara digs a scrawny radish out of the ground and says "As God as my witness, I'll never go hungry again!" Well, that was about where I was, when I got rid of that car.
Put the battery charger on the Mustang for a few hours later this afternoon.
It stayed solid red the whole time, but I decided to start it anyway after about 4 hours.
No problem, started and idles great.
Car shows are starting early. First local one is next week.
Won't be putting the insurance back on that soon.
At some point, this car is going to be worth some money(10-15 years?), but not sure I want to hang onto it that long.
It's 24 years old and just turned 38k miles.
Looks showroom new but does have some expensive issues, A/C doesn't work and rear seal has a small leak.
I have 2 kids and don't want to decide which one would get it, although only one of them ever asked to drive it.
Neither has an indoor place to store it.
Last emissions test this year in a few months, so I think that would be a good selling point if it passes.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pontiac-Other-Executive-/400899518185?forcerrptr=true&hash=item5d57792ee9&item=400899518185
I brought this car to a friend's attention a state over--he has the wherewithal and space and sent the seller an eBay message several days ago, asking for undercarriage photos. The seller said he would....but never did. I'll never understand something like that. It's lazy.
A/C needs charge
http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4991218878.html Buy the truck for the price of the transmission. Nasty looking damage on the hood
http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4991281675.html Decent looking full sizer
http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4948207710.html "Spacious"
http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4991175793.html 60K. Looks clean except that the leather has aged lousy
http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4980731134.html Kia's good old days
http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4991147152.html Salvage title but looks nice for the money.
http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4991102772.html why, why, why is it an auto?
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Maxima might be a stock photo - for sale on Lawn Guyland, Utah phone number, salvage title, nonworking AC - I don't know how nice it really is.
http://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/33804/dodge/x/classic-car-value#latest
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
Well I would hope it would be good on gas in that case
http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/cto/4992152211.html
Who wants to take this one on!
That is really the only value I see in something this bad.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
As for trouble spots, I've had to replace some swaybar links in the suspension, a brake caliper or two, and something in the front...axle, bearing hub, or something like that? Also a few emissions issues (MAF sensor?), as well as some pulleys and tensioners. It also has an intermittent short somewhere, where it will momentarily lose the memory for the trip odometer/computer functions and the clock, and the gas gauge needle will go all the way around and end up on the wrong end of the needle. Imidazol97 taught me a trick, where you can take some magnets and coax the needle back around, but the last time it did it, I just left it. Oh, and some brake lines rusted out.
A lot of this stuff is just old age related though, and not any real fault of GM. The car only had 56,372 miles on it when I bought it, but it was 10 years old. I bought it to replace my 2000 Intrepid, which I had bought new, but got totaled in a parking lot hit-and run.
How did you like your Aurora? After my Intrepid got totaled, I initially wanted to try seeking out a 2000-2005 era Bonneville, but also did a search on Auroras. I really like the '95-99 Aurora, but didn't want something quite *that* old for a daily driver. Plus I heard the newer ones were better. I never got to try out an Aurora in person though, because I happened to find the Park Ave at the local Cadillac dealer, went out to look at it, and before I knew it, I was filling out the paperwork!
Here's a pic I took of it, at the dealer, the weekend I bought it back in December 2009:
Alas, it doesn't look that nice now!
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Hard to believe you've had the Buick 6 years! I bought the Aurora in 2003. Fully loaded except nav. Thought it drove well, confident, heavy feeling but not nimble. The north star sounded great thou you really had to punch it for it to feel alive. It was surprisingly troublesome but didn't leave me stranded. Thankfully an extended warranty covered most of the repairs. Put about 40k on it. I sold it after dad gave me his 95 Ciera. I thought I would use the Ciera as my daily driver to work and back, and we would use the wife's Odyssey for family travel. Didn't really have room for 3 cars. I put almost 30k relatively trouble free miles on the Ciera. The ac quit, too expensive to fix, it was time to move on.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
I always liked that sort-of bright green they offered on those PA's one of the years like yours. They're rarely seen today.
I've heard that LeSabres of that general era are pretty bulletproof, but I don't know why I don't hear that about PA's.
Speaking of sda's Ciera needing A/C repair...I think A/C is better now than it was ten or fifteen years ago. My Cavalier made a brief funny noise while still under warranty when I'd turn the A/C on. Dealer checked it out and found nothing. At 59K miles it crapped out. Dealer fixed for free since I had brought it in under warranty for an A/C issue...no arguing. It never gave me any other trouble in the 113K miles I put on it. Still looked like new too but I wanted a new car.
Every once in awhile I see a Lucerne pop up on their website and get kind of tempted to go look at it, but then talk myself out of it. I don't think the V-6 models, either the 3.8 or 3.9, would be fast enough, in relation to what I've gotten used to. And I worry about maintenance on the Northstar V-8 as it ages, and especially buying one as a used car. Plus, I don't think it's any quicker than my Park Ave, still requires premium fuel, and has lower fuel economy, so I don't really think of it as that much of a step up.
