Mystery car pix

kyfdx · February 2008

'88 Cadillac Seville? (did I beat lemko?)

lemko · February 2008

That's a 1988-91 era Cadillac Seville STS. If Cadillac kept making cars like that, I guarantee you'd see me in a Lexus or Mercedes today.

andys120 · February 2008

88 Cadillac Seville? (did I beat lemko?)

You did, by quite a bit

andys120 · February 2008

texases · February 2008

'71 Cutlass? Liked that look better than the '69 we had.

andys120 · February 2008

It's a '72.

andre1969 · February 2008

'88 Cadillac Seville? (did I beat lemko?)

I bet Lemko would like to beat whomever designed that car! :P From the old period reviews I've read, those shrunken Sevilles were much better in most respects than the bustlebacks they replaced. Handling and performance was much improved, and I think they were finally getting the kinks worked out of the 4.1. And later years they moved to the larger 4.5 and 4.9. But they just lacked presence. Compared to the FWD Continental that debuted around the same time, these Caddies just looked too diminutive. And the Continental was no great shakes itself, being derived from the Taurus.

karsick · February 2008

I'm glad someone is defending the "Small Seville".

I've never much cared for Caddies, but that one, in STS guise, was very restrained & flab-free for its time.

The 4.1 may have been junky, but somehow the aluminum block amplified the cool V8 growl.

andys120 · February 2008

stickguy · February 2008

No, not a '74. I had one (coulda been a '75, it was a long time ago) and it still had the old style boxzy front end.

That is after the redesign. Probably a '77 or so.

karsick · February 2008

Interesting coupe.

Looks like it's barely postwar.

Is it German? :confuse:

fintail · February 2008

Yep it's a Goliath from the early 50s, which actually was technologically sound, but with that less than beautiful early 50s aesthetic.

andys120 · February 2008

Yep, it's early 50's Goliath GP 700.

andys120 · February 2008

lemko · February 2008

Actually, they made the 1988 models of the Seville and Eldorado slightly longer than the 1986-87 models, but it was still no help. The bustleback Sevilles were hobbled by horrible drivetrains, but I still think they were pretty cool love it or hate it designs like the 1971-73 Riviera. The 1986-91 Sevilles are anonymous, passionless, dimunitive nothings with equally mediocre drivetrains. I was in college at the time these shrunken Sevilles and cruddy FWD C-bodies debuted. I feared I would have nothing to aspire to owning upon seeing these ugly dwarfs. Justification for higher education? Well, maybe if meat-cutting school is your idea of higher education. Thank God, Cadillac kept the big RWD Brougham in production!

michaellno · February 2008

Mazda 2.

texases · February 2008

May be related, but it's the 2010 Ford Fiesta.

bumpy · February 2008

The grille reminds me of KDM Hyundai Genesis.

hudsonthedog · February 2008

Actually, they made the 1988 models of the Seville and Eldorado slightly longer than the 1986-87 models...

The length of the Seville was basically unchanged from 1986 through 1991 but the Eldorado was modified slighly for the 1989 model year.

andre1969 · February 2008

Didn't they give the Eldorado a bit of a "power bulge" hood for 1989? GM was taking a lot of flak for making these under-sized premium cars that were designed for a fuel-starved America that never seemed to materialize. I remember they punched out the Sedan DeVille's wheelbase by 3 inches that year, and stuck on 6 inches of overhang for both the coupe and sedan models. I think the Riviera got about a foot tacked onto it that year, and the Toronado would follow suit in 1990.

But Cadillac really didn't do anything with the Eldorado/Seville until the 1992 redesign. I wonder if the reason was because that '92 redesign was just around the corner? Or, perhaps the 1992 model just showed up ahead of schedule, because the '86 era style was bombing so badly?

I imagine one of those final 1991 models, which I think had the 4.9 V-8 by then, would have been a pretty good performer. If not that exciting to look at. I wonder if anyone ever thought to put one of those 4.5/4.9's in an older Bustleback Seville?

bumpy · February 2008

I found a site that talked about swapping a Cadillac HT into a Fiero. :surprise: I don't think anything would help those nasty older Sevilles short of a car crusher.

andys120 · February 2008

hudsonthedog · February 2008

I wonder if anyone ever thought to put one of those 4.5/4.9's in an older Bustleback Seville?

