: Test Drive Review: 1979 Continental Mark V (lots of pics and a few videos too)



Pages : [1] 2

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-28-10, 09:55 PM
So, like I stated earlier, other than the 1979-85 Riviera/Eldorado and Toronado, I really like the 1977-79 Lincoln Continental Mark V's. The Mark IV is the better looker, but I hear they drive sloppier, much like the full sized Continentals of the same era. I haven't driven a Mark IV yet, but I'm sure if I found one for sale I'd go look at it. I've driven three Mark V's, all 1979's, and always liked them, but since I drove that '85 Eldorado Coupe last week, I wanted to drive another one while it was fresh in my mind to compare...

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_15-02-17_861.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_16-08-03_421.jpg

First off, I'll just say that I've always admired the way the Mark IVs and V's look. They're extremely '70s and extremely imposing, both when you're gazing at it and when you're behind the wheel. They use their sheer size to their advantage and aren't afraid to show it (unlike everything on the market today). What I like about these is how UN-PC they are. They're big, they're impressive, they're selfish and they don't care, as a matter of fact, they brag about it. It's pretty hard to miss this when you're in traffic nowadays. I did notice some people glancing and staring at it, as I passed them, but it wasn't near the amount of looks and jeers I got a few weeks back when we went cruising in my buddy's dad's '70 Buick GS455. What I really love about it is how ostentatious and over the top it is. There's so much steel, chrome, the cloth top, and all the chrome badges done in big bold letters. There's no mistaking this for anything else! The hood is well over six feet long, and sitting behind it, it's very imposing at first, especially in tight spaces, as you're not quite sure how to steer it in such a small environment, but once out on the road, it's size doesn't feel so intimidating.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_16-12-01_384.jpg

Exterior design: 8.5/10. I like the way they look, but they're not as beautifully designed as the 79-85 E-Bodies. They do look a lot better IMO than the '70s Caddys though...


http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_16-06-06_281.jpg
The interior is very nice for something from this era. I far prefer it to the '78 Eldorado Biarritz my friend had earlier this year. The Mark V has more faux wood trim, chrome and silver surrounding the gauges. It just feels richer inside. But, with the way the giant square speedo and clock are laid out next to each other, out of your direct line of vision, as opposed to the simpler speedo right in your line of vision in the Eldorado, it makes the Eldorado's gauges easier to read, but the Mark V's are more enjoyable to look at.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_16-12-11_15.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_16-09-23_599.jpg

The Mark V has a lot more room in the rear seat, and it's seats, while not as quite as comfortable as the Eldorado Biarritzes, are extremely soft and supple. You SINK right in, whereas the Biarritz is a little bit more supportive, with it's pillow top and all. The interior is almost silent too, you can't really hear that 400 working unless you're really giving it the beans, but even then it's very, very quiet. I drove it with the stereo off, because there was a 8-track in the stereo, playing '70s era country music (I can't believe it worked). It had a CB too!
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_16-12-17_976.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_16-10-07_249.jpg

Compared to the interior in the '85 Eldorado, the Mark V was wider, but the headroom and legroom was about the same, front and back. The Mark V's seats were much better, and the Eldorado had much better rear over-the-shoulder visibility. Both were hard to reverse into a parking spot because you couldn't tell where either ended.

Interior design: 8.5/10. Love the faux wood grain trim, chrome, leather and silver used incessantly throughout the cabin.

So, how'd it drive?

Well, not as boat-like as you'd think. The Mark V was a little tauter and more lithe than the contemporary Continental/Town Car, but I wouldn't call it "sporty" by any stretch of the word. At 230 inches, it's the longest Lincoln Mark series ever made, but it's not as vague and nauseating as you'd think. With that being said, it's not nearly as spright or as light on it's feet as the Eldorado was. The Eldorado drove a lot better than the Mark V, aside from the total and complete lack of power with the HT4100. But, the Mark V offered good steering feel for a Lincoln from the era of Carter, a LOT better than the '77 Town Car I drove a few years ago, and it felt about on par with my friend's '86 Town Car Signature Series. I'd say compared to the '78 Eldorado Biarritz, the Mark V drives tighter and feels sportier (remember, these were the PERSONAL luxury cars) :D It's also worth noting that it's not as quite as taut as the 1979 Sedan deVille I drove earlier this month. The 400 made decent power and was able to move the Connie around with confidence and finesse. Flat out quick acceleration wasn't terribly important in 1979, but rather the ability to keep up with traffic and pass if necessary without struggling too much. It's able to do just that. It won't burn the tires off (but I've had Mark V's spin the rear tires before) nor will it throw you into your seat, but it's got a fair amount of low end torque and never feels stressed, even under WOT. It's acceleration is probably very comparable to the 425 powered '79 SDV that I drove a few weeks back, or especially a 425 Eldorado. It's much quicker than the '85 Eldorado, and the 307 Broughams I remember, not as quick as the TBI 5.7 powered Roadmaster I drove a few weeks back, nor the 460 '77 Town Car. If I ever bought a Lincoln like this, I'd make sure it has the 460. BTW, it has 159hp and 316 lb/ft of torque.

I'd like to note that I'd rather spend a night cruising around in this than that '70 GS455. Nothing against that super sweet muscle car, but for a day to day pleasure vehicle, I'd rather have the Lincoln because it's so much quieter, smoother and more luxurious. Those old muscle cars were terrible noisy and not great cruising vehicles because you can't converse with your passengers when you're trying to YELL over the engine. It's rather like comparing apples to oranges, but I always wondered if given the opportunity I'd rather have the fast and fun muscle car or the quiet and refined land yacht.

If I was going to guess, I'd say 0-60 in the 10-11 second range and a high 17 second quarter mile. Not fast, but not terribly slow either.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_16-07-47_804.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/th_2010-09-28_16-25-43_26.jpg (http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/?action=view&current=2010-09-28_16-25-43_26.mp4)
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/th_2010-09-28_16-29-43_828.jpg (http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/?action=view&current=2010-09-28_16-29-43_828.mp4)


Would I buy one? Maybe, but only if it was a 1977-78 model with the 460 in a preferred color combination, with low miles for a real cheap price. After comparing the two, I'd take the 79-85 Riviera/Eldorado/Toronado, unless it's got the V8-6-4 or HT4100, not worth the (potential) trouble. I find the big Lincoln too big to really enjoy in city traffic. Driving it in those small, tight spaces is less of a pleasure and more of a chore. The E-bodies feel so much more lithe, sporty and enjoyable, while having just as much space inside and being a lot better on the fuel.

ga_etc
09-28-10, 11:47 PM
That light blue really isn't a bad looking color on that car. There are definitely better colors though.

orconn
09-29-10, 12:38 AM
Maybe it's the light but that light blue doesn't look right. Remember the parking spaces were larger back in the 1970's to accommodate the large cars. They got smaller during the end of the eighties. When I moved to Virginia in 1997 I had a hard time fotong my Alfa Romeo 164 into many of the spaces provided in the parking lots here. The Alfa was the size of a 5 series BMW, so it was not a big car!

I am glad you got to test drive the Mark V. The example you drove seemed to be in pretty good condition judging from the pictures.

gdwriter
09-29-10, 02:25 AM
No opera windows? Blasphemy!

I would definitely choose a Riviera or a '79 Eldorado with an Olds 350 if I wanted one of these big luxury cruisers.

Aron9000
09-29-10, 03:29 AM
Its pretty Smurfin!!!!

I've always thought the Lincoln Mark IV, V, and VII had it all over the Eldorado for those years in terms of style and build quality. I actually prefer the knife edge styling of the Mark V over the smoother III and IV versions as well.

Jesda
09-29-10, 05:15 AM
I find these cars to be horribly vulgar and ugly inside and out, and because of that I'd drive the hell out of them. The designers seemed to have no regard for subtlety, which makes them proud and boastful, which in turn makes them awesome. I wonder if we'll see the Escalade this way in 30 years.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-29-10, 08:29 AM
Yeah, exactly. Automotive designs don't get much more vulgar or in your face than these.

gdwriter
09-29-10, 01:22 PM
I find these cars to be horribly vulgar and ugly inside and out, and because of that I'd drive the hell out of them. The designers seemed to have no regard for subtlety, which makes them proud and boastful, which in turn makes them awesome. I wonder if we'll see the Escalade this way in 30 years.Good point.

Personally, I'd want one of these with a crushed velour interior in whorehouse red:

http://automotivemileposts.com/files/mark41976versaillesvelourred.jpg

It looks like Belle Watling's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind#Other_characters) waiting room.

77CDV
09-29-10, 09:54 PM
Interesting. So, Chad, you'd go for a 77-78 Mark V with the 460 making 159 bhp, even though the 425 Cadillacs of the era made 180 (and more torque, too)? I also like the styling of the Mark V over the Mark IV (though I like the Mark III best), but I could never abide those faux-convertible tops that blocked out the oval opera window. Those little windows are what made the Mark V look so good, and they also served to break up the monotony of that very large "C" pillar.

Funny you should have driven this car. There's a Mark IV here abouts in the same color combo (but with a standard cabriolet vinyl top instead of the faux convertible) that I see all the time. The one you drove is in better condition, though.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-29-10, 10:03 PM
No no Craig. The 400 made 159hp and 316 lb/ft of torque. The 460 (not available in 1979) made anywhere between 202 and 220 hp and anywhere between 350 and 365 lb/ft of torque depending on year. The 425 was 180hp and 320 lb/ft for the 4bbl version and 195hp and 320 lb/ft for the EFI version.

It's not that I don't like the 425 powered Cadillacs, it's just that they're not terribly unlike the 1980-92 versions, and they don't have that unique, over the top design of the '70s Lincolns. They do however drive a lot better and are a lot more enjoyable behind the wheel, especially in town.

77CDV
09-29-10, 10:21 PM
Ah, that explains things. 220 bhp would make a world of difference to that car. Even so, like you, I find I prefer these boulevardiers to the screaming muscle machines.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-29-10, 10:28 PM
Yes, but the 220hp 460 was featured in the Mark IV, which were well over 5,000 lbs. The Mark V was a fair bit lighter, between 4500 and 4700 lbs, and those were down between 205 and 210 hp. The 1977+ Cadillacs were anorexic by comparison, at a mere 4000-4200 lbs. :lol:

77CDV
09-29-10, 10:30 PM
Hey, big is beautiful, baby! :D

BTW, where are the vids the thread title promised? Or did I miss them?

*EDIT* Never mind. I'm an idiot. "Not bad for a Lincoln." Now THAT'S damning with faint praise!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-29-10, 10:33 PM
Click on the bottom two "pictures" on my initial post. I couldn't upload the videos to youtube, so I had to use photobucket instead.

Jesda
09-29-10, 11:32 PM
Nice videos! It looked like a home movie straight out of the 70s until the BMW appeared. For some reason its really hard to understand you on the phone but in your narration you're crystal clear.

Destroyer
09-30-10, 12:07 AM
That light blue really isn't a bad looking color on that car. There are definitely better colors though.It looks like the official "Smurf" limousine. That color is ugly as sin! :cookoo:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-30-10, 12:16 AM
Nice videos! It looked like a home movie straight out of the 70s until the BMW appeared. For some reason its really hard to understand you on the phone but in your narration you're crystal clear.

Oh, thanks! Usually whenever I call you on the phone, I'm working in the van somewhere, and it's usually out in the middle of bum **** nowhere, so that's why the voice is hard to hear.


It looks like the official "Smurf" limousine. That color is ugly as sin! :cookoo:

Yeah, agreed. Not my choice in color. I'd have gone with a navy blue, black, dark grey or maroon, maybe white or tan too. Something a lot more luxurious and impressive than a baby blue. Same with the roof. If it were me ordering it new, I'd have gone without the full cloth top, and a (half) vinyl roof or whatever so I could keep those opera windows. Without them you've got a huge blind spot!

orconn
09-30-10, 12:29 AM
^^^ I got news for you, Chad, with the "Opera Windows" you still gott to keep the "huge" blind spot!

