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
I'm pretty sure that starting in 1974, there were plenty of cars that popped the 230" barrier, because of those bumper standards. But I don't think any of them exceeded 235".
I'd be curious to see Adam's take on the '72 Imperial, as well. I seem to recall they weren't that highly regarded at the time. Tom McCahill or something said of that generation something along the lines of "It smells like a Plymouth!" But then I seem to recall Consumer Guide testing a '73, along with a Caddy, a Lincoln, and a Benz, and liking most things about the Imperial, except for its braking.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Saw a 53 Coupe DeVille on I90 today, cruising with traffic. I was in a Lyft at the time, and the driver, a very gregarious Ukrainian guy, was really impressed with it (Lyft was a MKZ).
A few years ago I sat in one that was for sale at the Hershey PA car show. I think it was a '73. It was definitely a roomy, comfy car. I guess you should expect nothing less from something this size, but some of those old cars really weren't as roomy as you'd think, for their size.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
More rarities than I can remember, plenty I never saw in person before. Including a Jowett Jupiter. And a neat MGC GT with the 6 cylinder. A real 1952 Scarab. I’ll think of more later.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I still see box Panthers nearly daily here in South Jersey. Many are still on the road, since arguably they are tough to kill and really weren’t heavy rusters.
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
Drove by "my" house and looked at the neglected 450SL I spotted a couple blocks down the street. It's a very early model, no later than 1973. Also saw a 67-69 Camaro down the street.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
However, I was blown away by the state of the cars I saw on my first trip to NY (1975). Even cars that were only a few years old were awful. I think my aunt and uncle had a Nova that was pretty clapped out.
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 / 2014 MINI Countryman S ALL4
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I'm sure it's filtered to some extent.
Filtering doesn’t take out salt.
All I can say is that I stopped having chassis seal problems after I started going to the car wash in the winter.
You need reverse osmosis to remove salt, I’d be very surprised if car washes had that. But I bet they add a lot of fresh water, reducing any salt issue.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mercury/comet/2514654.html
Reminds me too much of our '74 Maverick 4-door, though ours was a LDO model so it was nicer inside than this one with the base interior. It was just an awful car overall. At least this one has minimal rust, unlike ours which rotted away in 3 or 4 years.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I love this ad copy: "drives like a new 1974 car!!" - not quite the brag the seller thinks it is.
I've always thought the two door Maverick, especially with small bumpers, was an OK enough design, but never warmed up so much to the 4 door models.
I liked this image from the 1961 show, 75th anniversary year for MB, hence the old cars. The Ponton on the left is from the final run of the series, with the then-new 4 cyl fintail beside it, and the new fintail coupe and cabriolet in the background (I think I spot 190SL and 300SL roadster back there, too). I notice the whitewall width looks similar to my car:
No year stated, but clues narrow it down - no fintails, Ponton coupe and cabrio, 300SL roadster, Adenauer hardtop, must be 1957 or 1958:
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
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 / 2014 MINI Countryman S ALL4
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
I'll defer to andre on this, but I believe it's a '74.
What is confusing me, is I thought the GT package was a low-cost stripe and wheels package for the base LeMans. This car has "Sport Coupe" badges on both front fenders, but does not have the Sport Coupe's usual louvered quarter windows (I like these big windows better than the louvers).
The seating, with the buttons, would make me think 'Luxury LeMans', as do the door panels, but I just don't know. It could be a 'mongrel' with parts from other models, who knows.
But I thought it was mildly interesting.
2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech, 2006 Acura TL w/nav
Here's a YouTube video of a '74 LeMans GT. Looks like this one is just based on the base coupe, and not the Sport Coupe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep2uclXu9is
It just has a bench seat, and the base door panels. And the more common 3-spoke (or I always called it a "tee") steering wheel, rather than the jumbo-hub wheel that looks like it was lifted from a Grand Am.
I think the Accord was only slightly smaller than the Le Mans on the inside, and got mpg that was twice as good.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I seem to recall an issue or two with the CVCC engine, and where I lived, the Honda's top of fenders had holes in a few years. The Pontiac may have had them at the bottom, where they weren't so apparent.
The Luxury LeMans seating was also available on the LeMans sedan, which got you the nicer seating but with no skirts outside.
The Grand Am wheel, and the luxury door panels, the car pictured has, I can't explain.
Where I live, you never see old Hondas. I live in the industrial midwest/northeast, but I still see old B-Body GM cars every so often, and Crown Vics. No doubt sold new in higher numbers around here.
Most of them were equipped with a Pontiac 350-2bbl with 160 hp, which was probably good for 0-60 in about 13 seconds. There was also a 350-4bbl, which I believe was for CA/high-altitude areas. I've seen it rated anywhere from 165 hp (Consumer Guide) to 175 hp (those big blue "MOTOR's" Repair Manuals). There was also a 400-4bbl, that had 180 hp and at the top of the heap was a 200 hp 455-4bbl. I read somewhere that the 455 was good for 0-60 in about 10 seconds, so performance was pretty much a thing of the past with these cars.
As for interior room, I did some digging around. The oldest interior volumes I can find that the EPA put out were in 1977. They listed an Accord hatchback at 82 cubic feet of passenger volume, 14 cubic feet of trunk space. The LeMans was rated at 99/15. However, they averaged the volumes of the coupe and sedan. They did the same for the Malibu, but the Grand Prix and Monte Carlo, available only as coupes, were listed at 94/15. So I'd presume a LeMans coupe would've been very close to one of those.
Oddly, the Century/Regal and Cutlass, which are also averaged, are only 97/15. Odd that the interiors are rated a bit smaller than a Malibu/LeMans, but I wonder if they're actually averaging the sedan, the formal roof (Cutlass Supreme/Regal/Century Custom) coupe, and the more fastback-roof (Cutlass Salon, Century) coupes. Averaging in two coupes and a sedan would sink the numbers a bit, compared to just averaging one coupe and a sedan.
Now oddly, when the Accord sedan came out for '79, it was rated at 81/10, while the hatchback was downgraded to 77/14. It's strange that the hatchback would "lose" 5 cubic feet, even though it was the same car. And I really question it having 14 cubic feet of trunk space. Maybe with the back seat folded flat? Still, that seems like an odd way to measure interior volume. The EPA doesn't do that with real wagons; they just give a measurement for the passenger volume of the front and middle seat, and then cargo volume, with the back seat up.
As for fuel economy, here's the EPA's ratings for the '76 LeMans:
250-6 manual (M): 17/25
250-6 auto (A): 17/22
260 V8 M: 16/26
260 V8 A: 16/22
350-2bbl V8 A: 14/19
350-4bbl V8 A: (oddly, not listed by the EPA)
400-2bbl V8 A: 14/19 (interesting, I thought the 400s were all 4-bbl, albeit economy-minded ones, by '76)
400-4bbl V8 A: 15/20
455-4bbl V8 A 14/20
They don't list the Accord for '76, but for '77 its ratings are as follows:
98 CID 4-cyl, 3bbl, M, 38/48
98 CID 4-cyl, 3bbl, Semi-automatic, 26/31
Meanwhile, for the '77 LeMans:
231 V6 M: 16/26
231 V6 A: 17/25
301-2bbl V8 A: 16/23
350-4bbl V8 A: 14/21
400-4bbl V8 A: 14/21
I liked the early Accords, but yeah, in salt on the road areas, they rusted out quick, like most all of the early Japanese models.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive
Small cars with ATs did stink on mpg and performance back then. I remember a small Mazda that suffered the same problems. Neighbor bought an ‘82-ish Cavalier that got 16 mpg.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
On that green one, what would slap me in the face is no moldings around the quarter windows. I'd surely think some place is re-popping them, with that being such a common thing on those cars 45 years later.
However, my car has a power seat and a tilt wheel, so where I have them positioned might contribute to that. I have the seat back as far as it will go, and raised a bit. And I have the steering wheel tilted up slightly, as well. I'm impressed with the range of motion of this power seat. With just the standard non-power seat, I always found the Colonades to be a bit tight on legroom up front. Not enough to make me hate the car, but just enough that I wish the seat went back a little further. But with the power seat, it has a wide range of motion, and it go into positions far enough back that I can't even reach the pedals.
The back seat is tight, on legroom, but I was surprised at how much headroom there actually is. I've sat back there a couple times out of curiosity, and despite that low-slung roof, my head doesn't touch the ceiling. And the seat cushions are pretty thick, and well-padded. It just needs more legroom. If they had put the coupe on a 4" longer wheelbase (i.e., same as the sedan), but put those 4" in the back seat, rather than ahead of the cowl like they did on a Grand Prix or Monte Carlo, it would've been a damn comfortable back seat! But, it might have been enough to throw off the proportioning, and not make it look as attractive. And coupes tended to prioritize style over functionality.
As for the trunk, I always knew trunk space was tight on these cars, but the first time I opened the trunk in my '76, it was actually roomier than what I was expecting! The fore-aft dimension isn't so great, and the full size spare cuts into that room. But it's deeper (vertical height) than it seems like what it would be, based on the exterior. Because of the slope though, the deepest part is toward the front of the trunk, just before the axle hump, and the spare tire takes up some of that. A compact temporary spare would definitely free up some useable space. And I've wondered if simply relocating the full-sized spare one side of the trunk or another, rather than all the way forward and toward the driver's side, would have made it more useable by freeing up some more of the taller area?