Besides, old cars can run "okay" and even reliably with thousands of dollars in repairs needed. For instance, worn suspension/struts can bounce along nicely for a long, long time. Various little oil leaks, erratic transmission shifting, a broken AC, one rear power window not working, a little rust----none of these things stops the car from providing basic transprtation.
ANYWAY, i don't consider a Buick a real luxury car in the spirit of how we started this topic, so we are kinda off topic here. This subject might make for another interesting topic though -- "Deferred Maintenance?" or some such, or "What Can You Get Away With?"
If Buicks were "luxury" than what are Mercedes, Lexus, 7 Series BMWs, Bentley, etc. "Super Luxury"? "Ultra Luxury"?
If a Buick is "luxury" so then is every other car in the price range, which means just about all cars are luxurious, which means just about no cars are actually luxurious.
Well I just look at luxury as a range. IMO, something like a Buick Electra, Olds 98, or Chrysler New Yorker would be the low end of the luxury spectrum, while a Bentley, etc, would be at the upper end. Although once they started issuing those K-based New Yorkers and Imperials, even I had a problem calling those luxury cars!
By 1988 standards, I'd consider Lemko's Park Ave to be a luxury car. That thing probably stickered for $22K or more, which is an awful lot of money in my book! My '79 NYer probably stickered for about $10K, while my other one, the 5th Ave, was probably around $12K...up into Cadillac/Lincoln territory, and I've always considered those to be luxury cars. Now that's chump change compared to what a nice Benz or BMW would have set you back in the same years
But, time has marched on. Cars have more standard features these days, as well as more power. So more has to be done to separate the real luxury cars from the rest of the herd.
What exactly is the difference between "low end luxury" and "high end economy"?
Well to me, "high end economy" would be something like a fully-loaded Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic. Cars that might be well appointed, but are still small, sacrifice comfort, and have a primary focus on fuel efficiency.
I might consider a "low end luxury" car today to be something like an Acura TL or Toyota Avalon. On the domestic front perhaps something like a well-appointed Buick Lucerne or a Chrysler 300 Limited or C. Or maybe a better term for them would be "near luxury", which is what they started calling that step-up class back when Acura first came out, and then Infiniti and Lexus followed.
I'd say Buick's are more like lounge wear rather than designer clothing representing the brands you mentioned. Like all American cars, the depreciation represents the value or lack thereof.
Take a Cadillac, whose status regarding luxury branding has been destroyed over the last few decades. The residuals are crazy low. If you get $4K off a CTS, that locks in a faster decline in value as soon as you drive that car off the dealer lot. In 1 year, you are in the mid $20K at best for a upper $30K vehicle. Punch in a 2007 CTS at Cars.com and before the first 50 cars are viewed in a country-wide search, mid-twenties. A CTS-V under 10K miles is mid-$30K.
The Germans are hurting as well but since they start at a much higher price the value decline isn't as drastic as domestic brands.
Now a CTS-V is a car I wouldn't mind picking off real cheap in a few years. Being domestic-made, I think I could deal better with the out of warranty issues, and I bet a lot of regular CTS parts from the wrecker would fit.
Yeah maybe I can do some body mods or something---perhaps monochrome the car or some such. It's awkward to my eyes. But then again, I'll be behind the wheel so I won't have to look at it too much. :P
Outside of the paint problem and a slightly split driver's door arm rest, not much that bothers me. The radio/cassette deck still works. It blows icy cold A/C. The interior is in excellent condition. It has new tires and brakes. It's got a couple of small dents here and there, but that's my fault and not the car's.
Best thing about my beater is I can take it anywhere and can rely on it to get me out of anywhere. Heck, a doctor might find 35 things wrong with me, but I could still live to be 100 regardless.
True. My 1989 Cadillac Brougham is spartan compared to today's luxury cars. Heck, a new Hyundai Elantra probably has more features. I thought my 2002 Cadillac Seville STS was a loaded car, but even it seems like a plain jane compared to my Cadillac DTS Performance which has far more features than I'll ever use - or even figure out! :confuse:
"If Buicks were 'luxury' than what are Mercedes, Lexus, 7 Series BMWs, Bentley, etc. 'Super Luxury'? 'Ultra Luxury'?"
If Buick Park Avenue is luxury, then PA Ultra represents "Ultra Luxury." How could it be otherwise? Not ready to pass the Grey Poupon quite yet? Okay, then, if PA isn't quite luxury, but merely near-luxury, then PA Ultra crosses the line into luxury, no?
I'd say PA Ultra meets the definition of American luxury. As for "Super Luxury," Buick once had a "Super" in its lineup, but since it was less super than the mighty Roadmaster, then maybe it could have been categorized as "almost near-luxury."
Luxury to me means rich, unattainable, special. The PA is just a mass-produced Buick with softer seats. I don't get the luxury part. How can luxury be common and ordinary? Makes no sense. Will we be talking about the luxury of the Malibu next? Hope not
Luxury to me means rich, unattainable, special. The PA is just a mass-produced Buick with softer seats. I don't get the luxury part. How can luxury be common and ordinary? Makes no sense.
I think the 70's, and the push for more luxurious cheaper cars, probably muddled a lot of people's ideas of what a luxury car should be. Also around that time, sales of more expensive cars just exploded. Lincoln and Cadillac both had some record sales years.
The main reason I'll still defend something like Lemko's Park Ave and my '79 New Yorker is because their forebears were luxury cars. Or at least, IMO they were. If you go back to, say, 1955, a New Yorker or Buick Roadmaster were very luxurious cars. They were still a step below a Cadillac or Imperial in price, although there was a bit of overlap with Lincoln. Well I always considered a Caddy, Lincoln, or Imperial to be a luxury car, so because the NYer and Roadmaster were close enough in price, I'd just lump them in as well, as the bottom end of the luxury market.
Back in those days, the Olds 98, while the top Olds, had very little in common with the Roadmaster. The Roadmaster shared the big C-body with the Cadillac. Actually the Super did as well, but it was much lower in price and not as well-appointed. More akin to a DeSoto Fireflite or Chrysler Windsor in price, IIRC. In contrast, the Olds was on the B-body, same as the 88 and the Buick Special/Century. They stretched the wheelbase to make it look more impressive, but managed to do it in a way that yielded no more interior room (a common trait back then ) The 98 was also priced more in the middle of the market in those days, again about on par with a DeSoto Fireflite.
As the years went on, though, the cheaper cars got nicer, while the nicer cars got cheaper. The Roadmaster was replaced by the Electra for 1959. That same year, the 98 went from the B-body to the C-body, so it became more of an equal to the senior Buick, and at the point I'd consider it a luxury car. But soon, cars like the Caprice, LTD, and VIP would be on the scene, with interiors that were as plush or plusher than some of the base trim levels of the Electra/98 and New Yorker. And when equipped with the right engine, performance would be as good or better.
The 1970's was when it really got convoluted, though. Ford launched the tacky, pretentious Granada, which was an instant hit. Mopar issued the Dart SE and Valiant Brougham, which had enough velour, shag, and thickly padded vinyl to out-rival a Cadillac or Lincoln. And they'd do more of the same with the Aspen SE and Volare Premier. GM put out luxury versions of the Nova, Skylark, et al. The impudence probably peaked with 1977, and the Lincoln Versailles. IIRC it was the priciest Lincoln that year, yet it was little more than a tarted up Granada, which itself was based on the humble Maverick...and I hear that can even be traced back to the Falcon.
People were definitely demanding more luxurious cars in the 1970's, especially in the later years. In the past, cars like the Chevrolet Caprice and Pontiac Bonneville had been relatively scarce compared to the mainstream Impala and Catalina. Yet in 1977, the market shifted and the Caprice and Bonneville were outselling the cheaper Impala and Catalina. Similarly, with Olds and Buick, the higher trim levels of the Delta 88 and LeSabre were outselling the cheaper models.
I guess that for all the whining about what a bad era that was, car buyers had enough disposable income to get into those pricier models. And while they were still upscale, plush cars, they were no longer relatively scarce, as they had been in the past. If anything, it was the more base level cars that were becoming the rarities.
"I think the 70's, and the push for more luxurious cheaper cars"
Here's a question - I remember reading somewhere that Chevy/Olds/Buick fullsize cars added lots of available luxury features when the edict came down at GM that all division executives had to drive cars from their division. This created a need for 'luxurious' models. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this? (wish I could remember where I read it :mad: )
Yeah, I've heard that as well, that they required division execs to drive cars from their own divisions. That's the reason Pontiac ended up getting the Grand Ville, which was supposed to be in the same league as the Electra and 98. However, it was actually a bit of a sham. Instead of just taking a real C-body and putting Pontiac sheetmetal on it, they instead took a B-body, which has a smaller passenger cabin, and did their best to graft the C-body roof onto it. So you ended up with a car that looked more formal and upscale, but was no bigger inside than a Bonneville, Catalina, or Impala/Caprice.
IMO, the car didn't really accomplish anything that the old Bonneville Brougham couldn't have done. In fact, once the Grand Ville name was retired, Pontiac brought back the Bonneville Brougham.
As for the Chevy Caprice, IMO the 1970's models really weren't any more luxurious inside than the 1960's models, so I guess Chevy's division execs got the short end of the stick! That mandate may have been the reason that the 1971 Chevies had sort of a Cadillac-ish looking front end, though.
I don't think you could get leather in a Grand Ville or Bonneville Brougham back in those days, and I'm positive that the Caprice didn't offer it, so that was another area where the Chevy/Pontiac execs would've been screwed by that mandate.
Eventually, I think the downsized Bonneville offered leather, or maybe it was the 1983-86 Parisienne. I don't think you could get leather in a Caprice until around 1987.
Market saturation of various features is something else, I guess, that dilutes the meaning of a luxury car as time goes by. For instance, once upon a time, air conditioning was a luxury item. So were power windows and leather. These days though, it's almost impossible to find a new car without a/c and power windows. And leather is available in just about everything but the cheapest cars.
"Buick once had a "Super", but there was nothing "SPECIAL' about it.
The first qualification of a luxury car is that it be an uncommon and rare motor car. A car you don't frequently see in the shopping mall parking lot. A car sold only in the cities large enough to support an NFL or MLB team. As of yet, such is not manufactured in the USA, the Orient, or Norway.
Why do people getoff badmouthing anything American? We have a bunch of people who love to tell you how they are patriots ,but they're the same ones driving up our competitors economy and handing your brother his pink slip. The bailout we truely need is for Americans to support their own jobs. The mentality of today vs. post WW2 is 180 degrees out. People learned to adjust habits and purchases that show support beyond their big mouths. Checkout the showrooms as they are beating the comp in almost every category except sales.
This aspect of the American auto industry is really a different topic.
We in the "Classics" Forum are trying, in this particular forum topic, to focus on the problems and pitfalls of buying older, used luxury cars.
You might want to scan the list of topics in "Automotive News" forum, many of which deal with the very issues you are bringing up. I pulled it up for you:
A friend at work just sold his BMW 740. It was around a 2000 model with 130K on the clock. I asked him a year ago about it, and he had nothing but good things to say about it. I noticed him driving a Honda Pilot yesterday and he explained that he sold the BMW because his new car payment was roughly equivalent to the average monthly maintenance and repairs on the Bimmer. No surprise, I suppose.
"he sold the BMW because his new car payment was roughly equivalent to the average monthly maintenance and repairs on the Bimmer"
Ouch! A friend gave me the same reason for selling his almost-new Jaguar 20 years ago, except he was referring to the car payment on the Jaguar. :sick:
Interesting...now that you mention it, I've been seeing a 7-series of about that vintage in the parking lot at work with a for sale sign in the window. I've never been much of a BMW type of guy, but I do like that style. Probably best that I stay away, though!
One of my friends bought a used 2002 or so BMW 5-series, as a 40th birthday present to himself back in 2007. I think it only had around 25-30,000 miles on it. Almost immediately, I think he had to sink a couple grand into it. I forget what exactly the issues were, but one of them was water leaking into the interior!
I've ridden in it a few times. Nice car. I can definitely see the appeal of them. I especially like the way that it somehow manages to give you good road feel, yet a smooth ride at the same time. Usually a car will give you one at the expense of the other. And some cars aren't very good at either!
My friend's 1998 BMW 750i is a wonderful car to drive and quite frankly even his brand spanking new Lexus does not compare in handling, speed, etc. However, his maintenance and repair bills these ten years must easily add up to over $30,000. Some issues never got resolved and seem unsolvable. Maybe it's his brake light out warning light staying on forever, or his dashboard suddenly reading in kilometers, or in Spanish, or the CEL going on and off randomly, or various trim pieces falling off when you slam the doors. Worst one was when he went over a speed bump a little too fast and broke off the crankshaft sensor and yanked on the wiring harness. That was $3,800.
He still keeps the car out back though, he loves it so much.
However, his maintenance and repair bills these ten years must easily add up to over $30,000.
Wow, that's a crazy amount of money to blow on maintenance/repairs over the first 10 years of a car's life! FWIW, my Intrepid has run me about $30K over the course of the 9 years I've had it. But then that total includes the purchase cost of the car!
What would that 750i have cost new? About $80-90K?
Too blue for my blood but hey, if you can afford it, why not?
Yeah I think in 1998 the 750 sold for about $80,000.
Today it is worth less than $10K
so if you include depreciation, the car has cost perhaps $100,000 in ten years for 100K miles, so about $1 a mile. That's about par for high end cars. A Ferrari would cost easily $1.50 a mile to drive if not more.
...a very high-mileage 1986 Mercedes 420SEL for only $1,500. I'm pretty sure it would've financially killed me as I'd have poured a lot of money into it just to meet my standards as a beater car.
About ten years ago, a co-worker bought a very attractive used XJ6; dark green with beautiful wood and leather interior. He brought it in to work and was gushing about what a great deal it was.
One of the more knowledgeable "admirers" quipped, "You may have bought it cheap, but you have only just begun to pay for it".
Sad to say, it will probably bring him to his knees; but maybe he'll get some use out of it before it breaks down. Depends on how the previous owner lavished his money on it. I had one of these briefly, bought it for $2500, but only because the previous owner showed me $18,000 in repair bills. It actually ran fine for me for the 3 months I had it, even though it did stink of gasoline the whole time (leaking injector lines, a common complaint, and a nasty job to repair) and one of the two gas saddle tanks was disconnected (they rust and leak as well), and again, a tough repair--you have to remove the back bumper, back splash, trunk interior and various other components to fish it out. I never bothered. Got bored with it and sold it for what I paid. I wasn't going to sink more money into it just to "look rich for cheap". (or not so cheap as it turns out). I sold it locally but never saw it again.
Well, this was ten years ago, and it did not come to a happy end. There was a series of issues, only one of which comes readily to mind. I recall him telling of (yet another) breakdown, trying to minimize the problem. "But it was only an little fire", he insisted. :P
Those Jag saddle tanks always scared me. Aren't they actually inside the trunk? If so, that must make for a scary proposition when they do leak.
I always wondered why they didn't just put one single tank under the trunk. Unless, because of the shape of the car, maybe that would make the trunk itself too shallow to be useful? Nowadays, if a RWD car has IRS, they put the tank under the back seat, just like in FWD. Wonder why they didn't do that with the Jag? Unless again, there just wasn't that much room under there?
No room under there for a big tank. Remember Jaguar at that time (pre Ford) was a "made-do" company, borrowing parts, improvising and really unable to correct all the initial engineering defects in the first models.
They did improve the horrible automatic transmission on the XJ6, and finally got fuel injection on there--but even that had its problems. Like, why would you put rubber fuel injection hoses under the manifold? And why have the AC cool the fuel? And inboard brakes in the rear? (you have to drop the entire rear suspension and differential to change the rotors out).
Fires are something to watch out for, especially in the V-12s. You have those quirky injection lines cracking and leaking, the saddle tanks rusting out and leaking, and the fuel pump in the trunk often leaking.
The fuel injection for the V-12 model is sometimes referred to as "the auxiliary heating system", in typical British humor.
I like to think of an XJ6 as a cruel mistress. Pretty but very deadly.
As you know, I am very biased against this model, because it represents Jaguar's abandonment of its glorious sports car tradition (think Porsche) in order to make land yachts (think Buick).
As you know, I am very biased against this model, because it represents Jaguar's abandonment of its glorious sports car tradition (think Porsche) in order to make land yachts (think Buick).
Was the XJ6 a direct replacement for that porky thing from the 1960's? The 420 or whatever it was called? Those things weren't considered sporty, were they?
Hey, in looking at some old pics, I just had a revelation. Well, to me at least...probably nothing new to most people. But it just hit me that the 420 is nothing but a clumsy re-skin of the old Mark II. Looking at pics side-by-side, it looks like the doors, roof, and all glass is the same.
Would the 420 at least still perform like a Mark II, or did they find a way to botch that up in transition?
I think the 420 G was a re-designated Mark X, not the same as the 240, 340, 420 iterations of the Mk II. Thus, the Mark X was almost 2 feet longer than the Mk II and as you might imagine, a large clumsy car.
I love the Mark II cars, (not the S Type, which I think is rather homely), especially with 4-speed manual trans with OD, wire wheels, 3.8 engine. Sweet car.
Really the only 4-door car in automotive history I can think of that I'm in love with. Some others I "like" (61 Lincolns, 65 Corvair 4D HT, blah blah) but the Mark II just "gets it all right".
Heck, you could probably buy 2 very nice W108s for the price of a good 420, and probably get 3 or 4 for the price of a good Mk II. The same numbers if you want a revvy fintail.
I know we are here talking about well used cars. But, how about those 3-4 years old luxury cars that are still under warranty, especially Japanese make, i.e.: Lexus GS430, Infiniti Q45, M45 or Acura RL. Those are luxury cars and fairly reliable. Would that make a good buy since a 3 years old luxury car like those will basically cost half as when they are new?
All of those are decent used buys yeah....poor short term resale,but generally reliable mechanicals. Camcord alternatives to those who want something more.
Comments
Besides, old cars can run "okay" and even reliably with thousands of dollars in repairs needed. For instance, worn suspension/struts can bounce along nicely for a long, long time. Various little oil leaks, erratic transmission shifting, a broken AC, one rear power window not working, a little rust----none of these things stops the car from providing basic transprtation.
ANYWAY, i don't consider a Buick a real luxury car in the spirit of how we started this topic, so we are kinda off topic here. This subject might make for another interesting topic though -- "Deferred Maintenance?" or some such, or "What Can You Get Away With?"
I dunno, I'd consider Lemko's Park Ave, along with my NYer, to be two luxury cars that are out standing in their field. Sorry, bad pun. :shades:
If Buicks were "luxury" than what are Mercedes, Lexus, 7 Series BMWs, Bentley, etc. "Super Luxury"? "Ultra Luxury"?
If a Buick is "luxury" so then is every other car in the price range, which means just about all cars are luxurious, which means just about no cars are actually luxurious.
Dilution of meaning. Language inflation.
By 1988 standards, I'd consider Lemko's Park Ave to be a luxury car. That thing probably stickered for $22K or more, which is an awful lot of money in my book! My '79 NYer probably stickered for about $10K, while my other one, the 5th Ave, was probably around $12K...up into Cadillac/Lincoln territory, and I've always considered those to be luxury cars. Now that's chump change compared to what a nice Benz or BMW would have set you back in the same years
But, time has marched on. Cars have more standard features these days, as well as more power. So more has to be done to separate the real luxury cars from the rest of the herd.
What exactly is the difference between "low end luxury" and "high end economy"?
You've got to have a standard here, and to my mind the standard for what we call "luxury" has gone far beyond GMs 1988 idea of it.
There is simply no comparison in luxury, appointments, technology and complexity between an old Buick and a Mercedes S600.
GEEZ if you can't fix a simple 1988 Buick, then coping with a used BMW 7 Series is going to bring you to ruin and devastation right quick. :surprise:
Well to me, "high end economy" would be something like a fully-loaded Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic. Cars that might be well appointed, but are still small, sacrifice comfort, and have a primary focus on fuel efficiency.
I might consider a "low end luxury" car today to be something like an Acura TL or Toyota Avalon. On the domestic front perhaps something like a well-appointed Buick Lucerne or a Chrysler 300 Limited or C. Or maybe a better term for them would be "near luxury", which is what they started calling that step-up class back when Acura first came out, and then Infiniti and Lexus followed.
Take a Cadillac, whose status regarding luxury branding has been destroyed over the last few decades. The residuals are crazy low. If you get $4K off a CTS, that locks in a faster decline in value as soon as you drive that car off the dealer lot. In 1 year, you are in the mid $20K at best for a upper $30K vehicle. Punch in a 2007 CTS at Cars.com and before the first 50 cars are viewed in a country-wide search, mid-twenties. A CTS-V under 10K miles is mid-$30K.
The Germans are hurting as well but since they start at a much higher price the value decline isn't as drastic as domestic brands.
Regards,
OW
I can not get used to the Arts and Science.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Outside of the paint problem and a slightly split driver's door arm rest, not much that bothers me. The radio/cassette deck still works. It blows icy cold A/C. The interior is in excellent condition. It has new tires and brakes. It's got a couple of small dents here and there, but that's my fault and not the car's.
Best thing about my beater is I can take it anywhere and can rely on it to get me out of anywhere. Heck, a doctor might find 35 things wrong with me, but I could still live to be 100 regardless.
If Buick Park Avenue is luxury, then PA Ultra represents "Ultra Luxury." How could it be otherwise? Not ready to pass the Grey Poupon quite yet? Okay, then, if PA isn't quite luxury, but merely near-luxury, then PA Ultra crosses the line into luxury, no?
I'd say PA Ultra meets the definition of American luxury. As for "Super Luxury," Buick once had a "Super" in its lineup, but since it was less super than the mighty Roadmaster, then maybe it could have been categorized as "almost near-luxury."
I think the 70's, and the push for more luxurious cheaper cars, probably muddled a lot of people's ideas of what a luxury car should be. Also around that time, sales of more expensive cars just exploded. Lincoln and Cadillac both had some record sales years.
The main reason I'll still defend something like Lemko's Park Ave and my '79 New Yorker is because their forebears were luxury cars. Or at least, IMO they were. If you go back to, say, 1955, a New Yorker or Buick Roadmaster were very luxurious cars. They were still a step below a Cadillac or Imperial in price, although there was a bit of overlap with Lincoln. Well I always considered a Caddy, Lincoln, or Imperial to be a luxury car, so because the NYer and Roadmaster were close enough in price, I'd just lump them in as well, as the bottom end of the luxury market.