As for reliability, I think the Park Ave was rated pretty high. Apparently, the supercharged models don't have the intake problems that the non-supercharged 3.8's had, because they were beefed up. But, you run the risk of the supercharger failing, I guess. Compared to a LeSabre, I don't know that a Park Ave would really have that much more complexity to it. By that time, I'd imagine they both had power everything. A Park Ave would be more likely to have a power sunroof, but that's probably about it. I guess the LeSabre became famous for its reliability simply because they were a lot more common?
GM also got a bit out of phase with redesigning these cars. The Park Ave was redesigned for 1991, when it dropped the Electra name, and was a pretty big deal at the time. The LeSabre was given a similar treatment for 1992. But then the Park Ave was redone for 1997, and while it was bigger, I'm not so sure it was that much of an improvement. It was roomier, but it seemed a bit more plasticky. And the '91-96 just seems a bit more high-quality. The, the LeSabre was redone for 2000, and while it might have gotten a few more plastic bits here and there, it still seemed like an improvement over the previous model, enough that it may have taken some sales from the Park Ave.
Something I just thought of...they never did put a supercharged 3.8 in the LeSabre, did they? I know the Bonneville, 88, and Park Ave got it. And some of the W-body cars. But I don't think the LeSabre did.
If you'd like to comment, don't use the "quote" feature so that we don't repeat all these photos!
I would guess it's a 1935-37 something-or-other. I've searched a bunch of pics, but I'm stumped!
The others are a '27 Model T, a ??? Chevy truck, a '60 T-Bird, a '30 Ford Model A pickup, and the yellow one is a '54 Ford Crestliner convertible, V8 w/ overdrive.
I don't know about other Northstar applications, but the smaller 4.0 version used by Olds was revised somewhat in 2001 and no longer required premium gas. Regular gas specified, no change in hp, 250. From what I recall it would run 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. I would get around 21 mpg in my everyday driving and 27 on the road. I don't know how the later model Northstars have held up but earlier versions not so good. Seems like it was a 100-130k engine. Stretched head bolts and weakened aluminum block mounting points created a less than practical rebuild and created early and expensive junk. My parent's 98 Aurora, gently driven, I doubt mom ever accelerated quickly, she is so conservative, had blown head gaskets at 103k. They gave it to my sister for her sons to drive. They had a used engine installed and are still driving it.
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The redesigned 1997 Park Avenues had much stiffer bodies than the 1991-1996s (these looked all-new and larger than the 1985-1990s, but they were actually built on GM's first large-body FWD platform). The 2000 LeSabre shared the '97 PA platform, albeit modified a little, resulting in a little less weight, after adjusting for size differences. The '97 PA and last generation Bonnevilles shared their platforms with the Aurora. Although I'm not certain, I think the first generation Aurora platform was derived from the '92 Cadillac STS's platform.
By the time GM was designing the '92 STS and first generation Aurora, which shared its platform with the last generation Riviera and the last generation Bonneville, they incorporated what the Germans had known all along; that making the body stiffer was an important factor in tuning the suspension for optimal ride/handling dynamics. In other words, you could get a supple ride and good handling rather than compromising one for the other. However, while the Germans were able to accomplish the desired stiffness while keeping weight within desired limits, the Aurora and Riv were heavy, even when adjusted for their size. However, even when factoring in the added weight, the '97 PA was significantly improved overall over the '96, in my opinion.
The new Cadillacs prove that GM has learned how to design light, yet stiff bodies very well. They're every bit as good, and maybe a little better, than Audi, BMW and Mercedes in this respect.
Regarding the supercharger on your PA, have you ever had it serviced? I've heard that changing the fluid (or something of that sort) prolongs its life. Does the Owners Manual have a service interval for the supercharger?
Personally, I'd built the '36 cabriolet into a ratrod, ditto with the Model A Ford pickup and just let the rest of the cars go for whatever I could get for them as is. The '54 Ford is a dying ember in the collector car world, and a 60 T-Bird is just another '60 T-Bird. I suppose you could take the sheet metal off the Model T and make yourself a T-bucket hotrod. They sell complete modern frames for As and Ts so you can just plop your restored body on one of those and have something that can actually steer, stop and handle.
I think a 54 Ford convertible in that pale yellow color would be a pretty car. Factory continental kit? I don't find it offensive on one of those. The A and T are a hard sell, but someone can do something with them, and even mint original squarebirds aren't worth a lot, but someone could enjoy it for the right money . I assume these are "dry" California cars.
The '36 is a cabriolet. They also made roadsters (the most desirable), club cabriolets (trunk instead of rumble seat, pretty rare) phaetons, and convertible sedans (4 door convertibles).
If the finishes are good, just filthy, I bet a grand or so spent with a sympathetic detailer could make it livable.