I thought the <ark Vs looked best in a dark color. The one I ordered was all dark blue with no vinyl top, no opera windows and a "tobac" leather interior and the cool (IMO) vained aloy wheels. White and tan looked good on the Mark IV but really didn't suit the Mark V. IMO black or dark blue suited the car best.

I'd say your faint praise of "It drives OK for a '70s Lincoln" was right on the money. The new generation "77 Cads were a revelation to the world of American car drivers. They must have like the new feel and responsivenes of the new cars because they sure sold a lot of the them!

orconn
09-30-10, 12:32 AM
It looks like the official "Smurf" limousine. That color is ugly as sin! :cookoo:

The officiaial "Smurf" limousine was an eighties light blue Town Car!

Koooop
09-30-10, 01:51 AM
If you're going to get that body style you really need to search up a Givenchy.

The Mark III had this going for it in 1969, the 1970 Mark with the tow package made even more power.

mhamilton
09-30-10, 11:48 AM
Love it, my Grandfather had a car like that in maroon.

Have you test driven a Mark III or IV? If you don't go past '71 the engines still had some compression ratio, probably feel lot more powerful. Also, IIRC the '71 or '72s actually had real veneer. I'm not sure if that was in the end of the 3s or early 4s though.

orconn
09-30-10, 02:24 PM
The Continental Mark III was meant to be a higher class (and was higher priced) car than the Mark IVs and Mark Vs. Overall build quality and materials was much higher on the Mark III which Ford considered to be a "real" successor to the '56-'57 Continental Mark II (which was in a class with Cadillac's Eldorado Brougham, Rolls' Silver Cloud and Mercedes 300 series cars of the mid 1950's). I had a few friends who had Mark IIIs and subsequently bought Mark IVs, unanimously they all thought the Mark Iv and V were very inferior to the Mark III.

hueterm
09-30-10, 02:42 PM
Personally, I think the Mark III looks the best of the three. Definitely the most tasteful, and I love the front end...

gdwriter
09-30-10, 03:39 PM
I've heard that comparison between the Mark III and the IV and V as well. I think the same could be said about the '67-'70 Eldorado versus the '71-'78 version, which seemed to get steadily cheaper looking and feeling.

The Mark III is definitely the classiest of the three, and I'd say the V is the most over-the-top.

gdwriter
09-30-10, 03:50 PM
Chad, you should check out the website Automotive Mileposts (http://automotivemileposts.com/). Lots of info on the Marks and other cars you like.

I did rather like the Cartier edition of the Mark IV. I think it's the most elegant and subtle of the Designer Editions:

http://automotivemileposts.com/files/mark41976cartiermulti.jpg

http://automotivemileposts.com/files/mark41976cartierdovegreyvelour.jpg

orconn
09-30-10, 03:53 PM
My aunt and uncle traded their 1956 Continental Mark II (wish I had known I would have bought it) which they bought new in 1956 for a 1969 Mark III. I believe they thought it to be a suitable replacement for the Mark II (not in my opinion). My aunt had been one of the top women's fashion designers (two Coty Awards) in the '40-thru mid '60's and was one of the first solicited (they were originally sold by invitation only, later any Joe Blow with $10,000. bucks could buy one) by Ford to buy one. The Mark II's were the most expensive production car sold in the US (more by two grand than a Rolls Silver cloud or a Mercedes 300 series) until the Cadillac EldoradoBrougham came out in 1957.

orconn
09-30-10, 03:56 PM
I agree with you on the Cartier being the nicest of the "Designer" editions. The Mark IV was awfully close to the Thunderbird in looks and quality, which was one of the reasons the frmer Mar III owners were so unhappy with them.

gdwriter
09-30-10, 04:25 PM
$10,000 in 1956 is the equivalent of $80,000 today.

Koooop
09-30-10, 05:02 PM
I agree with you on the Cartier being the nicest of the "Designer" editions. The Mark IV was awfully close to the Thunderbird in looks and quality, which was one of the reasons the frmer Mar III owners were so unhappy with them.

I was never unhappy with the '70 Mark III or the '70 T-Bird. The beak on the my '70 Bird was ugly as sin, but the booger green metalic paint against the shiny snot green plastic/vinyl interior made it all OK. Having owned both, I can tell you the were not anywhere near one another in quaility, the T-Bird was finished with your basic Ford stuff, the Lincoln was real nice.

I saw a triple green approx 1979 4 door Town Car today. I couldn't resist walking over and looking in the window, I was hoping to see a for sale sign. What a boat! I need one!

I've been eyeballing a '69 Mark III in very good unrestored condition. Could end up in front of my house.

orconn
09-30-10, 05:35 PM
$10,000 in 1956 is the equivalent of $80,000 today.

The average in come for a family of our in the U.S. in 1956 was $4200., thw average new house cost $11,ooo. and a new Cadillac cost less than $5000. In today's car dollars $10,000. would be more like $160,000.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
09-30-10, 06:16 PM
I've never driven a Mark III or Mark IV, but I've sat in a few here and there. I personally find the Mark IV, especially the 1972's, to be the best looking of the three. They took the Mark III, added about six inches overall, but it really looked a lot longer and lower than the III's did. They took a great thing and made it even better. But on the flipside, the interior on the IV, while IMO it's better looking, isn't as quite as luxurious or as nicely finished as that on the III. The III has a much more powerful 460, but it requires leaded gas, unless the valve seats were redone. The V is the most over the top when it comes to the interior, and it's the biggest overall, but it weighs the least (dunno how, but it does), but it's the best handling of the three...or should I say the least bad. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-01-10, 01:13 AM
I was comparing it today to my memories of that '73 Coupe deVille I drove a few years back....

> 472 definitely has more power than the 400. I remember the '73 being quite punchy through first gear, and it spun the tires until 30 mph under WOT.
220hp v. 159 and 360 lb/ft v. 316...
> The Cadillac handled much tauter and had much more firm/communicative steering. Didn't feel as nervous with this one on winding roads.
> Lincoln definitely felt more unique and luxurious, whereas the Cadillac felt more "GM parts bin"

SDCaddyLacky
10-01-10, 07:09 AM
I personally like the Mark III the best for it's styling and quality, and the then the Mark V's. Lincoln really did a great job building awesome looking quality cars in the 60's-70's.

Lincolns looked way better than Cadillac in the 70's. All the way down to the smallest details. I don't care for any Cad after 70, besides the Eldo's.

I remember this one day a few years back when I had my 72 Deville, this old guy pulled up right in front of my 72 with his 77 Mark V at the grocery store, and I couldn't believe how much better looking that Lincoln was compared to my Caddy. The front end looked massive, while my car was more sleek, but so plain in measly looking in comparisons to his Mark V. That huge grill and all that chrome made a world of difference. The Mark V is truly the last great Lincoln hands down, the 80 Mark VI was cool too, but it's downsize doesn't have the same effect on people like the 77-79 Mark V's. I swear people that owned those huge Lincs back in the day, must of felt like they were on top of the world, the ultimate Godfather, the Dons were picked up in Lincolns, while the wise guys did all their dirty work in Cadillacs:cool:

I also agree that Cadillac in the 70's felt very low end GM, more bland and cheap, almost Chevy like than a true Cadillac. I think they improved somewhat in the later 70's, because my 72 interior was extremely bland and low rent, the seats were great, but the dash and door panels felt flimsy. The body, like the doors and hood, was super solid, heavy duty as ever, but damn did that car squeak and rattle when it rode over bad roads and pot holes. That 472 had a lot of power, it carried that car like it was a feather, it just flew and was a bruiser! Never had any mechanical issues when I had it, thats one area GM had over most Fords, was it's mechanical reliability back then.


The 80's Fleetwood and Bro's improved over the early-mid 70's in terms of it's interior quality from what I can tell. Cadillac used better materials on it's door panels and seats, plus they have better styling on it's insides like real chrome accents and Cadillac scripts.

The Mark V's and a 77-79 Town Cars is next on my list for classics to buy, I love them that much!

One reason why the curb weight of the V's was drastically reduced is simple, it was cost cutting and overall the timing of the country when everyone was buying smaller more economical cars, so Lincoln cut the weight for better fuel economy and to meet government mandates.

Knocking off 700-500lbs is huge! You can definitely tell a difference when driving. For example I could tell right away going from my 93 TC that weighs around 4,000lbs to my 94 FWB that weighs 4,500lbs. That added weight actually is a good thing, because it does help absorbs bumps and pot holes better, gives a smoother ride, improves handling by keeping the rear end flat as possible, and helps quiet things down. Plus the 94 FWB feels like a real car, nice and solid, unlike the 93 TC, which is good, but way too light IMO for a full size luxury car.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-01-10, 09:16 AM
Damn, now I really wanna drive a Mark III to experience that sort of car with the high compression 460! The only real negative to the Mark III, design wise, in comparison to the IV and V, was the fact that the III's never had a stand up hood ornament, so it doesn't look as cool IMO and it's not as easy to maneuver in tight spaces. But come to think of it, most cars of this sort never had hood ornaments until the mid '70s or so...

mhamilton
10-01-10, 11:01 AM
It would definitely be more powerful than the low compression 400ci, but don't expect 360hp powerful. That advertised hp in 1970 was a gross hp figure, not SAE net hp. Around '72 when you see advertised hp figures go from 360 to 200 is when the industry switched to net measurements.

Koooop
10-01-10, 04:35 PM
It would definitely be more powerful than the low compression 400ci, but don't expect 360hp powerful. That advertised hp in 1970 was a gross hp figure, not SAE net hp. Around '72 when you see advertised hp figures go from 360 to 200 is when the industry switched to net measurements.

I think the Mark III was very under rated at 365HP, the massive 500 ft. lbs. of TQ would light up the tires until you let off the gas. My 70 Mk III was quicker than my then stock '69 Corvette. The Mark III was one of Lee Iacocca's baby's, well equipped and over powered.

orconn
10-01-10, 05:06 PM
By the standards of the '60's the Cintinental Mark III was high quality, even the paint was special (although not as etravagant as the the Mark II's paint job) it was better than any other American cars paint job of the day. The quality of the leather was higher also. I agree that the '67-'70 Eldorados were higher quality to the Eldorados that came after, but even they were not up to the standards of the Mark III. Too bad the Mark III handled like beached whale on roller skates!

I would think the absence of the upright hood ornament on the Mark III would be a plus, since the seventies advent of the upright hood ornament (inspired by Mercedes long outdated practice) trickling down to just about everying but the lowly Pinto and arriving as the height of "kitsch" on the XJ6 Jaguars in the late eighties came to epidomized the bad taste of that ere!

Bro-Ham
10-01-10, 05:25 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/STUNNING-1976-Lincoln-Givenchy-Mark-IV-49K-ORIG-MI-/180567036156?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a0aa250fc

yum! :)

hueterm
10-01-10, 05:30 PM
Blech...that color...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-01-10, 05:31 PM
I love the fact that it's unrestored and in practically mint condition, but HATE that color combination.

Now, on the other hand, give me a Bill Blass and we'll be A-OK.

hueterm
10-01-10, 05:33 PM
Blech...that color...

However I think I could rob that seller's garage -- he has some AWESOME cars for sale on eBay...

Bro-Ham
10-01-10, 06:17 PM
I'll take the color - it's totally me - perfect car to go to a tropical cocktail party at a tiki lounge. You guys can have your cars in boring colors if you insist... :)

Koooop
10-01-10, 06:59 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/STUNNING-1976-Lincoln-Givenchy-Mark-IV-49K-ORIG-MI-/180567036156?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a0aa250fc

yum! :)

That's the Givenchy! If you're going to drive one of these old pigs, it's gotta be Obnoxious!

The Cartier is just too much of a snoozefest.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-01-10, 08:03 PM
Here's how I think of it.

I love these cars, yet I'd like to buy something that won't send the woman running away from me, but rather tell them that I'm a man of uniquely good taste. I don't think I know of a woman in the world who would find that appealing. It's hard enough to find a woman that finds these old Cadillacs and Lincolns to be cool, especially more so if they're some obnoxious over the top color like that.

orconn
10-01-10, 08:37 PM
I am sure there are many women out there who would find the color of that Mark IV appealing but they are probably a little old for you, Chad! Women more your own age would probably think you are lokking for additions to your string of working girls .... regardless of the Mark's color!

Koooop
10-01-10, 09:20 PM
You would be amazed what women like, and some sleepy colored land yacht isn't it. Fun colors attact fun company. I get a ton of attention in my '84 Biarritz, fake continental kit, Pimp Grill and gangster type wire wheels. It's the total Pimp ride and women love it.

Go to a low rider show and check the hot chicks hanging around all those gawdy rides.

77CDV
10-01-10, 11:27 PM
^Oh, yeah. Chad Rawson, Minnesota's OG. :lol:

Aron9000
10-02-10, 12:25 AM
I think a cream white on cream white leather would look awesome on a Mark Lincoln. I've seen various gold ones, that's another hot color for that car, looks very 70's.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-02-10, 01:04 AM
Oddly enough, I saw just one of those tonight in downtown St. Paul. It was a 1976 Mark IV with the gold/cream luxury group. Very nice and very attractive. I could totally go for one of these in a gold/brown color.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-01_20-53-35_854.jpg

gdwriter
10-02-10, 01:09 AM
The Mark III was one of Lee Iacocca's baby's, well equipped and over powered.Not sure if he actually said it, but there's a famous quote attributed to Lee Iacocca regarding the creation of the Mark III:

"Put a Rolls-Royce grille on it, slap on a Continental kit, and we'll turn the Thunderbird into a real money maker!"

gdwriter
10-02-10, 01:22 AM
However I think I could rob that seller's garage -- he has some AWESOME cars for sale on eBay...You're not kidding. How about this rare vinyl-top-delete '77 Mark V (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Lincoln-Mark-Series-ELEGANT-SURVIVOR-1977-Lincoln-Mark-V-43K-ORIG-MI-/140458077693?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item20b3f42dfd) (460-4, too):

http://i1033.photobucket.com/albums/a412/classicsllc2/77%20Lincoln%20Mark%20V%20Charcoal/1977LincolnMarkVCharcoal02.jpg

But he's also selling a '78 Coupe de Ville d'Elegance (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cadillac-DeVille-DElegance-PRISTINE-1978-Cadillac-Coupe-Ville-36K-ORIG-MILES-/180568877555?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a0abe69f3):

http://i1033.photobucket.com/albums/a412/classicsllc2/78%20Cadillac%20CDV%20DElegance%20White/1978CadillacCoupeDeVilleDElegance02.jpg

He's also got a couple of '73 Ninety-Eights, a '78 Toronado and a '60 Buick Electra.

hueterm
10-02-10, 02:05 AM
That Deville is what made me start watching this guy...GORGEOUS!

Aron9000
10-02-10, 02:13 AM
Yeah that 1978 Coupe Deville is awesome, I'd take it over the stinkin Lincoln any day of the week. The Coupe Deville is way more subtle and sophisticated, the Lincoln is kind of vulgar and almost bad taste, but I like it for what it is. I just think I'd get tired of the Lincoln pretty darn quick, the Cadillac has a more timeless design that has held up better over the years IMO.

Night Wolf
10-02-10, 03:28 AM
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/STUNNING-1976-Lincoln-Givenchy-Mark-IV-49K-ORIG-MI-/180567036156?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a0aa250fc

yum! :)

I too like the color.

To me the Mark IV is the best looking.... I never liked the Mark V styling that much... and I just don't see how it is said to be more over-the-top then the IV.... the IV is so huge that it is cool.

I can hear Jermey Clarkson's voice now "how can such a big car on the outside feel so cramped on the inside?"

gdwriter
10-02-10, 04:29 AM
Judging from my experience driving my high school journalism teacher's '72 Mark IV and that '78 Sedan de Ville d'Elegance I test drove last year, I'm certain I would much prefer driving the Cadillac.

SDCaddyLacky
10-02-10, 07:31 AM
That black Mark V is a beauty! Are you serious? That Cadillac looks better than the Mark V? I don't think so, the Caddy looks way too plain, while the Lincoln screams style, power, sophistication and class. The V has such a huge presence that is hard to ignore.

Now maybe a 75 Eldo would be a better comparison to that V, and both cars must be in black.

But each to his own.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-02-10, 08:41 AM
I always preferred the '70s Lincolns to the '70s Cadillacs, from a standpoint of styling inside and out, BUT, the Cadillacs have always been better drivers.

Here's how I think of it...

The Lincolns are like that really really beautiful girl that's hard to deal with at times and can really test your patience, whereas the Cadillacs are like the girl who may not be as beautiful, but much easier to live with on a day to day basis and much more eager to please.

orconn
10-02-10, 10:07 AM
The black Mark V is almost identical to the car I ordered back in 1977, except the one I order was dark blue with "tobac" (dark tan) leather interior and gold pin striping. I never took delivery on it because during the two and half months of waiting for the Ford strike to end I got tired of the design and felt the ash trys were already full! But I do think it was better looking than the '77 De Ville. The De Ville was dynamically a much better car and brought a whole new level of quality to what for several years a rapidly declining, quality wise, line of Cadillacs. I have never been in love with the "land yachts" of yore, prefering more nimble, high grade sports sedans or GT automobiles. The introduction of the 1976 Seville with its' leap, for Cadillac, in driving dynamics and level of luxury in the form of fit and finish, quality of materials and design was a major turning point in American car design and brought me back into Cadillac ownership.

I understand the fascination of our younger members with the leviathans of the sixties, kind of like my admiration for the coachbuilt classics of the 1930's ..... which were no longer available by the time I started driving. Not sure I'd want one as a daily driver but I sure would want one in my collection!

gdwriter
10-02-10, 11:41 AM
I like the looks of the Mark V, but I also find the Coupe de Ville a very handsome car. As for the interior, I think the Cadillac, especially one like this with the d'Elegance option, is much more luxurious. And as mentioned before, the Cadillac is a better driver.

Bro-Ham
10-02-10, 12:07 PM
Here's how I think of it.

I love these cars, yet I'd like to buy something that won't send the woman running away from me, but rather tell them that I'm a man of uniquely good taste. I don't think I know of a woman in the world who would find that appealing. It's hard enough to find a woman that finds these old Cadillacs and Lincolns to be cool, especially more so if they're some obnoxious over the top color like that.

Chad, I hope you're relying on being yourself for attracting women. Any woman of true character will not judge you, or choose to be your mate, because of the kind of cars you own or like. I would think a woman you will successfully spend your life with would not only appreciate but also enjoy a one-of-a-kind high style designer edition tropical aqua Lincoln Mark IV. :)

Choose the car that your heart tells you is right for you and also tickles every inch of your body when you see it, or even think about it. Choose your woman the same way. :)

People who truly know will know that you're a strong man with impeccable taste if you're not afraid to be who you are and own what you like, regardless of what any inconsequential people may say or think, especially all those fickle women who fit in that category. :)

77CDV
10-02-10, 06:25 PM
^Thank you, Miss Lonely Hearts! :lol:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-02-10, 06:50 PM
Chad, I hope you're relying on being yourself for attracting women. Any woman of true character will not judge you, or choose to be your mate, because of the kind of cars you own or like. I would think a woman you will successfully spend your life with would not only appreciate but also enjoy a one-of-a-kind high style designer edition tropical aqua Lincoln Mark IV. :)

Choose the car that your heart tells you is right for you and also tickles every inch of your body when you see it, or even think about it. Choose your woman the same way. :)

People who truly know will know that you're a strong man with impeccable taste if you're not afraid to be who you are and own what you like, regardless of what any inconsequential people may say or think, especially all those fickle women who fit in that category. :)

Good advice Dave. Even if women my age were nuts about teal green Lincolns, I still couldn't own one. I don't like teal.

SDCaddyLacky
10-02-10, 07:13 PM
Cadillacs have always had an edge over Lincoln in power, performance, and handling. Ford seemed to be slightly behind GM for years. You look at specs for Caddy's, and their engines always out performed Lincolns, even if it's by 20 hp. Also Cad's were ahead of the game, they came out with new technology before Lincoln, thus Lincoln always played catch up.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-02-10, 07:27 PM
Yeah, that generally seems to be right. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a time in the past when Lincoln came out with a whole new model that Cadillac followed up on. I don't mean redesigns, but whole new models. The only time when Lincolns had better engines and made more power than the Cadillacs was during the '80s, when we were plagued with the V8-6-4, HT4100 and 307's. The 302 was always better than those.

77CDV
10-02-10, 08:16 PM
The comparison between Lincoln and Cadillac is ongoing and unsurprising. After all, they were founded by the same person. Though I doubt Henry Leland would recognize either one now.

orconn
10-02-10, 08:36 PM
Yeah, that generally seems to be right. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a time in the past when Lincoln came out with a whole new model that Cadillac followed up on. I don't mean redesigns, but whole new models. The only time when Lincolns had better engines and made more power than the Cadillacs was during the '80s, when we were plagued with the V8-6-4, HT4100 and 307's. The 302 was always better than those.

The 1956 Continental Mark II came out before the Cadillac Eldorado Brougham, which came out in 1957. I don't count the previous Eldorados which were really just modified standard models (the '53 Eldorado was more modified than its successors but still really just a modified model 62 convertible).

The new and unique 1961 Continentals were also a coup on Lincoln's part, and the re-introduction of the four door convertible was unique to Lincoln.

Unfortunately none of these Lincolns had the silky smooth operation that has always, in my experience, set Cadillacs apart from their competition including Mercedes, Lincoln, and Imperial. Having owned driven a few Cadillacs, several Jags and an Alfa Romeo I can say that three makes produced cars that were head and shoulders over other makes when it came to smoothness of operation and an overall feeling of co-ordination between steering feel and handling.

Night Wolf
10-03-10, 01:03 AM
From my experience, comparing a Lincoln and Cadillac of similar model/year - the Lincoln had a better ride.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-03-10, 02:27 PM
Went to a car show this morning, there was a beautiful 77 Mark V and a nice 85 Riviera for sale. I was able to examine them both closely and sit in them ad nauseam. I found that I prefer the Riviera, as it doesn't feel so big and cumbersome behind the wheel, and its a lot more roomy inside as well. The Riviera has a lower beltline and higher roof, so it feels a lot less claustrophobic. I've got pics of both ill upload when I get home.

77CDV
10-03-10, 03:27 PM
The Riv is a better car to live with and deal with, no question. I'd still go for a Toro, though. I prefer the cleaner lines to the fussier Riv.

orconn
10-03-10, 04:28 PM
Gosh, from seventies Lincoln sybarite to an admirer of eighties Riviera restraint and "good sense" interior space design, Chad has thrown off the addiction to abomidable excess and rejoined the world of mere excess!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-03-10, 05:48 PM
Yeah lol, compared to the Mark V, the '79-85 Riviera is more restrained than a nun at Sunday morning mass.

Here are some great comparative pictures I took of the two.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-03_09-51-07_35.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-03_09-45-56_553.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-03_09-50-31_659.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-03_09-46-30_382.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/IMG_7574.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/IMG_7565.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/IMG_7575.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-03_09-48-40_837.jpg

The Mark V is much longer and lower, but the Riviera's overall design flows much smoother and looks much more natural. The Mark V grabs your eye more, but the Riviera is the more beautiful of the two. A good analogy would be like saying that the Mark V is a girl with lots of makeup and huge boobs with a "butter" face and the Riviera is a girl with a much more normally proportioned body and a beautiful face who doesn't have to put on a bunch of makeup to look good.


The Riviera's seats aren't as deep as the Mark V's though, but they're probably more comfortable over the long hauls because they're firmer and more supportive. They're clad in an extremely soft velour material that's awesome to touch, and you just want to keep rubbing it. I think that the Riviera also has a much more appealing interior than that '85 Eldorado I drove a few weeks back. The Riviera's wood trim doesn't look as fake and the seating in the Riviera is more comfortable as well.

77CDV
10-03-10, 05:57 PM
If that Mark in your favored color combo couldn't sway you from the Riv, then you really have made up your mind.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-03-10, 06:04 PM
Aside from a little rust on the passenger side under the vinyl roof, that Mark was in nearly mint condition, and it had 77k miles. He was asking $9,500. That Riviera was probably an 8/10 overall, and he had 91k miles, he was asking $2500. I think that makes up my mind. :lol:

When I first saw that Mark V, I could have SWORN it was the Bill Blass, being as the '77 BB's were all done in Navy blue with the tan top, BUT all the Bill Blass's had the tan leather interior, this one was blue. Other than that, it was identical.

orconn
10-03-10, 06:04 PM
Yes, isn't that Mark V one of the sacred "BIll Blass" configurations? Truth be told I think Chad just got tired of the Contientals excess .... just like I did, just looking at its' brochures thirty years ago! In botj cases it saved us a lot on money!

Night Wolf
10-03-10, 06:05 PM
The front end of the Riv looks really cheap compared to the Mark V... my eyes go right to the plastic chrome headlight surrounds with exposed cutouts for headlight aim.

Atleast for me, if I got a car like this, it wouldn't be a daily driver or even a highway car - just a cruiser to go for a leisure drive whenever I wanted. For that reason all the mentions of the Riv being easier to live with day to day don't mean squat to me. I wouldn't be buying a car like this for driving pleasure, so which one drives better really dosen't matter to me. For me it comes down to styling. If I am going to get an old barge to cruise around in for shows/bored/whatever I want - the main thing is I want it to look good. I want to enjoy the styling inside and out. The 70s Lincolns fit that bill for me... that Riv, not so much.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-03-10, 06:10 PM
That's a good way to look at it Rick, but whatever I'd buy wouldn't be just my weekend car, but something I'd look forward to driving instead of the GS in the summertime. So, keeping that in mind, I'm going to have to be driving it in traffic, congested city streets and other bad areas. I'm going to want the Riviera more because it's more enjoyable to drive in congested, tight areas and not a chore like a '70s era Lincoln.

The Riviera is more of a driver's car and the Lincolns are definitely more of a passenger's car, but damn do they look good and stick out!

77CDV
10-03-10, 06:21 PM
Aside from the original Riv, refering to them as driver's cars is a bit of a stretch. But as a backup to the GS, it would definitely be the more satisfying car to drive under modern conditions.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-03-10, 08:20 PM
Yes, but compared to the Mark V, it is a lot tighter, and probably just as quick, especially with the 79-80 Olds 350.

Anyways, a friend and I were discussing this (having a cool looking car v. having one that's fun to drive) over drinks last night. He's a huge fan of the '59 Cadillacs, they're one of his all time favorite cars. He's a first year electrical design engineer for Emerson Electric, so he makes great money, especially for someone our age. Anyways, a '59 Cadillac isn't terribly out of the question for him, atleast financially. ANYWAYS (lol) he was saying that even though he's always loved the '59 Cadillacs, he wouldn't really want to buy one because they wouldn't be that fun to drive, but more of a showpiece to attract attention and to bring to shows. Ideally, what he would do is find a Series 62 or Coupe deVille in decent condition, and put a more modern drivetrain under the hood and modify the suspension a bit so it would drive like a more modern car yet still look awesome and original. I told him this is exactly what I thought of the '70s Lincolns....they look great inside and out, but since they're not especially enjoyable to drive, especially in tight areas, owning one doesn't make much sense..

ted tcb
10-03-10, 10:05 PM
Chad, if your hobby car will be driven on a regular basis in good weather, then fuel economy must
factor into your decision.

I cannot imagine pumping $50 worth of premium into an old MK V, tool around downtown for the weekend,
and then pump another $50 into her on Monday morning.
That's going to get old really quickly.

I drove a 420cid 1971 Marquis in high school, around 1976.
All of my money went into gasoline, and that was a long time ago.
I think you'd end up parking the Lincoln at car shows, and spend most of your time detailing her.
Kind of like the people who keep their large boats moored at the marina all summer, because
they can't afford the gas to taker her out.

I bet the Riv achieves far greater efficiency in stop and go city driving conditions.

Bro-Ham
10-03-10, 10:14 PM
Chad, there is a difference between an old car and a properly maintained old car. Freshen up almost any old car - new tires, brakes, shocks, springs, tune up - and it will feel quite athletic and capable.

Most old luxury cars I see on the market are like boat anchors to their previous owners who want their garages back for their daily drivers, most of these folks stopped spending time and money keeping up their old cars long before they finally became emotionally detached enough to put the car on the market.

I think a properly set up stock 59 Cad would be an awesome car to roll in. :)

Bro-Ham
10-03-10, 10:16 PM
Ted, It's what your priorities are. I drive a 79 Cad and a 92 Roadmaster as every day cars. They take a lot more fuel but they are so much more fun than any economical car I can think of. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-03-10, 10:34 PM
Well either way, the Mark IV/V would be a lot more expensive overall than a Toronado/Riviera. More expensive to buy, more expensive to fuel, etc etc...

Bro-Ham
10-03-10, 10:48 PM
Gotta pay to play. Dream big and drive what you want. Life's too short to do otherwise. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-03-10, 11:19 PM
But, I wanna drive the Toronado or Riviera. :)

77CDV
10-04-10, 12:15 AM
Toro! Toro! Toro! Toro! :thumbsup:

orconn
10-04-10, 12:25 AM
I don't remember the "personal luxury" cars of the eighties getting terrible mileage. I seem to remember the Jag XJ geting around 16 mpg around town and 24 mpg on the highway. My '76 Seville did abourt 14 mpg around town and 24 on the highway. only slightly worse than my '95 Seville. So given you wouldn't be making much of a car payment and your lisence and insurance would be less than a newer car I would think the moderate reducttion in gas mileage would be manageable. The seventies Lincolns would be a different story; they weren't called "land yachts" for nothing!!

gdwriter
10-04-10, 01:10 AM
I don't know if you could get a rear stabilizer bar for a '59 Cadillac, but putting one in Betty did wonders. Much, much less body roll in turns, and it did nothing to degrade the Jet-Smooth Ride that Chevrolet described in its advertising. A good seat of shock absorbers will also make a big difference. I have KYB G2 shocks in Betty, and I've been very pleased with them. Excellent control and damping. Wider tires than stock would also help. Betty is now running 215/75R14s, just 10mm narrower than the tires on Sabrina.

orconn
10-04-10, 01:22 AM
I drove my dad's 1960 Fleetwood extensively back in the sixties. It really wasn't that terrible. You had to be careful not to overdrive the brakes (they were prone to locking up in an emergency), but aside from that it was a decent driver perfectly capable of 80-90 mph cruising on an interstate. Gary's suggestion of a stabilizer (or sway bar) would probably help, but these cars were not designed to be "thrown" around, but rather to transport paasengers to and from their appointed rounds in a smooth and dignified manner. If you kept to the cars design parameters it was just fine and I wouldn't mind driving one around today.

Aron9000
10-04-10, 02:04 AM
I'll ding that Lincoln for one more thing as well, that I personally cannot stand. Ford uses that same damn ugly steering wheel in the Lincoln Mark V, and the most basic, stripped out Econoline vans and F150's. Only difference is the Lincoln version has wood and buttons for cruise control.


Anyways, I agree that fuel economy is going to be a big factor if you plan to put some miles on the car. 10mpg in the Lincoln vs 18-20mpg in the Riveria, well it adds up. If you do some road trips in the Riv, it might get as high as 25mpg.

Also, we are talking about the Lincoln Mark's to be the penultimate 70's personal luxury car. I submit that the 71-73 Riveria was a much better car, in terms of its novetly styling, interior appointments, superior driving dynamics, and that monster 455 motor under the hood. I also think those were much better cars than the Eldo and Coupe Devilles of those years.

Koooop
10-04-10, 02:08 AM
I don't know if you could get a rear stabilizer bar for a '59 Cadillac, but putting one in Betty did wonders. Much, much less body roll in turns, and it did nothing to degrade the Jet-Smooth Ride that Chevrolet described in its advertising. A good seat of shock absorbers will also make a big difference. I have KYB G2 shocks in Betty, and I've been very pleased with them. Excellent control and damping. Wider tires than stock would also help. Betty is now running 215/75R14s, just 10mm narrower than the tires on Sabrina.

You are dead on, stabilizer bar, some decent shocks and tires and those pigs handle pretty good.

However, the Riviera is a much better handling car and it gets better MPG than the Lincoln. My 84 Eldo has the FE2 suspension, it handles really good (I mean for what it is) and will get over 20MPG on the highway.

Try them both! I get some old car, drive it for a year send it away and get another. I've owned a TON of old cars and had a bunch of fun with them all.

Night Wolf
10-04-10, 04:58 AM
Yes, but compared to the Mark V, it is a lot tighter, and probably just as quick, especially with the 79-80 Olds 350.

Anyways, a friend and I were discussing this (having a cool looking car v. having one that's fun to drive) over drinks last night...

Why not have both - in the same car? :burn:

Jesda
10-04-10, 05:42 AM
Or have a bad looking car that drives poorly.

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/reviews/top10/05.least.expensive.vehicles/05.toyota.echo.500.jpg

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-04-10, 08:37 AM
Damn Jesda, how'd you know that I secretly wanted a Toyota Echo.

Night Wolf
10-04-10, 02:02 PM
It's not a hybrid.... so does it rank above or below the Prius?

Actually, it probably could be had with a manual transmission, in which case it is automatically better then the Prius.... and may make it almost somewhat kinda sorta maybe funish to drive.

drewsdeville
10-04-10, 05:06 PM
It's not a hybrid.... so does it rank above or below the Prius?

Actually, it probably could be had with a manual transmission, in which case it is automatically better then the Prius.... and may make it almost somewhat kinda sorta maybe funish to drive.

That's right, ANYTHING can be fun to drive. It's what you make of it. It's not the cars responsibility to entertain you...I can have way more fun in a car than GM, Toyota, Ford or any other manufacturer intended ;) I made way more memories during the 2 years I was driving my 210k mile Ford Escort 5 speed than in any of my other cars, including the "more nice" Cadillacs. It's poor appearance just added to the fun. It's nice to be able to drive a car around not caring about door dings, wiping it off with a diaper, washing it every week, etc. The only thing I'm particular on is keeping the interior clean as a dirty interior bothers me.

Maybe it takes a strange/different type of person to appreciate that, I don't know. But I know that I'd drive the shit out of a manual trans Toyota Echo, no problem.

Anything with a manual trans and a handbrake is automatically fun, regardless of manufacturer or model.

Koooop
10-04-10, 05:20 PM
That's right, ANYTHING can be fun to drive. It's what you make of it. It's not the cars responsibility to entertain you...I can have way more fun in a car than GM, Toyota, Ford or any other manufacturer intended ;) I made way more memories driving my 210k mile Ford Escort 5 speed than in any of my other cars, including the "more nice" Cadillacs.