The "bustleback" Seville and the third-generation model had different styles of front-wheel drive setups. The 2nd generation model was a longitudinal FWD while the 3rd (and 4th and 5th) generation was a transverse FWD setup. The 4.5L and 4.9L engines were never placed in cars longitudinally. I don't know if all of the necessary parts from the longitudinal 4.1 would make the transition possible...or if the effort would be worth it. Couldn't you just get the same or more power out of a 368cid Cadillac or 350cid gas Oldsmobile engine?

andre1969 · February 2008

1955 Chrysler. I believe it's a New Yorker. IIRC, the NYer and Windsor used the same grille and headlight bezels that year (they would be different for 1956). However, I think the Windsor had round turn signals below the headlights, whereas they're built into the bumper guards on that New Yorker.

That's a pretty 2-tone green combination.

andre1969 · February 2008

Couldn't you just get the same or more power out of a 368cid Cadillac or 350cid gas Oldsmobile engine?

Yeah, you probably could. I think the 4.9 aluminum V-8 was coaxed up to 200 hp, while the 368 only had 140-150 depending on year, and the Olds 350 was around 160 hp in 1980. However, the 1979 version used in the Eldorado was around 170 hp I think, while the earlier fuel-injected one in the 1975-79 Sevilles was 180. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to build up one of those engines to meet or exceed the 4.9's output, though. And with the larger displacement, they were probably torquier from the get-go.

IIRC, the 425 and even the Caddy 500 were the same external size as a 368. So one of those could feasibly fit, I guess.

lemko · February 2008

My 1994 Cadillac DeVille had the 4.9 V-8 and it was no slouch despite its mere 200 hp rating.

hudsonthedog · February 2008

Yeah, you probably could. I think the 4.9 aluminum V-8 was coaxed up to 200 hp, while the 368 only had 140-150 depending on year, and the Olds 350 was around 160 hp in 1980. However, the 1979 version used in the Eldorado was around 170 hp I think, while the earlier fuel-injected one in the 1975-79 Sevilles was 180. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to build up one of those engines to meet or exceed the 4.9's output, though. And with the larger displacement, they were probably torquier from the get-go.

IIRC, the 425 and even the Caddy 500 were the same external size as a 368. So one of those could feasibly fit, I guess.

My guess is that the big Cadillac engine or the small Oldsmobile engine would be much easier (and cheaper) to build up than the small Cadillac engine, even if you were to start with the 200hp versions. I'd think that there are many more go-fast parts for the former engines rather than the latter.

andys120 · February 2008

However, I think the Windsor had round turn signals below the headlights, whereas they're built into the bumper guards on that New Yorker.

Andre, you are a phenomenon, I can barely tell thre model yearson those, let alone the model.
Yep it's a '55 Chrysler New Yorker (Hemi).

andys120 · February 2008

kyfdx · February 2008

Early '70s Volvo... 144 or 122?

texases · February 2008

I'll raise kyfdx 20 - a Volvo 164? about 1968?

andys120 · February 2008

Volvo 164? about 1968?

You win that hand, it's a '69 Volvo 164. I'm surprised to see anything European wearing whitewalls that late in the game.

andys120 · February 2008

fintail · February 2008

Ford (UK) Zephyr ca. 1963

andys120 · February 2008

Ford (UK) Zephyr ca. 1963

Yes indeed, that styling faux pas is a 1963 Ford Zephyr 4 MkII.

andys120 · February 2008

andys120 · February 2008

No takers on my funky little police car?

lemko · February 2008

I'll take a shot. It looks like a Russian variant of an old Fiat. Is it a Zhiguli

andys120 · February 2008

Nope, not a Zhiguli, not Russian either.

magnette · February 2008

It isn't a Mark II, it's a mark III,,,,,

magnette · February 2008

This must be a Zastava - either the Yugoslavian version of the Fiat 125, or the Polski Fiat 125P - they made both - so I'm guessing it's the 125.

andys120 · February 2008

Bingo, it's a Polski 125

andys120 · February 2008

kyfdx · February 2008

Mazda GLC? Early '80s?

texases · February 2008

Plymouth Colt? 1986? Did those have the 'twin stick' shift?

andys120 · February 2008

Nope, but you're close.

subearu · February 2008

I was going to say a Colt as well, but glad someone else said it first so I could correct myself and try suggesting it's a Plymouth version of the Colt, rather the Plymouth Champ. '78-'82-ish likely.

-Brian

andys120 · February 2008

There ya go, it's a Plymouth Champ, the badge twin of the Dodge, or is it a badge triplet since there was a Mitsubishi Colt? :confuse:

texases · February 2008

I never could keep those "Mitplymodges" straight :confuse:

kyfdx · February 2008

Don't feel bad.. Evidently, I can't tell them from Mazdas, either... :surprise:

Mystery car pix

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles