Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The Delta 88 and LeSabre still offered 350s in their coupes and sedans for 1980. And, according to the sales brochure at least, you could get bucket seats in a console in their coupes, as well. I guess it would make sense in the LeSabre especially, since they were still offering the turbo V6 in it.
I actually think the 1980 Impala 2-door is a good looking car. Unfortunately, its interior is pretty basic.
GM, at least, still made the B- (and C-body) 2-doors more low-slung coupes, although with the angular lines it might not have been that apparent. With the Ford Panthers, the 2-doors were considered sedans, and I'm convinced shared the same windshields and rear windows as their 4-door counterparts. The plus side of that, is that the 2-door Panthers were a bit roomier in the back seat than the GM B-body coupes, although they were all roomy enough for most people.
Oh, as for the Toyota Cressida, I've heard it referred to as a 4-door Supra. Now that could just be because it used the same 6-cyl engine, but I wonder if the two might have shared some of their body architecture, as well? That's one reason the '68-79 Nova was a bit cramped inside, given its external dimensions, because it shared a lot of its structure with the Camaro. But, on the plus side, it tended to give the Nova the edge in handling, compared to other compacts of the era, and made it a top choice in the compact police car field.
I liked those cars, but like the BMW, they were awfully expensive, compared to the competition.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Back then, for a car to score a "5" for acceleration, I think it had to do 0-60 in 9.5 seconds or less. At least, I remember the Cressida coming in at 9.6 and getting a "4", while they had a few cars that did around 9.4, and I think they got rated a "5". They didn't actually have a table telling how they broke down the scoring, unfortunately.
It's amazing how times have changed. Are there even any cars on the market anymore that take as long as 9.5 seconds to get from 0-60? I just googled the Chevy Spark and C&D got a 0-60 time of 10.7 seconds. So, there is that. But I guess, not much else.
But then, when downsizing hit, the Bonneville's standard engine became the Pontiac 301-2bbl. In California, I think you were forced to get the Olds 350. At least, it was still a step above the Chevies, which used the 250 inline 6, or the Catalina, Delta 88, and LeSabre, which came with a 231 V6 standard, but it was a far cry from the good old days. But then in 1980, to make the 231 standard in the Bonneville, even...what a slap in the face!!
I guess about the only way Pontiac could have made the 1980 Bonneville roughly comparable to the 1969 in terms of power/prestige, would have been to hold over the 220 hp version of the 400, that was last used in the 1979 Trans Am. But, I'm sure the EPA and CAFE people would have had a fit!
Or, I wonder how the 301 turbo would have done, in something like a Bonneville?
Went to pick up the fintail this morning, and noticed a new resident in the garage:
Even more obscure, it's a convertible - not a cabriolet top, but a convertible conversion.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
It definitely does bear more of a resemblance to the '67 Eldorado, than it does the '78! It's a shame that they didn't find a way to make at least one version of that design, either the Eldorado or Toronado, have hidden headlights. What was that Pierre Cardin aftermarket conversion called...the Evolution or something like that? It was pretty cool...or would have been, if it hadn't been for that excessive overhang.
It really is a shame that the engines on those cars went to crap so quickly. I did a search on 0-60 times, and found 9.7 seconds for a '79 Eldorado, which would have had the Olds 350. Although surprisingly, I found 12.9 seconds for a 1985 Eldorado Touring Coupe, with the aluminum 249/4.1 V8, which is better than I would have thought.
I also found a 0-60 time of 10.5 seconds for the 1980 Seville, which I recognize from a test that C&D or MT did of flagship cars that year. The other two were a Mark VI and 5th Ave. The Mark VI did fairly well too, at 10.9 seconds. It had the 351, IIRC, instead of just the 302. The 5th Avenue, alas, just had a 318-2bbl, choked down to 120 hp that year. 0-60 was 14.1 seconds. You could get a 360-2bbl as an option, which only had 130 hp, but a lot more torque most likely. There was also a 318-4bbl, with 155 hp, but it was only CA/high-altitude. Some sources say you could get the hot (for the time) 360-4bbl, but I'm pretty sure that was police-car-only by that time.
The first-gen, Nova-based Seville always seems to have a good reputation, and tends to be more highly regarded than the pimpier 1980-85. But interestingly, the only 0-60 times I see for it are 12.8 for a '76 and 13.6 for a '77. I would have thought the first-gen would have been a better performer than that? At least, I never would have suspected an '80, even with the 368, would have been quicker. It was a little lighter, but not much...still in excess of 4,000 lb.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I'm sure I posted this before, but the previous owner of the house I bought had this in the yard...
When I showed an interest in it (along the lines of "Hey, that's pretty cool!"), she offered to throw it into the deal. Wisely, I passed.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1980-chevrolet-caprice-the-times-they-are-a-changin/
I always wondered how bad a Mopar R-body would have been with the standard slant six. It was choked down to 90 hp that year. I think I've seen old 0-60 times of Dodge Diplomats and Miradas with the slant six at something like 16.7-17 seconds, and they're no lightweights, themselves. So maybe something like a 1980 Newport, St. Regis, or Gran Fury with the slant six wouldn't really be any worse than that Caprice with the 229?
I think Ford really made the right decision with their Panthers, making them standard V8 from the get-go. Although once that tiny 255 V8 came out, I'd imagine it was pretty bad.
I knew a girl in my class whose parents traded in their '72 Caprice Sport Sedan for a new '77 Caprice Classic sedan in the brochure two-tone blue. It was a six. A year later, they traded on a two-tone green fully-loaded '78 Caprice Classic sedan, with a V8.
Reminds me of elderly Mr. Parry in our neighborhood who bought new two-door Impalas every few years and kept them beautifully clean and maintained. He bought a new '65 Impala Sport Coupe with six. A year later he bought a new '66 Impala Sport Coupe with V8. And trading annually was not his custom.
That link you posted showed two consecutive pics that show the dramatic differences between the '79 and '80 Caprice coupes. The '80 doesn't do a single thing for me....especially losing that wraparound rear window, IMHO.
I did like what they called the 'geometic' Custom Wheel Cover on the '80 and '81's. Looked like a wheel in the brochure, but I don't believe I ever saw one on a real car.
When my Dad bought that green '80 Monte Carlo I posted here a week or so ago, he and I test-drove a new silver '80 Impala Coupe, V6, as he'd liked the '77 305 Impala coupe he bought new so well. We were underwhelmed. Still had the plasticky Impala dash, but the upper 1/3 or so was black plastic instead of color-keyed. The seat trim was plainer than the '77. My Dad noticed the turn signal indicators were little arrows on the '80, different apparently, LOL. I'm glad he bought the Monte Carlo.
What makes this Impala special, besides the low-mileage and rare color, IMHO is that it has the optional skirts, rare on an Impala. I normally dislike skirts but the sill trim follows along on the skirt, which I like, and it's so true, I think you can tell how solid the quarters around the skirts are. It also has the optional running lights. I always assumed these were cornering lights, but one of his pics shows them both on with the headlights. My grandparents' '67 Impala had black trim in these front corners. The wheel opening trim in front is normally only seen on SS models that year, which makes me think when you ordered skirts, you got the front wheel opening moldings as well. I think every '67 I have seen with skirts, has these moldings.
The car's a 327, with Powerglide (of course). Too bad it's not the optional Turbo-Hydramatic, which you could get on a 327 that year.
Anyway, they list the '77 at 115 hp, 195 ft-lb of torque, but the '78 is also listed at 90 hp and 175 ft-lb, which I have trouble believing. Unfortunately, the sales brochures don't list hp or torque, by that time, so I can't cross reference them.
Somehow, I have a feeling the 4.1 was a little quicker from 0-60, because of the slightly greater torque. Even though the '80 was a little lighter. The '80 229 also used the lighter weight THM200 transmission, whereas the '79 used the THM350, so I don't know how much the extra beef of the 350 might have sapped a bit of power? The THM200 also used a quicker first gear, 2.74:1, whereas the THM350 was 2.52:1. And, googling around, it looks like the 250-6cyl hit that 195 ft-lb of torque at 1600 rpm, while the 229 hit its 175 peak a bit higher, at 2000. So that might have given the 250 a bit of an edge.
An old friend was body shop instructor at vocational school, so it got stripped for free and he took it home to paint in his shop.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
Interestingly, they also show a difference in the 305. The federal version was 130 hp, but the CA version was choked slightly, to 125. And they list the 350 at 170 hp federal, and 165 for California.
As for 0-60 times, the Chevy was 15.4, while the St. Regis was a pathetic 15.9. The Ford, despite having the least hp, managed 13.9 IIRC.
It's interesting how erratic some of those 0-60 times can be. 15.9 seconds, while nothing to brag about, sounds about what I'd expect, from a 229 in a full-sized car. And, in all fairness, even back in the old days, your typical full-sized car with a 6-cyl would usually do 0-60 in around 15-17 seconds, at least until they started porking up, and getting emissions-strangled, in the 70's. But 18.5 sounds bad. I wonder what would account for that wide variance? Plus, usually a buff rag like C&D or MT would usually get a better 0-60 time out of a car than CR or Consumer Guide, but here it was just the opposite! I mean, I understand it's not a given that two identical cars will perform exactly the same, as there can be a variance in weather, elevation, test weight, etc. But that seems like a pretty wide margin!
Here's an article on the 1979 LTD: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1979-ford-ltd-corpulence-condensed/
It mentions a couple old reviews. Both had 351-2bbls. Consumer Guide got 0-60 in 13.9 seconds, while Car and Driver was good for 11.2. However, the CG car was listed at 132 hp, 268 ft-lb of torque, and an 8.3:1 compression ratio. The C&D one was 145 hp, 273 ft-lb, and an 8.0:1 compression. Both used a tall 2.26:1 axle.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Funny how all the '80 B&C bodies were lighter than in '79, but they looked heavier.
I'd imagine a Delta 88 or LeSabre with the 231 would have been lighter than the Impala with the 229, because the Buick block was lighter. I can't figure why the Pontiacs are coming in so chunky though, unless the publishers simply goofed up and listed the V8 weights and not the average? They also mention the Bonneville as having a 301 standard, while the sales brochure says 231 was standard, although the 265 was standard on the Brougham.
They list the Catalina coupe at 3534 lb, the Bonneville coupe at 3616, and the Bonneville Brougham coupe at 3659.
For comparison, the Ford LTD started at 3447 for a 2-door. My book doesn't list the weight of the "S" version, so this is actually the next step up. Considering the LTD had a standard V8, I'm impressed at how lightweight that is. To me, the Panthers back then had sort of a heavy look to them...possibly because of the more squared-off styling.
I’d suspect most were ordered with the 302, AC and the nicer interior pushing them at least 500 pounds heavier.
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Off the top of my head, the LeSabre was around 3530 lb, and the Delta 88 was 3576. The Parisienne was around 3675, but I'm drawing a blank on the Caprice. I want to say it was still in the 3500-3600 range. They also tested a Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, and I want to say those were each around 3800 lb. They were all well-equipped cars.
They also tested a Fleetwood Brougham sedan, which had the aluminum 249. I remember it being something like 4000-4200 lb.
I dunno if it's true anymore (or if it has been in recent memory), but I've heard that a/c adds about 150-175 lb to the weight of a car. I used to think that power windows added a lot, until the first time I held a power window motor in my hand, from my 1979 5th Ave. Each motor is only a couple of pounds, although I guess all the wiring and switches might add up? I wonder how much a power seat adds?
I don't know where, exactly, Olds and Buick cut weight compared to Chevy/Pontiac...although by 1983 a Parisienne was virtually identical to a Caprice/Impala. I've seen engine weight charts that put a 231 V6 at 375 lb, while a Chevy 200/229/262 V6 is around 425, so that could account for some variance. I usually see the generic Chevy smallblock quoted at 575 lb, with the excuse being that while it had low reciprocating mass, it was a weak block, and was beefed up sort of hodge-podge, after the fact, rather than being properly redesigned. Of course, that excuse usually came from the Ford, or Mopar crowd.
I don't know what the "quoted" weight of an Olds 307 is. I've heard that the block is beefier than a Chevy block, but has a lot of nickel mixed in with its iron construction, which makes it stronger, yet lighter. Oh, one other thing...by 1985, I think the B-body with a 305 was using whatever they called the 4-speed version of the THM350 transmission...700-R4 or something like that? The 307 in an Olds or Buick used the THM200-R4. So I don't know how much of a weight savings there was in transmissions.
I remember my grandmother's '85 LeSabre had gas struts to hold up the hood, which probably saved a few pounds. I think Chevy/Pontiac and the Delta 88 used the heavier spring-type hinges. So, they definitely gave the various divisions some autonomy in details that you might think would be standardized.
I seem to recall those struts started getting a bit weak around 1994, too, and we started keeping a broom handle in the trunk.
I really need to dig out that 1985 Consumer Guide of mine, rather than just going on memory. Hopefully I'm not having too many Ronald Reagan moments with this stuff I'm regurgitating
And now, years later, I'm probably just going to strip a few good parts off of that car, and try to sell the rest for parts. So, I'll probably just save those struts, for if my 5th Ave ever has a strut failure.
Oh, oddly, Chrysler made a change in 1981 for the R-body, switching to a more normal torsion-bar type of support for the trunk. I wonder if they did that because the struts in those days had a high failure rate? Anyway, the R-body was discontinued half-way through the 1981 model year, so it almost seems like a waste of money to make the change.
FWIW, the struts on my '79 5th Ave's trunk are still holding strong. In fact, a couple years ago at one of the Mopar shows, someone commented on the fact they still worked fine. I guess it's a bigger deal than I figured.
https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a33974349/the-car-clock-of-the-week-comes-from-a-1967-mercedes-benz-w110/
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
Here's a shot showing the dash in my car, with the same clock:
Dunno about the 1960's, specifically, but my '76 Grand LeMans has a clock, And yup, you guessed it...it doesn't work! The '85 Silverado I used to have, had a clock as well. Granddad bought that truck new, and Grandmom ended up giving it to my Mom and stepdad around 1995. They sold it to me in 2002...a point of contention with Grandmom, but to be fair, they did put some money into it. I'm not sure when, exactly, the clock stopped working. I do remember a ticking sound, and I think the second hand would go around, but not the minute or hour hand.
The three '79 R-bodies I've owned all have/had digital clocks, and they work/worked fine. One thing I find a bit odd about the digital clock in my '03 Regal...it actually runs fast. I don't think I've ever seen that. Usually they slowly lose time. And, usually, the last thing a Buick owner wants to do, is speed up time!
The same can be said for the 2000 panther that my grandparents bought new. They owned it for about 14 years before gifting it to my mother, and it was practically in new condition at that point. Now? Well, it is looking rather tired....
It worked - even then I was kind of amazed. I remember seeing blank spots for 60s car clocks, just a blank clockface design.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Other than that Newport and the two '79 New Yorkers, ever other digital-clock car I've owned has had the clock built into the radio.
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav