: Check out this post war beauty I found!



1964CoupeDeville
11-30-09, 01:12 AM
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/1481534962.html Think she will play well with my 64' Caddy? When I paint her the original color (if I can find it) I wonder what the folks will say when I pass them on the street. Oh how I have a weak spot for these old majestic beauties....

Jonas McFeely
11-30-09, 03:50 AM
You had an extra $5k burning a hole in your pocket, and you bought this?

Mccombie, is that you?

:hide:

Warren_R
11-30-09, 05:05 AM
For the same $$, I'd go for a 1955 or '56 Fleetwood like the one I grabbed in 1974 for $100 .... but hey to each their own. Who's McCombie, btw?

EcSTSatic
11-30-09, 09:09 AM
McCombie is a legend here, and not in a good way :cookoo:

I could think of better cars to spend $5K on but it's your money. I'm thinking folks will say the same thing I do about my 1920 house, "thank goodness they don't make them like they use to!".

1964CoupeDeville
11-30-09, 01:58 PM
McCombie is a legend here, and not in a good way :cookoo:

I could think of better cars to spend $5K on but it's your money. I'm thinking folks will say the same thing I do about my 1920 house, "thank goodness they don't make them like they use to!".

Don't hate on Chevrolet now, we are all GM brothers after all. I would have bought a 47' Caddy I found but it was FUBAR. I have my 64' and I'm pleased with her.

orconn
11-30-09, 02:31 PM
Nobody is "hate on Chevrolet" it just seems that is a lot of money for a '47 Chevrolet sedan in that condition.

77CDV
11-30-09, 11:24 PM
Looks like it was headed for lowriderdom and the funds ran out. It would be interesting to see one properly restored, as I don't ever remember ever seeing a stock example before. They were really quite attractive cars, and offered good value for the money when they were new.

orconn
12-01-09, 12:06 AM
I know the 1946-48 Ford and Chevrolet sedans very well. Aside from my uncle having a 1948 Ford Tudor Sedan back in the forties (the first car I ever steered, while sitting on my uncle's lap on the road that surrounds the Rose Bowl). In the mid-1950's 1946-48 Chevrolet Fleetline sedans and Ford Fordor sedans were ubiquitous as taxi cabs in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Imported during Brazil's WWII hay day when the country was awash with U.S. dollars due to its' export support of the Allied war effort, the cars were kept in beautiful condition (usually painted black with red vinyl interiors) and provided the, I would estimate 98%, of both cities' taxi fleet. I used to ride to school in one of these taxis on many a day and frequently road in them to get around both cities. In those days both cities had the majority of their thoroughfares paved in cobble stones, this and the fact the roads often shared their right of way with streetcars and their tracks meant that the taxis lived in a very tough environment (not to mention the unpaved roads that were still very common at the time). The fact that these cars, while well maintained, stood up to their rough environment for so many years and filled a vital transportation need so well really established the high reputation for quality and reliability that American cars had then and in the years to come. British and German cars were far less desirable than these American work horses and in those days one never saw a Mercedes or a Vauxhall taxi.

Forties Cadillacs were cherished by the rich, again left over from the Boom Time of the war years and the years just following WWII. The Boom came crashing down in the early fifities and the government imposed prohitive import duties on all cars which caused the dearth of 1950-60 cars. A 1953 Cadillac 62 sedan cost about $50,000. 1950's dollars (about half million today). The only people driving new cars were auto company executives and Embassy personnel, who were exempt from the car import duties, and the very few Brazilian billionaires of the day (several of the richest men in the world were Brazilian at that time). From 1955 to 1957 my family's personal car was a 1953 Ford Customline coupe. My dad was chief engineer of RCA's Latin American operations and the company car was a 1952 Buick Special sedan (all chauffeur driven, by the way!) a far cry from the Olds 98s and Buick Roadmasters senior excutives drove in the U.S.

1964CoupeDeville
12-01-09, 12:45 AM
Nobody is "hate on Chevrolet" it just seems that is a lot of money for a '47 Chevrolet sedan in that condition.

I haven't actually bought it yet. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/1480013757.html this one has peaked my interest

Stingroo
12-01-09, 01:16 AM
Eh... it's cool, but I'd finish the '64 first if I was you. Just my opinion though. I wouldn't want to see a car you owned turn into that Chevy there, and end up as "too many projects".

Take it slow man, you've got a long time. :thumbsup:

Jonas McFeely
12-01-09, 05:49 AM
I haven't actually bought it yet. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/1480013757.html this one has peaked my interest

Im going to totally bust your balls. Ok. If you havent bought it, then why does your profile say that you have?

Is your '64 DeVille your daily driver? If so, i can tell you from experience (check out my thread in the RWD section) that driving an old car daily is the fastest way to ruin it.

Youre 18. I remember being 18. I was an idiot. Im still an idiot. I bought the majority of the 13+ cars ive owned between the ages of 18 and 20. They were all learning experiences and i was lucky enough to never lose my ass on any of them. It appears that you have a ton of disposable income, for whatever reason, and thats awesome. But seriously, buying old 194x's hulks is foolish, in my opinion, when you have a '64 DeVille as a daily driver.

My only advice,.if youre actually legit(and i have my doubts) is for you to invest your $5k+ into something that will be reliable and allow you to use your '64 as a weekend cruiser.

Or maybe youre filthy rich and dont care. In which care, right on, go nuts.

And if you disagree, well, im sure you "know" everything, because youre 18.

Shit. Who am i to say that? ...im 22 and i still think i know everything.

Err, actually, i still think youre full of it. K im done. :alchi::alchi::alchi::thepan:

billc83
12-01-09, 10:53 AM
I don't know, man. For $5,000, I think you could get a much nicer old ride.

My honest advice to you is to keep that money in the bank.

1964CoupeDeville
12-01-09, 07:38 PM
Eh... it's cool, but I'd finish the '64 first if I was you. Just my opinion though. I wouldn't want to see a car you owned turn into that Chevy there, and end up as "too many projects".

Take it slow man, you've got a long time. :thumbsup:

By the time the car is out of that god forsaken body shop it will be dead to me.Oh, and to those labeling me as an ignorant child I bet I drive slower and more carefully than the lot of you combined.

PS: To the one who said buy something more reliable you're one to talk for owning both an early 90s and a mid 1980s car. You do realize those cars are long past their "expiration date" I use that term because they're victims of PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE! Mine came from a time before that so I remain unaffected. Only reason I'm looking for another car is because mine doesn't have that same joy it used to. I doubt any of you have had owned a car that was spending more time in Body Shops/Interior shops than you actually drove it.

Oh and another thing, I'm not one of those ignorant kids who race their cars into the ground. Only time I really push my pedal is when I'm trying to get through a yellow light (know not to stop too harshly on 45 year old drums) or I'm going on the highway (even then I usually only go 55-60).

Jonas McFeely
12-01-09, 11:17 PM
I bet I drive slower and more carefully than the lot of you combined.

Then that just makes you dangerous and unsafe in traffic. You can go fast and still be "careful" and handle your car. It just takes more skill and heightened awareness.


PS: To the one who said buy something more reliable you're one to talk for owning both an early 90s and a mid 1980s car. You do realize those cars are long past their "expiration date" I use that term because they're victims of PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE! Mine came from a time before that so I remain unaffected.

I say a lot of dumb shit, most would agree on that. But wow, that statement by far takes the cake. Easily one of the most ridiculous things ive ever read on these boards...and i was around for the great Fred Maxwell.

My '93 Altima has almost 167k miles on it and its runs like a top. The engine is as clean as can be and its never had any major problems. Just routine stuff. I religiously change the oil and use only gas with Techron. That engine will go another 100k no problem. The interior, though a bit dirty, is in great shape and is holding together nicely. Aside from some rattles at idle here and there, i have no complaints. This car was built to last, and its doing a damn fine job of it. The fact that you can say that it is a victim of "planned obsolescence" is completely ridiculous.

My '85 Fleetwood is a victim of my own stupidity, immaturity, and lack of money. But she's on her way to being a respectable car again.


Only time I really push my pedal is when I'm trying to get through a yellow light (know not to stop too harshly on 45 year old drums)

:suspense:

Stingroo
12-02-09, 12:55 AM
I agree with Jonas up there. Planned obsolescence isn't really something that happens in the car world. Human ignorance and laziness, however, are. Think about it. How many people who MAINTAIN their cars properly have serious issues? Not many. Like Jonas's Altima, 167k sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. Why do you think there are trucks out there with over a million miles on them? Because people who know how to take care of cars, or HAVE TO take care of cars for work, will make them last.

Just because a new generation of vehicle comes out doesn't mean the old ones are obsolete. That's just good ol' consumerism thinking that we have to have the latest and greatest everything. It's marketing more than anything.

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 01:51 AM
Then that just makes you dangerous and unsafe in traffic. You can go fast and still be "careful" and handle your car. It just takes more skill and heightened awareness.



I say a lot of dumb shit, most would agree on that. But wow, that statement by far takes the cake. Easily one of the most ridiculous things ive ever read on these boards...and i was around for the great Fred Maxwell.

My '93 Altima has almost 167k miles on it and its runs like a top. The engine is as clean as can be and its never had any major problems. Just routine stuff. I religiously change the oil and use only gas with Techron. That engine will go another 100k no problem. The interior, though a bit dirty, is in great shape and is holding together nicely. Aside from some rattles at idle here and there, i have no complaints. This car was built to last, and its doing a damn fine job of it. The fact that you can say that it is a victim of "planned obsolescence" is completely ridiculous.

My '85 Fleetwood is a victim of my own stupidity, immaturity, and lack of money. But she's on her way to being a respectable car again.



:suspense:

I go slowly so I don't overwork the poor old car. I don't take turns too fast or try to show off like those ignorant Honda Civic driving kids.

Oh, and just so you know: Planned Obsolescence means that, after a certain amount of time, the car begins to break apart on its own accord so that people but the newest car.

Thing is I was defending myself against accusations, not attacking. I don't know why I'm being flamed. Old cars are reliable and as such can be used as daily drivers. I'm here to prove that. In fact my 64' Caddy was an old ladies daily driver until she died 5 years ago. She owned it since day 1 and it's always been running without a rebuild. It still runs strong to this day.

Jonas McFeely
12-02-09, 02:13 AM
Youre argument still makes no sense. Are you saying that older cars were designed to last forever? Pre-1980's cars will run forever because they were designed to never be replaced? What are you trying to say? Because im not understanding. Youre making it seem like my 1993 car is designed to break down and deteriorate because a newer car was designed to replace it, and your 1964 car was designed to last forever and never need anything because Cadillac never made anything to replace it...even though they did...

Does a '64 last longer than, say, a '67? The older the car, the longer it will survive? Please.

And youre not being flamed. Youre just saying ridiculous things and people are calling you out on it, because it makes no sense.

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 02:46 AM
Youre argument still makes no sense. Are you saying that older cars were designed to last forever? Pre-1980's cars will run forever because they were designed to never be replaced? What are you trying to say? Because im not understanding. Youre making it seem like my 1993 car is designed to break down and deteriorate because a newer car was designed to replace it, and your 1964 car was designed to last forever and never need anything because Cadillac never made anything to replace it...even though they did...

Does a '64 last longer than, say, a '67? The older the car, the longer it will survive? Please.

And youre not being flamed. Youre just saying ridiculous things and people are calling you out on it, because it makes no sense.
There is a noticeable trend (it's not perfect) that the more durable and long lasting cars are older.

ga_etc
12-02-09, 02:59 AM
There is a noticeable trend (it's not perfect) that the more durable and long lasting cars are older.

Is it just me or is that statement redundant?

Jonas McFeely
12-02-09, 03:15 AM
There is a noticeable trend (it's not perfect) that the more durable and long lasting cars are older.

You could make the argument that with simplicity comes reliability. So, say, an older car without computer controlled gizmos is more reliable because not as many things car go wrong with it? I can see that.

As much as i love old cars(i had a '68 DeVille a couple years ago), i would still take an "unreliable" throw-away car 9 out of 10 times. I value my reliable freezing cold A/C and muh compooterz.

Destroyer
12-02-09, 07:20 AM
This thread seems to be all wrong. First of all, nice ride. Secondly, why is everyone bashing the $5k decision to buy this car? It's his money and he can buy whatever he likes. It is a cool project that you don't see everyday.

Destroyer
12-02-09, 07:25 AM
I say a lot of dumb shit.
My '93 Altima has almost 167k miles on it and its runs like a top. Why exactly are you comparing your Altima to a 1947 Chevy again? The Chevy is 63 years old. Where do you think your Altima will be in the year 2056?

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 10:42 AM
You could make the argument that with simplicity comes reliability. So, say, an older car without computer controlled gizmos is more reliable because not as many things car go wrong with it? I can see that.

As much as i love old cars(i had a '68 DeVille a couple years ago), i would still take an "unreliable" throw-away car 9 out of 10 times. I value my reliable freezing cold A/C and muh compooterz.

Actually those old AC systems were pretty hardy. They could last forever under the right circumstances. I'd like to see your car's ACs last until the 2020s or 2030s.

Jonas McFeely
12-02-09, 01:23 PM
Why exactly are you comparing your Altima to a 1947 Chevy again? The Chevy is 63 years old. Where do you think your Altima will be in the year 2056?

Read the entire thread. At no point did i EVER compare my car to a 1947 Chevy. You have selective reading. :rolleyes:

Jonas McFeely
12-02-09, 01:28 PM
Actually those old AC systems were pretty hardy. They could last forever under the right circumstances. I'd like to see your car's ACs last until the 2020s or 2030s.

Think what you want, but no A/C system from the 60's is in any way better or more reliable than one from 90's. The technology just wasnt there.

I cant argue with someone that thinks that everything old is in every way better than everything new. There is no arguing with someone like that. So im done. Good luck with all of your old cars. Youre gonna need it.

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 02:10 PM
Once again I'll ask you where your car will be in 2039. Think it can last as long as my 1964?

Technology isn't that great. It only creates more ways to fail thus making things less reliable.

77CDV
12-02-09, 02:24 PM
Well, this thread went far afield over the past couple days! Though I wouldn't personally go for a '47 Chevy, especially a project, if it intrigues you and you have the resources to make it happen, best of luck.

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 02:28 PM
Well, this thread went far afield over the past couple days! Though I wouldn't personally go for a '47 Chevy, especially a project, if it intrigues you and you have the resources to make it happen, best of luck.

I can't go for it. I'm stuck with the car that wasn't (the one I've had in the shop more than driven. The only damn mechanical work I've done on it is fix the choke, replace the brake booster and master cylinder, a tune up, oil changes/fluid changes, and that's about it.

77CDV
12-02-09, 02:36 PM
What else does it need mechanically?

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 02:43 PM
What else does it need mechanically?

I honestly wouldn't know. If it wasn't for bad tires and the brake booster and master cylinder it would have cleared a 500 mile trip both ways easy. It was owned by an old lady since day 1 up until 5 years ago (where it was owned by a friend of the family, then my mother who used my money and finally me). She obviously had it well maintained but I'll get my mechanic to look at it. If this is going to be my only car it'll be DAMN good.

Night Wolf
12-02-09, 03:49 PM
I actually agree with Destroyer here...

I think many are misunderstanding the point, that car is gonna be a project. Regardless of the dudes age, money or current car, it'd be a cool project. I think he was just sharing that, I don't think the question was "what would you buy with the same amount of money" because if we all had to pick a $5k project, or a $5k daily driver, we'd all have different opininons, which are just that.

So with that said, I think that '47 Chevy would be a fun project that you could turn in any direction you want, just make sure you funny understand the extent of work/money a project like that involves and you'll be fine.

As for new vs old. I can go both ways and have seen both ways. There are benefits to both. To make blaket statements tho - on either side is foolish.

Jonas McFeely
12-02-09, 04:27 PM
Once again I'll ask you where your car will be in 2039. Think it can last as long as my 1964?

Technology isn't that great. It only creates more ways to fail thus making things less reliable.

Dude, its a goddamned Nissan Altima. It will be dismantled/crushed, and recycled into something else. My argument is not that my car will last forever. My argument is that my car is reliable and will last for a long time with relatively low maintenance costs. Your '64, if driven daily, will deteriorate and require more repairs and be costly to own...and most will agree with me on that. Parts are harder to find. Driving an old classic everyday is impractical and foolish. Thats why you dont see many cars pre-1980 on the road, because a) they are sitting in a junk yard, or b) they are sitting in someones garage.

Come on guys, i cant be alone on this way of thinking...


And at no point did i ever compare my car to anything classic. I simply said that it was a newer(relatively) car and was and example of reliability, because you made the asinine comment that it was a victim of "planned obsolescence".

77CDV
12-02-09, 07:18 PM
I honestly wouldn't know. If it wasn't for bad tires and the brake booster and master cylinder it would have cleared a 500 mile trip both ways easy. It was owned by an old lady since day 1 up until 5 years ago (where it was owned by a friend of the family, then my mother who used my money and finally me). She obviously had it well maintained but I'll get my mechanic to look at it. If this is going to be my only car it'll be DAMN good.

Now, see, I would have had all the mechanicals done and finished before paint and body. That way if they have to remove anything and screw up the paint or something, it doesn't really matter since it's getting redone anyway.

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 07:33 PM
Now, see, I would have had all the mechanicals done and finished before paint and body. That way if they have to remove anything and screw up the paint or something, it doesn't really matter since it's getting redone anyway.

There's always touch ups.


And to the guy who keeps saying I'll "wear it out". It's not like I'm going to drive it 90 miles per hour down the city street or race ricers like the one you have. I drive like an old lady and as such my car is being gently maintained.

Destroyer
12-02-09, 08:10 PM
Think what you want, but no A/C system from the 60's is in any way better or more reliable than one from 90's.Why don't you tell why that is? Technologically speaking there haven't been a whole lot of advancements in regards to automotive a/c except for the actual refrigerant. They still work pretty much the same as they always did. I had a '75 Cutlass that would freeze my nuts off. The A/C in your old '68 Deville didn't work so you assume that all old cars have no A/C. I had a '68 Mercedes that had a better and less trouble prone A/C than my '97 S class Benz. I recently sold an '05 Suzuki with an A/C that wasn't so great.

I'm not saying that old cars are more reliable or less reliable than a '93 Altima. I'm saying that you have no idea what you are talking about (automotively speaking). I mean you are 22 and are talking down to an 18 year old like you are old enough to be his daddy. I on the other hand, am old enough to be your daddy...................................

Destroyer
12-02-09, 08:18 PM
Your '64, if driven daily, will deteriorate and require more repairs and be costly to own...and most will agree with me on that. Parts are harder to find. Driving an old classic everyday is impractical and foolish. Thats why you dont see many cars pre-1980 on the road, because a) they are sitting in a junk yard, or b) they are sitting in someones garage.

Come on guys, i cant be alone on this way of thinking...

I think you are alone. Why would a '64 require more repairs and be more costly to own? There are several sources for most of the parts including any local parts store and the prices are MUCH cheaper mechanically. Pull up a water pump (for instance) on a '64 Chevy 283 vs one for a '93 Altima, then try an alternator, etc......... I have had MANY old cars and they do not require much to keep on the road (much less in fact) unless you buy a total POS. Hell, I have classic car insurance on my '67 Cutlass vert and I pay only $155 per year. I don't understand what point you are trying to make and why you are trying to make it. :confused:

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 08:30 PM
I think you are alone. Why would a '64 require more repairs and be more costly to own? There are several sources for most of the parts including any local parts store and the prices are MUCH cheaper mechanically. Pull up a water pump (for instance) on a '64 Chevy 283 vs one for a '93 Altima, then try an alternator, etc......... I have had MANY old cars and they do not require much to keep on the road (much less in fact) unless you buy a total POS. Hell, I have classic car insurance on my '67 Cutlass vert and I pay only $155 per year. I don't understand what point you are trying to make and why you are trying to make it. :confused:

I've driven classic cars as my daily drivers and except for a failed brake booster and master cylinder I have been very impressed. Older parts are actually cheaper than new ones.

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 08:33 PM
Why don't you tell why that is? Technologically speaking there haven't been a whole lot of advancements in regards to automotive a/c except for the actual refrigerant. They still work pretty much the same as they always did. I had a '75 Cutlass that would freeze my nuts off. The A/C in your old '68 Deville didn't work so you assume that all old cars have no A/C. I had a '68 Mercedes that had a better and less trouble prone A/C than my '97 S class Benz. I recently sold an '05 Suzuki with an A/C that wasn't so great.

I'm not saying that old cars are more reliable or less reliable than a '93 Altima. I'm saying that you have no idea what you are talking about (automotively speaking). I mean you are 22 and are talking down to an 18 year old like you are old enough to be his daddy. I on the other hand, am old enough to be your daddy...................................
It's true though, most refrigerant systems are identical. In fact ones from the 1920s are in general not much different than the ones of today. They all consist of an expansion valve, evaporator, condenser, and compressor. I'd explain the science of it but I doubt you're interested. This 22 year old obviously doesn't know his stuff.

gary88
12-02-09, 09:12 PM
:pop2:

Destroyer
12-02-09, 10:25 PM
I've driven classic cars as my daily drivers and except for a failed brake booster and master cylinder I have been very impressed. Older parts are actually cheaper than new ones.
That is normal wear and tear. I paid over $500 to have the passenger power mirror fixed on a '97 S320 Benz. There is no comparison. KISS (keep it simple stupid) is definately a phrase that can be coined for older cars. :lildevil:

1964CoupeDeville
12-02-09, 11:17 PM
That is normal wear and tear. I paid over $500 to have the passenger power mirror fixed on a '97 S320 Benz. There is no comparison. KISS (keep it simple stupid) is definately a phrase that can be coined for older cars. :lildevil:

lol I probably could get a new AC system for 4x that with my Caddy or 2x that could get me a disc brake upgrade. Wow old cars are cheaper.

Jonas McFeely
12-03-09, 05:04 AM
I am an idiot. Both of you win. Continue on.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-03-09, 10:19 AM
Wow I missed out on quite the thread!

I'm definitley a fan of having a newer car as a DD, but only for the modern conviences, and running expenses (gas). I'd love a mid '70s land yacht, but only as a weekend warrior.

1964CoupeDeville
12-03-09, 10:40 AM
Wow I missed out on quite the thread!

I'm definitley a fan of having a newer car as a DD, but only for the modern conviences, and running expenses (gas). I'd love a mid '70s land yacht, but only as a weekend warrior.

Old Caddys have basically everything new cars do and with their cigarette lighter (aka a 12 volt charger) you can put a GPS or whatever you want in without killing originality.

Jesda
12-03-09, 12:01 PM
The original link is gone. I assume this thread was not about a Miata.

Jonas McFeely
12-03-09, 02:08 PM
Im too fat for a Miata. :drool:

Night Wolf
12-03-09, 02:41 PM
Miata = fun

Stingroo
12-03-09, 03:14 PM
Amen to that. :)

EcSTSatic
12-03-09, 04:02 PM
Need to perk this thread up again :lildevil:

The Miata is number 5 on the gay list

http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/Gay-Lesbian/Images/gayguy/gay-title.gif (http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/Gay-Lesbian/gay-guy1.html)

Stingroo
12-03-09, 04:11 PM
I don't agree with the VW Golf on that list at all. Nor the Wrangler, it's quite possibly the most anti-gay vehicle there is. lol

I also disagree with the Jetta. It's a nice car, and had I not got my hands on the Cadillac, I'd be shopping for a VR6 right now. Or a 4th gen VR6 Golf.

I loves mah Vee-Dubz.

orconn
12-03-09, 04:18 PM
If one hangs around West Hollywood (CA) very much you would see a lotta Miatas and various versions of C5 Jeeps. Mazda seems to make a lot of cars attractive to G&L community. Don't know about now, but the RX7 was a car of choice for gay guys a decade ago.

Destroyer
12-03-09, 08:57 PM
I am an idiot. Both of you win. Continue on.Damn straight! :D:giljotiini:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-03-09, 10:38 PM
VW's always had a artsy/fartsy stigma to them to me, very artist friendly. I like VW's interiors, but I don't think I'd ever buy one, aside from the Phaeton. VW's from the era I'd be buying from had a lot of bizarre electrical issues, and aren't much cheaper to own than a BMW or Mercedes in all reality. And after owning German, I'm not really wanting to go back and buy another, at least for a very long time.

If I was going to buy a car in that segment, I'd much rather buy a Honda.


Old Caddys have basically everything new cars do and with their cigarette lighter (aka a 12 volt charger) you can put a GPS or whatever you want in without killing originality.

Correct, but there's no ABS, airbags, traction control, cupholders, fuel injection, heated seats, heated mirrors, defroster, etc etc. A lot of those things you could do without in California, but I like them in Minnesota.

1964CoupeDeville
12-03-09, 10:59 PM
VW's always had a artsy/fartsy stigma to them to me, very artist friendly. I like VW's interiors, but I don't think I'd ever buy one, aside from the Phaeton. VW's from the era I'd be buying from had a lot of bizarre electrical issues, and aren't much cheaper to own than a BMW or Mercedes in all reality. And after owning German, I'm not really wanting to go back and buy another, at least for a very long time.

If I was going to buy a car in that segment, I'd much rather buy a Honda.



Correct, but there's no ABS, airbags, traction control, cupholders, fuel injection, heated seats, heated mirrors, defroster, etc etc. A lot of those things you could do without in California, but I like them in Minnesota.

Mine has a defroster.... Heated Seats? It's called a heater. Cup holders? Really? Those things are stylistically useless. Airbags aren't necessary when your car weighs as much as a truck. And who doesn't love the joy of pumping your car full of sweet gasoline and revving the engine? Fuel Injection just isn't fine.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-03-09, 11:11 PM
Mine has a defroster.... Heated Seats? It's called a heater. Cup holders? Really? Those things are stylistically useless. Airbags aren't necessary when your car weighs as much as a truck. And who doesn't love the joy of pumping your car full of sweet gasoline and revving the engine? Fuel Injection just isn't fine.

Cupholders being stylistically useless? Who gives two shits?? Sure beats the "stylistic awesomeness" of spilled pop and having to clean it off your leather seats. I'm sure that the wonderful person that thought up the cupholder didn't do so because they "looked good".

Good luck finding a good mechanic who likes to work on carbs. They're a dead technology and for a good reason.

Don't get me wrong though, I really want a '70s land yacht, just not as a DD.

Night Wolf
12-03-09, 11:16 PM
I am both ways - I like modern technology, but at the same time - old school simplicity.

I think thats one of the big reasons why I like both 80's BMW and the Jeep TJ.

In the case of the BMW, it's got a modern fuel injection system - which I prefer over carb, ABS - which I do like, however no traction control or stability control, which I don't want. They have power windows/locks/steering/brakes, yet manual seats, manual convertible top. A very good HVAC system with stright forward, manual controls. Cup holders would be nice.

The Jeep uses pretty much the same train of thought, but makes the BMW look fully loaded in comparison - no ABS, no power windows/locks. The Jeep has excellent cup holders tho.

I'd say I am fond of the 80's-90's luxury car level of options. But, it all depends on what the car is for. Atleast at this point in my life, I like my vehicles to be rather raw and right to the point - the BMW for driving on road and the Jeep for off-road. So things like noise levels or ride comfort in either of the vehicles just isn't an issue - they are fun, and that's what I am interested in.

I really don't like factory GPS systems in cars, because of the way computer technology advances, in 10yrs from now, that GPS system and programming will be so out of date - I picked up my neat Garmin for $170 or so and it does the job great. Even if you get a new one every few years, it's still cheaper, and you have updated data.

As far as old vs new cars... where do you draw the line? I am quickly becoming more and more fond of 80's German and Japaneese vehicles, they were built really well, and logically. I don't know if my '90 and '92 BMW's are considered "old" or "new" but whatever they are - I like them alot. They are different then American cars of the same time frame - don't have the sheer heft, but were just built.... better.

Jesda
12-03-09, 11:26 PM
Mine has a defroster.... Heated Seats? It's called a heater. Cup holders? Really? Those things are stylistically useless. Airbags aren't necessary when your car weighs as much as a truck. And who doesn't love the joy of pumping your car full of sweet gasoline and revving the engine? Fuel Injection just isn't fine.

http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg

Night Wolf
12-03-09, 11:29 PM
It's funny, I used to be pro-carb.... but that was when I was also stuck in my old ways - which is pretty much how I grew up, hearing the things from others around me. I was also anti serpentine belt, coil packs and imports...

Carburators will be around as long as there are internal engines. There is just nothing else that is self-contained and capable of doing what they do, as reliable as they do it. If they are used on cars or not is another thing. I used to think driving a carb'd vehicle was "cool" or "fun" probably because it was old school and different. Pump the gas a few times then crank the engine. If it was a cold morning repeat the process, then let it warm up or it'll stall etc... I think what I enjoyed most of it was having some level of "control" over the car, and on an old automatic Caddy, that was about it.

A carb engine can be tuned to produce lots of power, and also to return great fuel economy. A MPFI setup just has more control over the whole system, and less chance of a good bit of mechanical parts failing.

If I was in a Mad Max style envionrment, I would take a carb, simply because it dosen't rely on an outside control source and can be rather easily field repaired, but other then that, I'll take FI.

Same with engines. I used to only like large old school pushrods. My Jeep is just that - 4.0L pushrod I6 and it is excellent at what it does, as well as one of the best off-road engines. But then I broadened my horizons and for the first time, own a DOHC engine. My '92 BMW cabrio is a 1.8L 16v, with a chip it revs to 7,000RPM and is just a whole lot of fun. No need for low end torque, it's all about the gearing - little bugger can move too. I like what DOHC (as an example) has to offer, and it all has to do with the application it is used in. If the BMW was put on a track, it would spend most of it's time in the mid and upper rev band. When I am wheelin the Jeep all day, I am spending most my time at or just above idle and rarely going over 2,500RPM.

V-Eight
12-03-09, 11:39 PM
Mine has a defroster.... Heated Seats? It's called a heater. Cup holders? Really? Those things are stylistically useless. Airbags aren't necessary when your car weighs as much as a truck. And who doesn't love the joy of pumping your car full of sweet gasoline and revving the engine? Fuel Injection just isn't fine.

As much as I love old cars, these arguments are just ridiculous.

gary88
12-04-09, 01:23 AM
Mine has a defroster.... Heated Seats? It's called a heater. Cup holders? Really? Those things are stylistically useless. Airbags aren't necessary when your car weighs as much as a truck. And who doesn't love the joy of pumping your car full of sweet gasoline and revving the engine? Fuel Injection just isn't fine.

http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af175/gheb882/high_horse.jpg

77CDV
12-04-09, 02:04 AM
Correct, but there's no ABS, airbags, traction control, cupholders, fuel injection, heated seats, heated mirrors, defroster, etc etc. A lot of those things you could do without in California, but I like them in Minnesota.

Depends how far back you go.

ABS (sort of) from 1971-1976 on the Eldorados (rear wheels only, though).

Airbags 1974-1976 (very rare)

Fuel injection available starting 1975

Heated drivers seat available as an option 1965-1972

Rear window defroster (blower type) starting 1965, electric grid type starting 1972.

You win on the heated wing mirrors and cupholders, though.:D

Overall, older Cadillacs offer a lot of creature comforts that make them a pleasure to drive even today. I sometimes think about ditching my '01 ETC and reactivating my '77 CDV as my DD. Then I think about what can happen to it in the parking lot while I'm at work and I get over it.

Night Wolf
12-04-09, 05:29 AM
^ Just about all those options are very rare to actually find on a car now, and if you do - are very problematic. They were not so much as useful, but more or less a "look what we can do".

That early rear-only ABS system was nothing like a modern day ABS system is. Airbag systems of the 80's can be scary, I don't even want to know what one from the 70's is like. Those early fuel injection systems were usually mechanical and now offer possibly more problems then a carbm with the added benefit of not finding parts.

Destroyer
12-04-09, 06:59 AM
Correct, but there's no ABS, airbags, traction control, cupholders, fuel injection, heated seats, heated mirrors, defroster, etc etc. A lot of those things you could do without in California, but I like them in Minnesota.Older cars really should have had cup holders.

1964CoupeDeville
12-04-09, 01:58 PM
Older cars really should have had cup holders.

So you can drink your extra large sodas from McDonalds on the go?

Jesda
12-04-09, 03:01 PM
So you can drink your extra large sodas from McDonalds on the go?

Remember how popular drive-in theaters and fast food joints were? Would have been nice for families.

Night Wolf
12-04-09, 03:26 PM
So you can drink your extra large sodas from McDonalds on the go?

Be as it will, I like cup holders. They do not play a role into purchase of a vehicle, but they are nice. The BMW's do not have them, which is a pain. The Jeep has them, 4 actually, and they are quite useful. Mine get used very, very often.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/Trips/Key%20West%202-09/2-21-09146-1.jpg

It seems like that is one thing that started with the Japaneese, then made its way into others.

Jesda
12-04-09, 04:41 PM
Arizona tea rocks

gary88
12-04-09, 06:10 PM
aha, a cupholder discussion!

Mine pop out of the dash, good for holding coffee or a bottle of water.
http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af175/gheb882/IMG_7231.jpg

Another in the center console that's ventilated, perfect for chilling a Red Bull.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/gheb88/IMG_4280.jpg

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-04-09, 06:18 PM
The cupholders in the Roadmaster and deVille both popped out of the armrest, and the cupholders in the S320 and Regal both pop up from the center console. The S320 had cupholders in the glovebox that seemed like they could only fit a shot glass or maybe a can of redbull. All of the cars, aside from the deVille, had cupholders in the rear armrest.

Destroyer
12-04-09, 06:46 PM
So you can drink your extra large sodas from McDonalds on the go?Where else can you put the beer? Seriously though, you can put a cheapie console thingy in any car and have cup holders.

Night Wolf
12-04-09, 09:04 PM
Arizona tea rocks

Heck yeah it does! Thats why there are two :cool:

It's just hard to find around here. I like the original the best - regular, non diet lemon (such as pictured) around here they have all the weird herbal ones, but not lemon :(

V-Eight
12-04-09, 09:13 PM
The Arizona fruit punch is pretty tasty too

77CDV
12-04-09, 11:00 PM
My favorite cupholders were on my '89 Sixty Special. They were part of a motorized compartment that slid out from the front of the center console bottom cushion. Slide the top back and viola! cup holders. Slide the top forward, and there was a storage compartment. Kinda trick, really.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-04-09, 11:29 PM
I heard about those before but never saw one in action.