Anything with a manual trans and a handbrake is automatically fun, regardless of manufacturer or model.

I submit my manual transmission Chevette as a rebuttal to the above statement.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-04-10, 10:05 PM
I sat in an '81 Eldorado Coupe today at an account of mine. It wasn't a Biarritz, but it had the velour seats that I like. The seats didn't feel much different than those in the '85 Riviera yesterday, but they were better than those in the '85 Eldorado I sat in a few weeks back. These were a lot softer and deeper. Between this Eldorado and the Riviera yesterday, the Riviera felt more natural to me.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-04_12-38-52_654.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/IMG_7565.jpg


I'm gonna have to put this on the back burner now for the time being. I'm moving in with my cousin at the end of next week. He's got a '40s era story and a half he just bought (from my mom nonetheless) over on the east side of St. Paul. He called me up last week and said he could use some additional income from a room mate and we talked numbers and made it work.

But, for future reference, he's got a 3 car garage. :)

hueterm
10-04-10, 10:30 PM
That's a great first step -- even if the Riv has to wait...

ga_etc
10-04-10, 10:41 PM
Awesome. Congrats!

ted tcb
10-04-10, 11:03 PM
Good news on the move!

I love the brown colour combo on the Eldorado.
Perhaps its the lighter wood tones, but it looks much better in this car.
And the brown velour looks great ... a combination you just don't see anymore.

orconn
10-05-10, 12:18 AM
Great news on the new abode! While the reality of being your own home provider may be a shock at first (financially), you will come to enjoy the independence and freedom very quickly!

Jesda
10-05-10, 12:33 AM
Best part: THE GARAGE! That's going to hopefully result in some interesting classics.

Night Wolf
10-05-10, 02:26 AM
That's right, ANYTHING can be fun to drive. It's what you make of it. It's not the cars responsibility to entertain you...I can have way more fun in a car than GM, Toyota, Ford or any other manufacturer intended ;) I made way more memories during the 2 years I was driving my 210k mile Ford Escort 5 speed than in any of my other cars, including the "more nice" Cadillacs. It's poor appearance just added to the fun. It's nice to be able to drive a car around not caring about door dings, wiping it off with a diaper, washing it every week, etc. The only thing I'm particular on is keeping the interior clean as a dirty interior bothers me.

Maybe it takes a strange/different type of person to appreciate that, I don't know. But I know that I'd drive the shit out of a manual trans Toyota Echo, no problem.

Anything with a manual trans and a handbrake is automatically fun, regardless of manufacturer or model.

That really sums up how I feel about my 528e, though I do really care about the car and like it, but even in eta (fuel economy) form, with the 5spd the gearing is so "right" it makes it fun to drive.

I felt the same way about my '94 Isuzu, what would otherwise be a boring vehicle became very fun due to the manual transmission.

Night Wolf
10-05-10, 02:41 AM
I sat in an '81 Eldorado Coupe today at an account of mine. It wasn't a Biarritz, but it had the velour seats that I like. The seats didn't feel much different than those in the '85 Riviera yesterday, but they were better than those in the '85 Eldorado I sat in a few weeks back. These were a lot softer and deeper. Between this Eldorado and the Riviera yesterday, the Riviera felt more natural to me.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-04_12-38-52_654.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/IMG_7565.jpg


I'm gonna have to put this on the back burner now for the time being. I'm moving in with my cousin at the end of next week. He's got a '40s era story and a half he just bought (from my mom nonetheless) over on the east side of St. Paul. He called me up last week and said he could use some additional income from a room mate and we talked numbers and made it work.

But, for future reference, he's got a 3 car garage. :)

IMO those are two of the most plain, boring looking entire dashboards to be put in a "modern" luxury car. They remind me of old pickup trucks with just a flat dash and some random gauges, vents and a radio thrown here and there - atleast the utilitarian design worked in the pickup but in those luxury cars... I dunno, I don't think I'd enjoy staring at it for house on end - which is exactly what would be done when driving the car. Of the two, the Eldo is better, but both are eh.

I know the downsized '86-'91 Eldo was really put down over all, but I really liked that interior, it was a neat and useful design with neat features. There was a '91 Eldo (not ETC) local in amazing condition with 160k... I thought long and hard about it but it was $2800 and I didn't want to spend that much money on an extra car.... but I still like that interior a lot, actually the whole car looked pretty sharp and had the 4.9, the touring models looked (and moved/turned) even better.

Honestly, other than sheer size/maybe some styling (front end of those Eldo's with the long hood looks really nice) I would pick a mint '91 Eldo over that prior style.... it may not earn as much respect at the country clubs' classic car show - but from nearly every standpoint from behind the wheel you would be much more rewarded.

Which is why I said if it was me, I would go all out and get the 70s Lincoln - because that is exactly why I would want the car - for its huge size, proportions and over the top styling, without care of the driving dynamics, how easy it was to park or how many gallons per mile it used, the car would not be a daily driver, nor a highway cruiser... maybe taken on a roadtrip from time to time for the heck of it, but it would otherwise be a car I only drove when I wanted to.

But in your case, how you said driving dynamics, ease of parking and gas mileage are important, I would much rather live with and enjoy a '91 Eldo over a '79-'85 any day.... unless the styling (which is really what it comes down to) really means that much to you.

Have you thought about Mark VII's? You were thinking of 70s Lincolns but 80s Buicks and Cadillacs.... the VII fills the gap between the crazy 70s barges to the smaller and more nimble 80s Eldo. IMO the car looks better then the Riv and better/worse from various angles than the Eldo, but has a much better interior (compared to the other two) and arguably a (much) better drivetrain.... the 5.0 makes some sweet sounds, it's driving the proper set of wheels and the car has a decent suspension that can be modified to be even better.

I saw a niceish Mark VII today and was thinking that if I wanted an American 80s "personal luxury car"... that would be the one I get. Atleast for me this segment is cornered by the '95 Eldorado ETC... a car that I would still like int he future.

Atleast for me, I really think one of the main reasons why I like 80s era BMW's so much is becuase they are "my" type of classic car.... they have old school timeless designs and looks that are very unique - but they drive so incredibly well and have a really well thought out "drivers" interior, plus the cars are pretty well loaded up for what they are. To me, I get all the joys of owning a "classic" car, but with the added benefit of incredible driveability, great fuel economy and an overall extremely fun package that dosen't really excel at one particular thing, but just does everything as a whole, so well.

As for moving in with your cousin - congrats! That will be a whole lot better than living with the parents, thats for sure. A garage wouls sure be nice for all the various car projects.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 08:35 AM
The Mark VII's have a decent looking design with some nice lines, but some goofy details. I never thought the front end looked quite right on any of them. The headlights & side lights looked too big for the car, and the grille looked too narrow by comparison. The blocky front bumper doesn't flow well with the rest of the smoothly styled car, the big chrome mirrors look goofy. It looks nice in profile and from the rear, but if I can't like the way the car looks from the front 3/4 view, then I won't buy it. Appearance is huge for me. The interior, while set up to be a lot more of a driver's car than the 79-85 E-Bodies ever were, simply isn't really what I want in this sort of car. I don't want this next car to feel particularly sporty, modern or European (let's face it, the Mark VII, especially the LSC, was designed to go against the 635csi and 560SEC). I want a throwback, something that feels like it's directly out of the late '70s and early '80s. I want to cruise around listening to Steely Dan and feel "Home At Last" (that's a track off their 1977 album, AJA). So, knowing how important a sporty ride and "driver oriented interior" are to you, I can see why you'd want the Mark VII, but I like the big soft bench seat, column shift, faux wood grain trim and "know nothing" dashboards of the GM's.

I drove JD's (RIP) '88 Mark VII LSC this February at the Chicago meet, and came away satisfied but less than impressed. It was nice for being a somewhat European 1988 Lincoln, but compared to my friend's '88 & '86 Town Car, the T/C felt more natural to me and up my alley. I didn't like how the Mark VII had no wood grain on the interior, and it was all one color (dark blue), which didn't feel particularly luxurious, but just cheap and boring, like so many other '80s era Fords. Granted the '80s weren't a high point for design or quality in any cars (aside from BMW and M-B), but the Fords always seemed to be worse than comparable GM's. The car, like so many other Fords from that era, suffered from a syrupy steering and absolutely no on-center steering feel. I don't remember the HO 5.0 being particularly fast, I remember being quite underwhelmed at it's supposed "225 hp". It was slow out of the hole, but once the RPM's were up a bit, it seemed to accelerate better. It kinda felt like a Northstar's power band, but with about 8/10ths the power. No doubt it would be faster than anything with a 307, but if I want speed, I've got the GS, which was way quicker than the LSC.

So yeah, definitely not digging the Mark VII's. I do understand there's a lot of desire for them out there, maybe more so than the 79-85 E-Body, and definitely more so than the 86-91 E-Bodies. With the 86-91, it's a lot like the Mark VII for me, just not as desirable as the models that came directly before or after and not really worth going into right now. Let's just say I'd take a Mark VII over a 86-91 Eldorado. If I was going to get something that new, I'd just as well go for another 4.9 deVille, but like I said before, I want something that's a throwback to the '70s and not something "late model" and still commonly seen.

Rick, have you ever seen on of these before? 84-85 Mark VII equipped with a BMW sourced 2.4L turbodiesel I-6?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1984-TURBO-DIESEL-LINCOLN-MARK-VII-w-BMW-6-Engine-/170548527273?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item27b57c00a9#ht_1306wt_1167

I still am attracted to the 1980-85 Seville, but basically the only year worthwhile there would be '80, and that was only if they had the OPTIONAL gas engine, all other years had awful engines not worth the time or effort. So if I was hell bent on owning one of those, I'd have to pass up a lot of really nice Rivieras and Toronados to find one.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 10:20 AM
So yeah, definitely not digging the Mark VII's. I do understand there's a lot of desire for them out there, maybe more so than the 79-85 E-Body, and definitely more so than the 86-91 E-Bodies. With the 86-91, it's a lot like the Mark VII for me, just not as desirable as the models that came directly before or after and not really worth going into right now. Let's just say I'd take a Mark VII over a 86-91 Eldorado. If I was going to get something that new, I'd just as well go for another 4.9 deVille, but like I said before, I want something that's a throwback to the '70s and not something "late model" and still commonly seen.


Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems you state your opinion, but for the wrong reason. Desirable, by who? You or others? If by you, then why? If by others...it's not very wise to make a decision based on that. If you are looking at this from an investment standpoint, NONE of these are good choices. In fact, looking at a car for investment is just a poor idea in general. You won't get out of it what you put in.

The fact is we are car enthusiasts because we enjoy DRIVING cars. That said, pick the car that you love to drive the most. That's what really matters. Don't eliminate possibilities based on other factors. None of them matter. This is one of the reasons that I really didn't support Jesda's purchase of the Volvo (sorry Jesda, nothing personal). Most of the cons in his review were based on how the car drove, which is supposed to be the main attraction and selling point. If you want bang for your buck, get what's going to enjoy driving most for your dollar. The car's primary and most important function is to be driven, make sure that it drives just the way you like.

The above is why I always root for the '86'-91 (more specifically, the '90-'91's). over both the previous and the following generations. I feel that they are more of a "drivers" car in every way in comparison.

Stingroo
10-05-10, 10:27 AM
The fact is we are car enthusiasts because we enjoy DRIVING cars. That said, pick the car that you love to drive the most. That's what really matters. Don't eliminate possibilities based on other factors. None of them matter.

