hahaha..... well, look at me, Mr. Naive. My mother owned a '79 Trans Am for most of my childhood, and that thing had one of those obnoxiously huge V8s in it (though I was never interested enough to find out exactly what it was). I think that car may have hit 14 on highway driving.... but oh man that thing could get a move on when she wanted it to go..... :surprise:
30 sounded quite excessive to me for a 6...
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 you were REALLY intent on hyper-miling it, you might, under optimal circumstances, get to 30 mpg once in a blue moon. For instance, if you went on a long trip and part of that trip took you across a flat desert in the springtime, and you kept it around the 55-60 mark, no a/c, etc. My grandparents actually got 29 mpg out of their '85 LeSabre on one stretch of a cross-country trip in those conditions. The car was EPA-rated around 17/24. Best I could ever get out of it was around 22 though.
However, that LeSabre had an overdrive tranny and a 2.73 axle, so once it went into top gear it was effectively a 1.82X ratio. Even at 90 mph the sucker was barely loafing. However, GM didn't have overdrive automatics in the 70's. And I'm guessing a 6-cyl Camaro is going to have a shorter axle ratio, of 2.9X+, to compensate for the lack of power, so it's not going to be a fuel sipper either. Now I'd imagine that on the highway that Camaro might make lower 20's, but I just don't see 30 mpg happening. These things weighed almost as much as a downsized Caprice/Impala!
Not to recomend or condone this behavior, but drafting a semi-tractor a bit too closely will also help. From time to time when preparing to pass a truck I will get into the draft zone (something I try to avoid...if you can't see thier mirros, they cant see you, etc) and the MPG meter on the Subaru will go up a couple mpg.
Sad to see that 300CE...when those came out, I was in maybe 5th grade, and I thought those were extremely elegant and pretty. That fake 94-95 hood and mismatched wheels really insult the car.
Is it just me or do some of the people posting on EBay not have the ability to write their description in English.
"but i dnt have the money to fix it! other than that there is nothin wrong wit it! there is no dents, nothin wrong wit the interior! comes wit 2 10 rockfurd sub an a rockfurd amp! it has 18 an a body kit. jst give me a call an tell me wat u think. u can call me anytime, my num "
The ad indicates rust but the body looks pretty damn good in the picture. How could it not be started since 2001 however? Get a junkyard battery for $20 and keep it a little fresh (weird)
Those pics are small enough, and low-res enough that they might hide a whole plethora of flaws. Plus, it looks like it's been repainted. The paint just looks too nice and shiny compared to the under-hood area.
Those fuselage bodies really tucked in at the bottoms, so a lot of the rust wouldn't be noticeable unless you got down on your knees and looked at it. I can almost guarantee that the lower rear quarters are rusty. It looks like it's been eaten away right behind the rear wheel, although it's partially obscured by shadow.
The '74-78 Mopars were actually worse in this regard, of hiding rust. Even though they were much more squared-off, they still had a lot of tuck-in, for lack of a better word, where the lower body wrapped up under.
One that would always get me is "DeSota". Or "DeSoda". I mean, c'mon, it's spelled out in big, stylized letters on the hood AND on the trunk.
And for some reason the model name "Fireflite" often gets a bit botched, but I can understand that a bit better, since it was usually written in a cursive with a backward slant, and sometimes a bit difficult to read. I've seen it spelled "Fireflight" and "Fireflyte". And I guess "Fireflight" would be a more grammatically correct spelling, while "Fireflyte" just LOOKS like a spelling they would have come up with in the 50's!
It's also the "wit" and "i" and "nthng" like this is the way they learned in school. There's a big difference between those who mistype and don't notice or don't correct it when posting here on the fly and those typing in an advertisement for their product.
Is to search for common misspellings of various items. Stuff will get no bids because the seller spelled something wrong in the description and no one can find it. If the item was no reserve or very low reserve and the seller does not catch their mistake you can get a good price.
I don't really like convertiables in general unless they are old or huge. Old and huge really are the best ones. I couldn't drive a Miata cause I can't fit in one comfortably and it is just not fast enough to subject myself to that torture.
looks like a Canadian model, which was basically a Dart with a Valiant front clip. Now in later years that wouldn't have made much difference, but in '63 the Dart's wheelbase was 5" longer (111" versus 106") and at least 8" longer overall (~196" versus ~188")
One thing I don't like about most little modern convertibles, especially 2-seaters, is that you sit so low in them, and the window sills and dash are so high, and the windshield rakes back so far that even with the top down, I still end up with a claustrophobic, hemmed in feeling. I actually get more of an "open air" experience if I roll down both windows in my truck and open the rear sliding window!
I'd forgotten the Valiant convertibles. Nice cars. But the people complaining about the interiors on GMs (and others) would go apoplectic about the dash and seats. The Seville looks nice inside.
I'll admit I like that bustleback...nice condition, good color combo, no carriage top or continental kit...maybe put some kind of period Caddy wheels on it instead of those caps...might be a coolish car. Depends on whats under the hood.
Old Mopar interiors are freaky, but are they low quality? That's the issue.
that Valiant/Dart would be low-quality, but if you compared it to a Falcon, Comet, Corvair, or Chevy II interior, it would probably be comparable. And compared to a cheap import at the time, you'd be looking at state-of-the-art! One area where Mopar was definitely ahead was gauges. You got an amp and temp gauge standard with the Valiant/Dart, but IIRC the Chevy II and Corvair only had a fuel gauge. Falcon too, I think...or it may have at least had a temp gauge. Now something a bit more upscale like a Tempest/F-85/Special would probably have a nicer interior, but again, stingier on the gauges.
you and will part ways on that car. I remember when the bustleback came out and people actually laughed at it. This was at Cadillac's low point of course and it was thought ridiculous that Cadillac would have pretensions to clumsy imitations of Edwardian styling cues from Rolls Royce. So we were looking at the car from a different (and I think accurate for the times) perspective of what it was.
The interest is in the cheesiness. It's the 80s version of a car with big fins, and I have memories of those from when I was little. That was the tail end of the pimpy times....which unfortunately are not over at Caddy.
because its style is a nice blend of 80's modern and classic 30's. And it was pretty influential, as the Imperial aped it somewhat for '81-83, as did those Fairmont-based Continentals and the Mark VII, to a lesser degree.
In contrast a Rolls Royce is more like a 1939 Packard that they just did the best they could to try and update. At least, that's what Bill Mitchell said.
The '80-85 Seville was also a solid seller for Cadillac, although the recession in the early 80's did keep it from realizing its full potential. It certainly sold much better than the shrunken '86-91 style, and the '92+ style that followed. Although I thought the '92+ Seville was a damned worthy car.
I think the only thing that would scare me away from an '80-85 is the sucky engines that most of them had. I believe the 1980 had a Caddy 368 standard, and could actually move out with some authority. But alot of them were stuck with Olds Diesels. In '81 they had that V-8-6-4, but I think if you disable the cylinder deactivation and make it run on 8 cylinders all the time you're fine. The Diesel was again a popular option in 1981. Then for '82-85 they used those tiny 4.1 aluminum V-8's. Consumer Guide got a 1985 Brougham with the 135 hp version of that engine from 0-60 in 14.8 seconds. But the Seville only had 125 hp, and weighed about the same, so it would've been even more dog-like. Not to mention unreliable.
The '75-79 Seville was probably more of a road car though. Still, I do have a fondness for the '80-85. Nice, distinctive, almost customized look to it.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here! I remember driving an early 80's Seville years ago that a local used car lot had. I thought it was cool, because it was ritzy and plush. And had an awesome stereo. But Gawd was it slow! The ponderousness of it really didn't hit me though, because I was accustomed to things like '85 Silverados and LeSabres, and the Seville was considerably shorter, and a lot narrower. I think they were only about 71-72 inches wide, which puts it in range with stuff like an Altima, Accord, Camry, etc.
MT or C&D did a comparison test of a 1980 Seville, 1980 Continental Mark VI, and a 1980 NYer 5th Avenue. The Seville did 0-60 in 10.6 seconds, which is nothing to brag about today, but for the time I thought it was pretty impressive. The Lincoln did it in 11.0. The NYer did pretty poor though, at 14 seconds. However, the Caddy had a 368 with gobs of torque, and I believe the Lincoln had a 351, also very torquey. The NYer was stuck with a 318-2bbl with 120 hp and not much torque, so it just wasn't a fair match. The 360 in '80 only had 130 hp in 2-bbl form, but would've had a lot more torque. There was also a 4-bbl version with 185 hp, but nobody in 1980 was going to test a car like that, what with the fuel scares going on.
Anyway, I can't remember if they picked a real winner or not in that test. I think they just went through and listed all the good points and bad points of each car, and said if you were looking for such-and-such a feature, then such-and-such a car would suit your needs the best.
Well I'm not a big fan of cars that are incompetent in every department...but I guess it takes as much genius to do everything wrong as it does to do it right!! :shades: Those Sevilles are kinda the Joan Rivers of luxury cars.
My issue of AUtoweek just came. In the BWTW page (at the end) they show an ad from some paper for a late 70's Seville. It is referred to as a showcar, and a classic, and they want 18K for it!
THe latest issue of Car & Driver had a feature about racing $1,500 beaters from Detroit to LA. Kicker is, they all had to be diesels! They ended up with a well used Benz and Maxima, and a surprisinly well preserved olds 88 coupe.
The article itself is quite funny. And getting back to the topic, if you want one for your next project, they will be getting sold on Ebay later this month!
back in the late 70's/early 80's, they made all kinds of nasty diesels. Volvo (I think here), escort/tempo, Maxima, and others that I have thankfully forgot.
I think so. I used to work on a really bad mid 80s Ford Ranger Diesel. Little four cylinder diesel that had two oil filters and held like 9 quarts of oil.
there was a Chevette Diesel. It used an Isuzu 1.8 4-cyl Diesel. I think that was the only small GM car that was Diesel-ized, though. Although maybe the Spectrum did in 1985? All of their midsized and larger cars offered a Diesel at some point, though. Bigger, heavier models like the B/C and E/K (Eldorado/Seville) offered a 5.7. The intermediate RWD (A/G) offered the 5.7, but I think some offered a 4.3 V-6 that was a chopped V-8, and one or two years the 4.3/260 Olds V-8 was also Diesel-ized. the 4.3 V-6 Diesel also went into the 1985 Electra/98/DeVille as I recall, and I think the FWD A-bodies (Celebrity, Century, et al) offered it too.
Ford offered a Diesel Escort and Tempo. With bigger cars though, only the Fairmont-based Continental sedan and the Mark VII offered a Diesel. It was a BMW unit, a 2.4 inline 6 IIRC.
I don't think Chrysler ever offered any Diesel cars, although there were plans at one time to convert the Slant Six to Diesel. Some of the Mitsubishi-badged imports may have offered one, though.
Yep, I almost made the mistake of buying a new Escort diesel in 1985.
I had totalled my '79 Sunbird and had $2K of insurance cash burning a hole in my pocket. I was only a few months away from graduating college, so I thought a new car would be the way to go. The Ford dealer offered to defer my payments for 90 days.
Fortunately, my parents talked me out of it, as I didn't yet have a job lined up post-graduation. In retrospect, that was probably a good decision.
Toyota and Nissan both had their own diesels that they put in their cars and (more commonly) trucks in the early '80s. The Scout II used a Nissan diesel for a few years in the late '70s.
I remember a friend's family in high school had an Escort diesel. Not so bad, believe it or not; helped immensely that it had a stick; actually ANY Fords of the era with stick were better, their automatics had the most annoying shift points/gear ratios--they'd rev forever, then shift and chug along powerless til you got up in the revs, awful.
My grandfather was likely one of the only people to own both an Escort AND Chevette diesel. RIP, Grandpa Hulet!
I don't remember Chrysler having any diesels--did they? Anyone remember the Lincoln Mark VII diesel, which had the same engine as the BMW 524td. As far as Japanse diesels go, I do remember the Maxima, definitely a first-generation Camry, and an Isuzu P'up, IIRC. No Mazdas, as far as I know.
Comments
30 sounded quite excessive to me for a 6...
However, that LeSabre had an overdrive tranny and a 2.73 axle, so once it went into top gear it was effectively a 1.82X ratio. Even at 90 mph the sucker was barely loafing. However, GM didn't have overdrive automatics in the 70's. And I'm guessing a 6-cyl Camaro is going to have a shorter axle ratio, of 2.9X+, to compensate for the lack of power, so it's not going to be a fuel sipper either. Now I'd imagine that on the highway that Camaro might make lower 20's, but I just don't see 30 mpg happening. These things weighed almost as much as a downsized Caprice/Impala!
I averaged 40.54 mpg over a 250 mile trip going between 55-70 mph.
I had perfect weather conditions though between 50-60 degrees F and low humidity.
Normaly I would get in the low to mid 30 range on that trip.
Shifty
Scary Merc
These worth anything?
Can't imagine this would be worth it. Shame if it is a real car.
This looks good.
This one could be good too.
Old Dodge---I'm truly amazed it got any bids whatsoever...suspicious......
I hear the Northstar ones are the ones to want.
Sad to see that 300CE...when those came out, I was in maybe 5th grade, and I thought those were extremely elegant and pretty. That fake 94-95 hood and mismatched wheels really insult the car.
"but i dnt have the money to fix it! other than that there is nothin wrong wit it! there is no dents, nothin wrong wit the interior! comes wit 2 10 rockfurd sub an a rockfurd amp! it has 18 an a body kit. jst give me a call an tell me wat u think. u can call me anytime, my num "
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Those fuselage bodies really tucked in at the bottoms, so a lot of the rust wouldn't be noticeable unless you got down on your knees and looked at it. I can almost guarantee that the lower rear quarters are rusty. It looks like it's been eaten away right behind the rear wheel, although it's partially obscured by shadow.
The '74-78 Mopars were actually worse in this regard, of hiding rust. Even though they were much more squared-off, they still had a lot of tuck-in, for lack of a better word, where the lower body wrapped up under.
Some of my favorites are:
breaks instead of brakes
Camero
and my all time favorite--Rotory instead of Rotary. This was actually painted on the side of an old Mazda pick up!
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
And for some reason the model name "Fireflite" often gets a bit botched, but I can understand that a bit better, since it was usually written in a cursive with a backward slant, and sometimes a bit difficult to read. I've seen it spelled "Fireflight" and "Fireflyte". And I guess "Fireflight" would be a more grammatically correct spelling, while "Fireflyte" just LOOKS like a spelling they would have come up with in the 50's!
"Potiac" is a fun one, too. :shades:
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That 'wit' thing is mindblowing. The bar is getting lower by the day.
Really nice looking bustleback
neat looking little ragtop
I don't really like convertiables in general unless they are old or huge. Old and huge really are the best ones. I couldn't drive a Miata cause I can't fit in one comfortably and it is just not fast enough to subject myself to that torture.
An Elise on the other hand is a different story.
One thing I don't like about most little modern convertibles, especially 2-seaters, is that you sit so low in them, and the window sills and dash are so high, and the windshield rakes back so far that even with the top down, I still end up with a claustrophobic, hemmed in feeling. I actually get more of an "open air" experience if I roll down both windows in my truck and open the rear sliding window!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Old Mopar interiors are freaky, but are they low quality? That's the issue.
Kind of cool but I doubt the auto is a good thing
In contrast a Rolls Royce is more like a 1939 Packard that they just did the best they could to try and update. At least, that's what Bill Mitchell said.
The '80-85 Seville was also a solid seller for Cadillac, although the recession in the early 80's did keep it from realizing its full potential. It certainly sold much better than the shrunken '86-91 style, and the '92+ style that followed. Although I thought the '92+ Seville was a damned worthy car.
I think the only thing that would scare me away from an '80-85 is the sucky engines that most of them had. I believe the 1980 had a Caddy 368 standard, and could actually move out with some authority. But alot of them were stuck with Olds Diesels. In '81 they had that V-8-6-4, but I think if you disable the cylinder deactivation and make it run on 8 cylinders all the time you're fine. The Diesel was again a popular option in 1981. Then for '82-85 they used those tiny 4.1 aluminum V-8's. Consumer Guide got a 1985 Brougham with the 135 hp version of that engine from 0-60 in 14.8 seconds. But the Seville only had 125 hp, and weighed about the same, so it would've been even more dog-like. Not to mention unreliable.
The '75-79 Seville was probably more of a road car though. Still, I do have a fondness for the '80-85. Nice, distinctive, almost customized look to it.
Yeah they did...they were comfy and they looked good! :P
The leather couch in my den looks good and is comfy too, but i don't want to drive that either!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
MT or C&D did a comparison test of a 1980 Seville, 1980 Continental Mark VI, and a 1980 NYer 5th Avenue. The Seville did 0-60 in 10.6 seconds, which is nothing to brag about today, but for the time I thought it was pretty impressive. The Lincoln did it in 11.0. The NYer did pretty poor though, at 14 seconds. However, the Caddy had a 368 with gobs of torque, and I believe the Lincoln had a 351, also very torquey. The NYer was stuck with a 318-2bbl with 120 hp and not much torque, so it just wasn't a fair match. The 360 in '80 only had 130 hp in 2-bbl form, but would've had a lot more torque. There was also a 4-bbl version with 185 hp, but nobody in 1980 was going to test a car like that, what with the fuel scares going on.
Anyway, I can't remember if they picked a real winner or not in that test. I think they just went through and listed all the good points and bad points of each car, and said if you were looking for such-and-such a feature, then such-and-such a car would suit your needs the best.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The article itself is quite funny. And getting back to the topic, if you want one for your next project, they will be getting sold on Ebay later this month!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I just did not think they made one.
Was there a Chevette diesel?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ford offered a Diesel Escort and Tempo. With bigger cars though, only the Fairmont-based Continental sedan and the Mark VII offered a Diesel. It was a BMW unit, a 2.4 inline 6 IIRC.
I don't think Chrysler ever offered any Diesel cars, although there were plans at one time to convert the Slant Six to Diesel. Some of the Mitsubishi-badged imports may have offered one, though.
I had totalled my '79 Sunbird and had $2K of insurance cash burning a hole in my pocket. I was only a few months away from graduating college, so I thought a new car would be the way to go. The Ford dealer offered to defer my payments for 90 days.
Fortunately, my parents talked me out of it, as I didn't yet have a job lined up post-graduation. In retrospect, that was probably a good decision.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I REALLY want to see a pic of this
My grandfather was likely one of the only people to own both an Escort AND Chevette diesel. RIP, Grandpa Hulet!
I don't remember Chrysler having any diesels--did they? Anyone remember the Lincoln Mark VII diesel, which had the same engine as the BMW 524td. As far as Japanse diesels go, I do remember the Maxima, definitely a first-generation Camry, and an Isuzu P'up, IIRC. No Mazdas, as far as I know.