Back in those days, the Olds 98, while the top Olds, had very little in common with the Roadmaster. The Roadmaster shared the big C-body with the Cadillac. Actually the Super did as well, but it was much lower in price and not as well-appointed. More akin to a DeSoto Fireflite or Chrysler Windsor in price, IIRC. In contrast, the Olds was on the B-body, same as the 88 and the Buick Special/Century. They stretched the wheelbase to make it look more impressive, but managed to do it in a way that yielded no more interior room (a common trait back then
As the years went on, though, the cheaper cars got nicer, while the nicer cars got cheaper. The Roadmaster was replaced by the Electra for 1959. That same year, the 98 went from the B-body to the C-body, so it became more of an equal to the senior Buick, and at the point I'd consider it a luxury car. But soon, cars like the Caprice, LTD, and VIP would be on the scene, with interiors that were as plush or plusher than some of the base trim levels of the Electra/98 and New Yorker. And when equipped with the right engine, performance would be as good or better.
The 1970's was when it really got convoluted, though. Ford launched the tacky, pretentious Granada, which was an instant hit. Mopar issued the Dart SE and Valiant Brougham, which had enough velour, shag, and thickly padded vinyl to out-rival a Cadillac or Lincoln. And they'd do more of the same with the Aspen SE and Volare Premier. GM put out luxury versions of the Nova, Skylark, et al. The impudence probably peaked with 1977, and the Lincoln Versailles. IIRC it was the priciest Lincoln that year, yet it was little more than a tarted up Granada, which itself was based on the humble Maverick...and I hear that can even be traced back to the Falcon.
People were definitely demanding more luxurious cars in the 1970's, especially in the later years. In the past, cars like the Chevrolet Caprice and Pontiac Bonneville had been relatively scarce compared to the mainstream Impala and Catalina. Yet in 1977, the market shifted and the Caprice and Bonneville were outselling the cheaper Impala and Catalina. Similarly, with Olds and Buick, the higher trim levels of the Delta 88 and LeSabre were outselling the cheaper models.
I guess that for all the whining about what a bad era that was, car buyers had enough disposable income to get into those pricier models. And while they were still upscale, plush cars, they were no longer relatively scarce, as they had been in the past. If anything, it was the more base level cars that were becoming the rarities.
Here's a question - I remember reading somewhere that Chevy/Olds/Buick fullsize cars added lots of available luxury features when the edict came down at GM that all division executives had to drive cars from their division. This created a need for 'luxurious' models. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this? (wish I could remember where I read it :mad: )
IMO, the car didn't really accomplish anything that the old Bonneville Brougham couldn't have done. In fact, once the Grand Ville name was retired, Pontiac brought back the Bonneville Brougham.
As for the Chevy Caprice, IMO the 1970's models really weren't any more luxurious inside than the 1960's models, so I guess Chevy's division execs got the short end of the stick! That mandate may have been the reason that the 1971 Chevies had sort of a Cadillac-ish looking front end, though.
I don't think you could get leather in a Grand Ville or Bonneville Brougham back in those days, and I'm positive that the Caprice didn't offer it, so that was another area where the Chevy/Pontiac execs would've been screwed by that mandate.
Eventually, I think the downsized Bonneville offered leather, or maybe it was the 1983-86 Parisienne. I don't think you could get leather in a Caprice until around 1987.
Market saturation of various features is something else, I guess, that dilutes the meaning of a luxury car as time goes by. For instance, once upon a time, air conditioning was a luxury item. So were power windows and leather. These days though, it's almost impossible to find a new car without a/c and power windows. And leather is available in just about everything but the cheapest cars.
Regards,
OW
The first qualification of a luxury car is that it be an uncommon and rare motor car. A car you don't frequently see in the shopping mall parking lot. A car sold only in the cities large enough to support an NFL or MLB team. As of yet, such is not manufactured in the USA, the Orient, or Norway.
Is armor plate considered "luxurious"?
And Detroit supports an NFL team.....if you can call it that.
Poor Detroit....poor, poor Detroit...
median home price San Francisco $500,000
median home price Detroit: $80,000
We in the "Classics" Forum are trying, in this particular forum topic, to focus on the problems and pitfalls of buying older, used luxury cars.
You might want to scan the list of topics in "Automotive News" forum, many of which deal with the very issues you are bringing up. I pulled it up for you:
List Containing Topics on the State of the American Automotive Industry
thanks!
MrShiftright
Host
Ouch! A friend gave me the same reason for selling his almost-new Jaguar 20 years ago, except he was referring to the car payment on the Jaguar. :sick:
One of my friends bought a used 2002 or so BMW 5-series, as a 40th birthday present to himself back in 2007. I think it only had around 25-30,000 miles on it. Almost immediately, I think he had to sink a couple grand into it. I forget what exactly the issues were, but one of them was water leaking into the interior!
I've ridden in it a few times. Nice car. I can definitely see the appeal of them. I especially like the way that it somehow manages to give you good road feel, yet a smooth ride at the same time. Usually a car will give you one at the expense of the other. And some cars aren't very good at either!
He still keeps the car out back though, he loves it so much.
Wow, that's a crazy amount of money to blow on maintenance/repairs over the first 10 years of a car's life! FWIW, my Intrepid has run me about $30K over the course of the 9 years I've had it. But then that total includes the purchase cost of the car!
What would that 750i have cost new? About $80-90K?
Too blue for my blood but hey, if you can afford it, why not?
Today it is worth less than $10K
so if you include depreciation, the car has cost perhaps $100,000 in ten years for 100K miles, so about $1 a mile. That's about par for high end cars. A Ferrari would cost easily $1.50 a mile to drive if not more.
I hope someone gives you a free 1956 Cadillac that needs 'just a little work'.
If I'm really mad, I change it to Jaguar! :P
"You will have very good days with this car, and you will have very bad days with this car".
One of the more knowledgeable "admirers" quipped, "You may have bought it cheap, but you have only just begun to pay for it".
I always wondered why they didn't just put one single tank under the trunk. Unless, because of the shape of the car, maybe that would make the trunk itself too shallow to be useful? Nowadays, if a RWD car has IRS, they put the tank under the back seat, just like in FWD. Wonder why they didn't do that with the Jag? Unless again, there just wasn't that much room under there?
They did improve the horrible automatic transmission on the XJ6, and finally got fuel injection on there--but even that had its problems. Like, why would you put rubber fuel injection hoses under the manifold? And why have the AC cool the fuel? And inboard brakes in the rear? (you have to drop the entire rear suspension and differential to change the rotors out).
Fires are something to watch out for, especially in the V-12s. You have those quirky injection lines cracking and leaking, the saddle tanks rusting out and leaking, and the fuel pump in the trunk often leaking.
The fuel injection for the V-12 model is sometimes referred to as "the auxiliary heating system", in typical British humor.
I like to think of an XJ6 as a cruel mistress. Pretty but very deadly.
As you know, I am very biased against this model, because it represents Jaguar's abandonment of its glorious sports car tradition (think Porsche) in order to make land yachts (think Buick).
Was the XJ6 a direct replacement for that porky thing from the 1960's? The 420 or whatever it was called? Those things weren't considered sporty, were they?
Hey, in looking at some old pics, I just had a revelation. Well, to me at least...probably nothing new to most people. But it just hit me that the 420 is nothing but a clumsy re-skin of the old Mark II. Looking at pics side-by-side, it looks like the doors, roof, and all glass is the same.
Would the 420 at least still perform like a Mark II, or did they find a way to botch that up in transition?
I love the Mark II cars, (not the S Type, which I think is rather homely), especially with 4-speed manual trans with OD, wire wheels, 3.8 engine. Sweet car.
Really the only 4-door car in automotive history I can think of that I'm in love with. Some others I "like" (61 Lincolns, 65 Corvair 4D HT, blah blah) but the Mark II just "gets it all right".
That's about...what...a 1967 model? Shoot, I'd rather have a Benz 280SE sedan for same or less money.