What he said. ^

I love the Mark VII by the way.

ga_etc
10-05-10, 10:58 AM
Sorry Ray and Drew, but no. We are not car enthusiasts JUST because we enjoy driving them. Just because a car might not drive the way we would like it to, doesn't mean that it can't be drop dead gorgeous. Look at the '59 Eldorado. I'm sure it's typical old school floaty and numb to drive. That doesn't change the fact that it's an iconic American car and, I think, one of the best looking vehicles to EVER roll off an assembly line. Yes, the point of any car is to be driven, but you don't have to drive it to be an enthusiast.

The rest of that statement I will agree with, though.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 11:33 AM
Sorry for what?

If you want to invest in something that looks nice, there are some fantastic pieces of art out there that you can hang on your wall, set on your end table, or place in your front yard. That's exactly what they are for.

On the other hand, if you want an enjoyable car to drive, there is no substitute.

Considering the way Chad organizes his reviews and considering the GS he has now, I'd say he's in the market for an enjoyable car to drive, not something to gawk at.

Sure, there can be a balance of aesthetics and function, but to buy something solely based on aesthetics while disregarding function is ass backwards.

ga_etc
10-05-10, 11:59 AM
I wasn't talking about buying something solely for asthetics. I wouldn't want something that looks nice but drive like crap. I'm just saying that you don't have to drive it just to be an enthusiast. You can like a car and appreciate it for what it is without owning it or driving it.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 01:17 PM
If you haven't learned by now, I am looking for something slightly numb and soft. I want something old school '80s style. After driving my friends Caprices, Town Cars and Broughams around, I've really come to like the softly sprung slightly oversized early '80s era full sized luxury cars that are unlike anything else nowadays. '90s cars drive tighter and sportier, and '70s cars are too large, too vague and too softly sprung.

Night Wolf
10-05-10, 02:04 PM
yeah, that Lincoln had the same engine as the e28 524td.

I understand exactly what you mean though.

It is the same way I felt when I bought my '96 Town Car. I -wanted- the floating ride, bench type seat, column shift and hood ornament. For my purpose, that car fit the bill perfectlly as it was all the old school stuff I wanted but nicely mixed in with modern updates that made it a fine daily driver/highway cruiser.

I better understand what you want... I got thrown off with the driveability comments.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 02:18 PM
I better understand what you want... I got thrown off with the driveability comments.

Ditto.

orconn
10-05-10, 02:23 PM
[QUOTE=Night Wolf;2380422]IMO those are two of the most plain, boring looking entire dashboards to be put in a "modern" luxury car. They remind me of old pickup trucks with just a flat dash and some random gauges, vents and a radio thrown here and there - atleast the utilitarian design worked in the pickup but in those luxury cars... I dunno, I don't think I'd enjoy staring at it for house on end - which is exactly what would be done when driving the car. Of the two, the Eldo is better, but both are eh.

I agree that "vintge" BMWs drive quite well for the period in which they were built , built you do have to put up with the loud valve noise and "mechanical-ness" of German cars of the period. But every vintage car has its' drawbacks, I once tried to, go back in time and buy areally nice series I Jaguar SWB XJ6, a car I had previuosly owned and enjoyed as a sports sedan in the early seventies, despite the car I was looking at being in really nice, almost mint original condition and driving really well for its' type, I found I could not tolerate the really poor "no feel" steering that this period Jaguar's power steering had.

Then there is the cost of bringing an old BMW back to serviceable life if you are not able to do the work yourself. Most 70's american cars were super easy to work on and many independent mechanics will work on them for reasonable prices, if BMWs are like Jaguars, the mechanics who work on them consider themselves to be in class above "regular" mechanics and want to charge premium prices for there work. This factor is why a car like your 525
would hold no joy for me; the styling, while not obnoxious, was not particualrly aesthetically pleasing either and the interior was spartan, in the best tradition of German cars of that period, but let's face it, while functional, not that inviting.

If I were to go the old '70s German car route it would have to be either a BMW 6 series or a Mercedes 280SE cabriolet, neither of which are either cheap to buy or cheap to maintain.

I know the downsized '86-'91 Eldo was really put down over all, but I really liked that interior, it was a neat and useful design with neat features. There was a '91 Eldo (not ETC) local in amazing condition with 160k... I thought long and hard about it but it was $2800 and I didn't want to spend that much money on an extra car.... but I still like that interior a lot, actually the whole car looked pretty sharp and had the 4.9, the touring models looked (and moved/turned) even better.

Honestly, other than sheer size/maybe some styling (front end of those Eldo's with the long hood looks really nice) I would pick a mint '91 Eldo over that prior style.... it may not earn as much respect at the country clubs' classic car show - but from nearly every standpoint from behind the wheel you would be much more rewarded.

Which is why I said if it was me, I would go all out and get the 70s Lincoln - because that is exactly why I would want the car - for its huge size, proportions and over the top styling, without care of the driving dynamics, how easy it was to park or how many gallons per mile it used, the car would not be a daily driver, nor a highway cruiser... maybe taken on a roadtrip from time to time for the heck of it, but it would otherwise be a car I only drove when I wanted to.

But in your case, how you said driving dynamics, ease of parking and gas mileage are important, I would much rather live with and enjoy a '91 Eldo over a '79-'85 any day.... unless the styling (which is really what it comes down to) really means that much to you.

Have you thought about Mark VII's? You were thinking of 70s Lincolns but 80s Buicks and Cadillacs.... the VII fills the gap between the crazy 70s barges to the smaller and more nimble 80s Eldo. IMO the car looks better then the Riv and better/worse from various angles than the Eldo, but has a much better interior (compared to the other two) and arguably a (much) better drivetrain.... the 5.0 makes some sweet sounds, it's driving the proper set of wheels and the car has a decent suspension that can be modified to be even better.

I saw a niceish Mark VII today and was thinking that if I wanted an American 80s "personal luxury car"... that would be the one I get. Atleast for me this segment is cornered by the '95 Eldorado ETC... a car that I would still like int he future.

Atleast for me, I really think one of the main reasons why I like 80s era BMW's so much is becuase they are "my" type of classic car.... they have old school timeless designs and looks that are very unique - but they drive so incredibly well and have a really well thought out "drivers" interior, plus the cars are pretty well loaded up for what they are. To me, I get all the joys of owning a "classic" car, but with the added benefit of incredible driveability, great fuel economy and an overall extremely fun package that dosen't really excel at one particular thing, but just does everything as a whole, so well.

Jesda
10-05-10, 02:26 PM
Cars ARE art. They're products of human creativity, cultural influences, and their time periods.

If you just want function, get a lawnmower.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 02:35 PM
Cars ARE art. They're products of human creativity, cultural influences, and their time periods.

If you just want function, get a lawnmower.

There are some out there that would call their lawnmowers art, and apply them to your definition. Talk to any Bolens owner.

And yes, some would consider cars to be art as well. To each their own. I personally think using cars as art ends up being a complete waste of resources. That thought process can be quite damaging, financially.

But, as I posted above, I think a healthy balance works. Just as long as one isn't at one extreme or the other.

Jesda
10-05-10, 02:51 PM
There are some out there that would call their lawnmowers art, and apply them to your definition. Talk to any Bolens owner.

And yes, some would consider cars to be art as well. To each their own. I personally think using cars as art ends up being a complete waste of resources. That thought process can be quite damaging, financially.

The question of "what is art" isn't some vague or subjective notion that you can make up as you go. Its a well-defined human thing, like "what is music".

Birds singing are NOT music.
People singing together according to spoken or written words and tones IS music, because its a product of human creativity, not instinct.

As long as its a product of intended human creation (making feces, for example, is not intended), it is art. Some products of human creation are more artistic than others.

Tractors incorporate bits of styling and design reflective of the agricultural needs of their culture. But they're far less artistic than, say, a Miura, which was created mostly for aesthetic and aural pleasure.

http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/lamborghini-miura-p400-red-1.jpg

Part of the joy in owning a classic is the look and feel. Practicality is less important. If you have to put it in practical terms, think of owning a less functional thing of beauty as a luxury.

http://jalopnik.com/5654475/why-old-cars-suck-are-awesome





As for a car's "desirability", its common for an author to put it in the context of himself and/or the audience that seeks out that kind of vehicle. One would normally consider a Civic SI more desirable than a Civic EX, but the audience has to conclude that either is desirable at all.

And taking into consideration the 8 years that this forum has been around, the audience here understands the context of what "desirable" means when someone talks about a classic from 20 or 30 years ago.

Jesda
10-05-10, 02:53 PM
But, as I posted above, I think a healthy balance works. Just as long as one isn't at one extreme or the other.

There doesn't have to be a "healthy" balance of anything. Not everyone is you.

You can buy a garage queen and admire its beauty while putting 200 miles on it a year, taking it to shows and sharing it with the public on nice days.
Or you can pick up a Ford Ranger for 3 grand and thrash it heroically.

Koooop
10-05-10, 03:01 PM
Miura

http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/lamborghini-miura-p400-red-1.jpg



SAL! JESDA IS PUTTING UP CAR PORN!

Now you've done it, a Miura. I can't work with thoughts like that picture in my head.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 03:06 PM
Part of the joy in owning a classic is the look and feel. Practicality is less important. If you have to put it in practical terms, think of owning a less functional thing of beauty as a luxury.



Yes, in part, like you said. Going back to the topic at hand, following Chad's threads, it's clear that he's not at a point in his life where making "practicality less important" is a wise choice. Therefore, recognizing this, I am playing devils advocate to prevent him from, like your Volvo example, possibly losing $1800 (maybe a lot more, maybe less) within a few months on a machine whose functionality isn't appreciated. See above about how this thought process can be expensive. Maybe some other time, but I find it hard to recommend doing so right now.

At this point, Chad should really be focusing on value and practicality right now, regardless of your views on art.

Jesda
10-05-10, 03:12 PM
If you have a garage (which he will) and you have access to parts and a willingness to DIY (which, thankfully, is easy on American cars before the late 80s), owning a classic from that era is manageable and affordable. Its also an opportunity to get hands-on and see the guts in action since everything from that era is very mechanical. As long as one is patient and willing to get dirty, they can be rewarding hobbies.

Me, I'd probably go for an 80s G-body. Parts are abundant as well as upgrades and mods, and if you're patient you can find one without rust.
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/795/2321/1986160106_large.jpg
I'd also consider a Monte Carlo or Cutlass.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 03:14 PM
Been there, done that. It was expensive to accumulate the tools and equipment I have now. Besides taking advantage of the wealth of knowledge I accumulated, I almost wish I spent those resources elswhere for now. It's NEVER cheap. Some are more reasonable than others, like the g-body, but it's not practical.

Your 20's are the best years of your life to get ahead, set yourself up to do stuff like this down the road when you are ready. Wasting money on stuff like "art" in your 20's is only gonna make the following 30 years harder. And, when it gets harder, the poor choices made now will be regretted, I promise.

Jesda
10-05-10, 03:18 PM
Hobbies are inherently unpractical as they're escapes from the rigid and practical world. You can't think of these cars as primary means of transit. They're side interests like model railroads, biking, traveling, or knitting. You won't ever see that money come back, but if you enjoy it, keep scraping the pennies together and have fun. If it starts to feel like time or money wasted, you (or whomever) got in with the wrong agenda.



Having fun... with cars... on a car forum. Blows my mind!

Koooop
10-05-10, 03:19 PM
The late run of the Mk VII LSC was a pretty decent car out of the box, factory headers, FI and it was a roller motor (at least mine was). The cool part is you can mod the crap out of them with that mustang motor. I think they were only about 400lbs more than a Mustang GT. With a few mods I made one of those things pretty speedy. It was sweet to put someone in your rear veiw mirror with a Lincoln. I liked the LSC so much I actually owned two of them a few decades ago. They weren't as fast nor did they handle my 645csi, but waaaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper to buy and maintain. Good bang for the buck at this point.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 03:20 PM
Hobbies are inherently unpractical as they're escapes from the rigid and practical world. You can't think of these cars as primary means of transit. They're side interests like model railroads, biking, traveling, or knitting. You won't ever see that money come back, but if you enjoy it, keep scraping the pennies together and have fun.




Having fun... with cars... on a car forum. Blows my mind!

And sacrafices have to be made sometimes. You can't just live life doing what you want, when you want. You think that's a successful way of thinking? Ditching a hobby isn't a smart thing to do, but postponing an exceptionally expensive one like cars can be one of the smartest decisions you'll make.

Car forum or not, I will NOT recommend reckless behavior for the sake of "art"

Jesda
10-05-10, 03:31 PM
And sacrafices have to be made sometimes.

Drew... you're on a car forum chock full of automotive hobbyists.

http://www.thelifecoachingforum.com/

Cars can be enjoyed without being financially "set," but you have to be clever about it and accept certain compromises like ongoing DIY, junkyard visits, and a development of mechanical skill and personal craftsmanship. And you have to limit your selection of classic cars too. Buying a used Fiat is asking for financial ruin. An old American boat is relatively easy to keep running.



There's two ways to own an old car:
1. My way -- Pay a mechanic and a body shop to do it all, and pay a lot. Enjoy the benefits without the hassle.
2. Rick's way -- If you have the space, the time, and the patience, do your own work, save a ton of money, and take pride in something you basically rebuilt yourself.

Okay, there's a third way:
3. Gary's way -- Buy something nice to begin with and maintain it. :)

ga_etc
10-05-10, 03:50 PM
I like choice #3. I like having something I can work on and tinker with, but I hate something that I HAVE to work on. It usually gets on my nerves.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 05:51 PM
Drew... you're on a car forum chock full of automotive hobbyists.

http://www.thelifecoachingforum.com/

Cars can be enjoyed without being financially "set," but you have to be clever about it and accept certain compromises like ongoing DIY, junkyard visits, and a development of mechanical skill and personal craftsmanship. And you have to limit your selection of classic cars too. Buying a used Fiat is asking for financial ruin. An old American boat is relatively easy to keep running.



There's two ways to own an old car:
1. My way -- Pay a mechanic and a body shop to do it all, and pay a lot. Enjoy the benefits without the hassle.
2. Rick's way -- If you have the space, the time, and the patience, do your own work, save a ton of money, and take pride in something you basically rebuilt yourself.

Okay, there's a third way:
3. Gary's way -- Buy something nice to begin with and maintain it. :)

... good lord man! Whats your definition of being financially set? Being able to pay the bills by living paycheck to paycheck?

What do you live for? Do you live for cars or to better yourself and succeed?
Reading what he has to say about his income, even if Chad could somehow pull any of those options off, he'd probably be spread so thin it'd be dangerous. That's not good. I guess, this is the American way now-a-days, and your recommendation fits right in. Spend every dollar you make with no reserve, no savings, no backup to fall back on if/when shit happens. Live week by week, paycheck to paycheck, paying those bills, praying nothing changes. It's common, look at all of the families who have folded on the homes they could barely afford along with the Escalades and Lexus' in the driveway.

There's a difference between physically having the correct amount of money to indulge and actually being able to afford it...aka LIVING WITHIN YOUR MEANS.

Now, lets just say that Chad didn't want to live within his means and he was willing to spend all of his money on this:

Ricks option doesn't quite work. From reading the boards, I'm assuming that Chad has 0 setup (besides an empty garage), no tools, no equipment and I'm not sure about knowledge. How much will it cost to attain all of that? If Ricks option was a good idea, you would see all of the half finished projects that haven't been touched in 15 years by the father of a young family because he couldn't afford it anymore. All of Ricks posts are FULL of comments about how much his DIY hobby is costing him. It's not as cheap as you are trying to make it sound. It takes YEARS of tool and equipment accumulation for this option to finally become cost effective. Otherwise, you dive in and buy thousands in tools from the start, which puts you in the red enough that you might be better off moving to your next option.

This (your) option is ridiculously wasteful, as you admitted, and is an absolutely horrible recommendation for a 23 year old just getting on his feet. If he could afford to waste that much on cars (which he's sort of admitted he can't and that's fine), he could probably use that money to make a downpayment/mortgage payments on a home and continue his hobby comfortably by buying a really nice ride when he owns his home and other assets early on in his life.

Gary's option...he kind of already did with the GS, and has already admitted a slight discomfort with the cost involved. That won't work either.

Regardless of wants, it's important to live within your means. Live for the FUTURE, not the present. Forgetting to live for the future almost always ends in disaster.

That said, Chad, for whatever it's worth, I hope you lay low on these ideas for now and get yourself on your feet, get yourself a home and maybe consider this in the future rather than right now. The earlier you can get your life started and set yourself up financially, the better things will be in years to come. It's just a car...they will still be around when it's the right time. Right now, you have more important things to devote your energy towards. Your parents are trying to tell you this with the account they have set up for you...don't waste their efforts. I'll be honest, if I was handing that much to my kid telling him that it's time to "grow up" (for lack of better words), I'd be pissed if he came home with yet another car. I'd probably close the account and let him figure out what he needs to do the hard way.

hueterm
10-05-10, 06:27 PM
Chad, take what Oprah and Suze Orman's love child has to say w/a grain of salt...

After you get set in your living situation, and find a reasonably priced E body that checks out w/a mechanic, if you can afford it -- buy it.

A couple thousand dollars is not going to make any difference. If you buy the car right and don't dump a fortune into it -- if you need to sell it, you shouldn't have a lot of trouble.

Bro-Ham
10-05-10, 06:30 PM
Chad's life, as micromanaged by the Cadillac forum. :)

Jesda
10-05-10, 06:33 PM
Do you live for cars or to better yourself and succeed?

Is this a subtle way of selling seminars and books?

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 06:34 PM
A couple thousand dollars is not going to make any difference. If you buy the car right and don't dump a fortune into it -- if you need to sell it, you shouldn't have a lot of trouble.

When you are in your early 20's, thousands will go a long way.

hueterm
10-05-10, 06:38 PM
It might even buy a Corolla with a manual transmission...............

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 06:44 PM
It might even buy a Corolla with a manual transmission...............

Or maybe that money could go towards a head start on a home. Every little bit counts. His girlfriend would probably appreciate that more. I know mine does.

Or, I guess, he could forget about the home, buy some cars, keep renting apartments and half-houses (waste of money you never see a return on) till he's in his 30's, at some point finally decide it's time to move on, make mortgage payments till he's in his 50's and have minimal savings for retirement, which would probably force the sale of any cars accumulated.

Bro-Ham
10-05-10, 06:52 PM
I think Chad is smart; he regularly test drives all kinds of cool cars yet he has none of the headaches of owning them. Plus, he's nice enough to share his experiences with all of us. :)

Koooop
10-05-10, 07:04 PM
... good lord man! Whats your definition of being financially set? Being able to pay the bills by living paycheck to paycheck?

What do you live for? Do you live for cars or to better yourself and succeed?
Reading what he has to say about his income........

Cliff notes pleaze

You're young! Go buy WTF you want! Once you have kids, house, wife, exwife etc there will be a crapload of reasons not to buy something.

When I met my wife I had a garage full of Boats, Motorcycles, a Dune Buggy and 4 or 5 cars.

Now I don't.

Enjoy man! You're only young once!

Bro-Ham
10-05-10, 07:11 PM
Cliff notes pleaze

You're young! Go buy WTF you want! Once you have kids, house, wife, exwife etc there will be a crapload of reasons not to buy something.

When I met my wife I had a garage full of Boats, Motorcycles, a Dune Buggy and 4 or 5 cars.

Now I don't.

Enjoy man! You're only young once!

How true! :)

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 07:14 PM
When was that, in 1980? That was a little more feasible back then. Things are a little different and a little tougher for us young folk now, and will increase in difficulty the way things are looking.

There's a consequence for everything, good or bad. Indulge too much now and the chain reaction could hamper you later. Work now, play later...comfortably.

Somehow, I'm worried that retirement won't be an option for some of this generation. Yeah, you are young only once, but you also only get one shot at setting yourself up for retirement. I sure as hell don't want to work my whole life away. I'm not gonna let the attraction of a few worthless 80's cars put me behind schedule, and that makes me proud. I'll leave that to some other fool. Hopefully that fool isn't Chad.

Koooop
10-05-10, 07:27 PM
Tougher now? Ouch, I hurt myself with a good laugh! We had interest rates at 20% back then, don't kid yourself about things being tough right now.

You'll find your schedule is out the window as life moves forward so enjoy it whenever you can.

hueterm
10-05-10, 07:32 PM
So true...don't forget Carter's inflation...

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 07:33 PM
And I'm sure you'll keep laughing as I continue to contribute to the current retirement system that you'll feed off of and reap the benefits of while Chad and I'll be left with nothing but our own personal assets when it's our turn. As it stands right now, that's how things are looking.

In the end, we are all working towards retirement. That's the ultimate goal. You will most likely have a much easier time doing so than we will.

Koooop
10-05-10, 07:42 PM
And I will continue to buy old cars and enjoy them until it is no longer allowed.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 07:52 PM
First of all: Drew, you're not my father, so stop acting like it. I don't need you holding my hand telling me what to do and why to do it. I'm 23 now, not far behind you.


Secondly, let's not let my thread, which initially was about my review of the 1979 Lincoln Continental Mark V spiral into some sort of philosophical oblivion about how the economy is gone to crap and how we're hell bent to live a life of no pleasure because it's so tough out.

Now, Koop brings up a point I've always believed in and held true to. Have your fun now, sow your wild oats now before you're married, have a house and kids! Spend money while you're still young and unchained because you WON'T have that financial freedom later, unless you get mega rich or something. Most people that I know in the middle class can't afford to have 3-4 different toy/classic cars, and afford a mortgage and have money for the kids and stuff. That's the policy I'll abide by. Obviously, moderation, like anywhere else, is key here, but buying an early '80s luxury cruiser isn't the most expensive or dumbest decision I could make at this age. It may not be as practical as buying a used Camry (nor as boring), but it's certainly not as wild or as fiscally dumb as that 1999 S320 I had a few years back. I could have bought 3 nice '80s cars for the price of that car alone, and than another decent '80s car for the amount of money I put into that car. Not the greatest decision but I was young and it was fun. That was my favorite car I've owned and I'll always look back on it with a smile, and it'll be cool to tell my kids and grandkids that at 20 years old, I was rolling in a Mercedes S Class.

But, I'm glad I got that out of my system before I had to worry about making house payments, because then I'd really be in deep shit financially.

People do this all the time, especially my age group. For years, my dad was able to have two or three different cars and still live in an apartment with a friend, he was working full time in a blue collared job, just as I am now. Granted, he always had that '66 Chevelle, and then a late model pickup truck or station wagon at the time, so it wasn't 20 years old, nor was it high end, but it was still possible. My mom's younger brother was always the same way. A diehard car-guy his entire life, he worked at a parts store, then wrenched at a Chevrolet dealership for about 10 years, and he was always able to afford a few cars at once, and still make house payments, so I come from a long line of people that've done it before, and I'll follow their path.

Jesda
10-05-10, 07:55 PM
A Corolla with a manual could be a blast if its old enough.
http://www.dwhitfield.com/assets/images/Corolla.jpg

Back when Toyota made interesting and well-made but affordable cars.

Koooop
10-05-10, 08:06 PM
Here's a great example of a stupid, useless old toy. I got it on the cheap, I've used it for a year and she'll be at auction and gone at the end of November. Admittedly, I'd had a few to many cocktails when I bought it or it never would have come home with me. A toy under $10k that is in decent condition when you get it ain't expensive to own for a year. I found myself a friggin hilarious fire engine red with hooker red velour interior early 70's Town Car to replace this Caddy. I might even make a few bucks on the Caddy and was completely entertained by it. Buy your toy right, enjoy it then dump it.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 08:08 PM
That is a very nice looking Eldorado Koooop.

Stingroo
10-05-10, 08:14 PM
Is that convertible a factory option or no? I don't think I've ever seen one from that generation before.

Koooop
10-05-10, 08:15 PM
It's a pimp wagon, you can't see the fake continental kit in the pic. Adults and children alike point and laugh. My kids love it.

Koooop
10-05-10, 08:18 PM
Is that convertible a factory option or no? I don't think I've ever seen one from that generation before.

It was a factory option sold by GM, but was converted by ASC off site. It's pretty rare, they only made about 3,000 or so in 84 and again in 85.

Stingroo
10-05-10, 08:31 PM
That's cool. I had no idea.

hueterm
10-05-10, 08:36 PM
There were Riv verts as well.

Koooop
10-05-10, 08:46 PM
Here's one I bought about 3 years ago for $7,000 (this is one of my all time favorite cars). Same deal, drove it for 18 months, had fun, dumped it and made a few bucks. If you can make a couple $ it just makes the ownership experience better IMO. It's a good, fun hobby.

orconn
10-05-10, 08:51 PM
Kooop, of the seventies Eldorados that's the one I would want. Either black on black or dark green with tan top and interior. They were "swanky" looking cars ... too bad they drove like Jello on a saucer! When they went to the open rear wheel cut outs they ruined the design, rather than swanky and sophisticated they just looked big and ungainly and uncouth IMO.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 08:55 PM
That's cool. I had no idea.

Yeah, they were quite the hot item when they came out. MSRP on his '84 was $31,286. The MSRP on an '84 Seville, which by that time was the flagship was $22,468. A Sedan deVille started at $17,625 and a Fleetwood Brougham Sedan started at $20,451. So in '84, it was a HUGE amount of money over any other Cadillac. In '85, Cadillac made 74,101 Eldorado Coupes, and 2,300 of the convertibles.

I do remember reading that when they came out with the '84 Eldorado Biarritz Convertible, people who had bought the '76 Eldorado Convertible thought they would never make another convert again (I think Cadillac stated so), and people snatched them up ASAP and wanted to make a profit on them. Well that went over like a fart in church once the '84's were released.

The Riviera Convertible was released in '82, and went for about $24,000. The next most expensive Buick was the T-Type Riviera at $14,940.

Koooop
10-05-10, 09:02 PM
You nailed it! The square head lights looked lame on later ones as well. The 73 didn't have the fake side vents, I think those messed up the side lines. This car was soooo obnoxious, 9 MPG, took more space than a suburban, no rear leg room, tiny trunk. There is no reason in the world to own one other than it's just such a smooth looking car. This one was heavily optioned, unrestored, unmolested, unrusted, Black on Black in Black. with a real 100k on it. Suhweeet!

Jello on a saucer! LOL

Koooop
10-05-10, 09:11 PM
Yeah, they were quite the hot item when they came out. MSRP on his '84 was $31,286. The MSRP on an '84 Seville, which by that time was the flagship was $22,468. A Sedan deVille started at $17,625 and a Fleetwood Brougham Sedan started at $20,451. So in '84, it was a HUGE amount of money over any other Cadillac. In '85, Cadillac made 74,101 Eldorado Coupes, and 2,300 of the convertibles.

I do remember reading that when they came out with the '84 Eldorado Biarritz Convertible, people who had bought the '76 Eldorado Convertible thought they would never make another convert again (I think Cadillac stated so), and people snatched them up ASAP and wanted to make a profit on them. Well that went over like a fart in church once the '84's were released.

The Riviera Convertible was released in '82, and went for about $24,000. The next most expensive Buick was the T-Type Riviera at $14,940.

There was a Class action lawsuit over these cars, some idiots actually sued GM over this.

The way my 84 is optioned it was probably close to $40,000 with the wire wheels, pimp grille and continental kit etc... I think all she's missing is the CB and the Bose. This is probably the gaudiest cars I've ever owned.

I will own a 1973 Eldo Pace car at some point in my life.

orconn
10-05-10, 09:17 PM
I had a friend, Harry Brandel, who was a broker at Merrill Lynch in the downtown L.A. office in the mid to late '70's. He had an Eldorado Identical to the one in the picture, the car fit ol' Harry to "T." I often admired o' Harry's taste when he was pulling out of the parking lot on his way back to Palos Verdes, but I didn'y envy his having to drive the thing. I drove an XJ6 at the time and Harry and my boss had a beautiful BMW 635. We were fortunate!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 09:17 PM
I'm a big fan of the 1971-72 Eldorados. The 73's are good too, but I prefer the waterfall grill on the earlier ones, the seperate turn signal/park lamps, smaller bumper and the vertical windsplit.

I used to really, really want a 71-72 Eldorado Coupe, but then I found out that the Mark IV has a better looking interior, and I always liked those more from then on out. But considering the fact that the Eldorado wouldn't drive as sloppy as the Mark IV, maybe I'd prefer the Eldorado overall.

http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/cadillac/71cad/bilder/7.jpg
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/cadillac/72cad2/bilder/10.jpg

Jesda
10-05-10, 09:19 PM
Well sh*t, now I want one of these land yachts.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 09:20 PM
Nothing says "I've arrived" like a car with an "8.2 Litre" badge on it's grille!

billc83
10-05-10, 09:29 PM
IIRC, the lawsuit over the '84/'85 Eldorado convertible was thrown out, because TECHNICALLY, it was a conversion by ASC. Even though it had all the blessings from Cadillac corporate.

Interestingly, I don't remember ever seeing any lawsuit come up when the Allante was introduced.

Koooop
10-05-10, 09:44 PM
The 73 really was a miserable POS to drive at anything over 50MPH. There was so much cowl shake in that beast. The 1984 drives a thousand times better than the 73, but the 84 doesn't have the "Swank" of that 1973.

The Eldo is every bit as sloppy as the Mark IV.

I'd own a '71 or '72 Eldo if the right one surface. Heck, I'd buy a booger green '75 if the right one showed up. What do I care? I'm not marrying the cars, I just like to drive 'em.

I am married to my Corvette though.

I think the '73 was the Bargiest Barge of any Barge I've ever owned, and I've owned a ton of Barges!

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 10:36 PM
Now, Koop brings up a point I've always believed in and held true to. Have your fun now, sow your wild oats now before you're married, have a house and kids! Spend money while you're still young and unchained because you WON'T have that financial freedom later, unless you get mega rich or something. Most people that I know in the middle class can't afford to have 3-4 different toy/classic cars, and afford a mortgage and have money for the kids and stuff. That's the policy I'll abide by. Obviously, moderation, like anywhere else, is key here, but buying an early '80s luxury cruiser isn't the most expensive or dumbest decision I could make at this age.

It's too bad you view getting married and raising a family as being no fun without financial freedom. Doesn't sound like you look forward to it at all. For most, it's the beginning of real, enjoyable life. In that case, I hope that either you change your views before it actually happens or you opt out from the idea as a whole. Otherwise you won't have a very fruitful life, with or without your 80's luxury car. If you ever do get married and start a family, I think you'll realize how insignificant your little playtime and "sowing your wild oats" really is.

Besides, you only describe middle class situation. Is that all you expect of yourself? Middle class is good enough? Doesn't sound like it from what you have to say about it. And that's good, it shouldn't be good enough. Why do you limit yourself to it? Strive for higher, remove those "chains" and financial restrictions. Then all of this is moot.

gary88
10-05-10, 10:40 PM
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z73/Wolf_of_the_Winter/GIFs/omfg_abe_simpson_in_and_out.gif

hueterm
10-05-10, 10:44 PM
:yawn: :bigroll:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-05-10, 10:47 PM
Good god Drew, just give it up. Nobody cares.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 10:55 PM
Good god Drew, just give it up. Nobody cares.

Sure thing, slugger. Hope it all works out for ya.

gdwriter
10-05-10, 11:01 PM
I wasn't talking about buying something solely for asthetics. I wouldn't want something that looks nice but drive like crap. I'm just saying that you don't have to drive it just to be an enthusiast. You can like a car and appreciate it for what it is without owning it or driving it.That's true. There are a ton of classic cars I know I will never own, but I sure enjoy checking them out at car shows and museums or just when I encounter one on the road. If I'm driving Betty, the other driver and I will usually wave or otherwise acknowledge the other.


If you haven't learned by now, I am looking for something slightly numb and soft. I want something old school '80s style. After driving my friends Caprices, Town Cars and Broughams around, I've really come to like the softly sprung slightly oversized early '80s era full sized luxury cars that are unlike anything else nowadays. '90s cars drive tighter and sportier, and '70s cars are too large, too vague and too softly sprung.Then a '79-'85 Riviera would fit the bill nicely. I still have a bit of a jones for that T-Type that Mike found.


Cars ARE art. They're products of human creativity, cultural influences, and their time periods.

If you just want function, get a lawnmower.:histeric: :histeric:
People who see cars as merely functional appliances drive Toyotas. Because that's all they are.

I was grading papers last night, so I missed this whole financial debate, so I'll chip in my .02. Don't worry, I can afford it.

I bought my first house when I was 27, and I certainly recommend doing so as soon as it's affordable for you. I made ~$25,000 when I sold it 9 1/2 years later, which made a nice down payment on the house I live in now. I hate the idea of rent; it feels like flushing money down the toilet. So in practical terms, saving for a down payment on a house makes the most sense.

However, when you're talking about classic cars, you sometimes have to seize the opportunity when it comes up, because you may not have another. IIRC, that Riviera you saw at the car show was $2,500, so if it were to check out mechanically and not have any rust and you could pay cash I would snap it up. And if the car turned out to be less fun than you expected, you can likely sell it for close to what you paid.

Betty came around at just the right time; I had just finished a big freelance job, so I could buy her for $3,000 cash. Besides meeting my basic requirements V8, automatic, power steering and factory air I got the bonus of the 327 engine, my favorite body style, rare wire wheel covers with spinners, plus it was the same color as the Impala I learned to drive in. It was also complete, unmolested and ran beautifully, even if cosmetically it was less than I had hoped. Even if I hadn't had the cash, I would have found a way to buy that car.

That was 11 years ago, and I have not a single regret. I've probably put over $20,000 into restoring and maintaining Betty over the years and 75,000 miles, and it's been worth every dime. When you have a passion for something, you accept the cost or find a passion that you can afford.

Now, my situation is a bit different since I'm older, well established in my career and own my home. Nor do I have kids, and I'd be surprised if I married again, though I wouldn't say no should the right woman came along. But even if I did, I'm too old to have kids. So I have more disposable income than someone with a family.

However, I teach online classes and do freelance PR and e-mail marketing; that income is what pays for anything Betty needs, big projects around the house or travel. My day job is what pays the mortgage, utilities, groceries, etc. I end up working several evenings a week and a few hours on the weekends, but the financial rewards are worth it to me.

drewsdeville
10-05-10, 11:05 PM
I bought my first house when I was 27, and I certainly recommend doing so as soon as it's affordable for you. I made ~$25,000 when I sold it 9 1/2 years later, which made a nice down payment on the house I live in now. I hate the idea of rent; it feels like flushing money down the toilet. So in practical terms, saving for a down payment on a house makes the most sense.

However, when you're talking about classic cars, you sometimes have to seize the opportunity when it comes up, because you may not have another. IIRC, that Riviera you saw at the car show was $2,500, so if it were to check out mechanically and not have any rust — and you could pay cash — I would snap it up. And if the car turned out to be less fun than you expected, you can likely sell it for close to what you paid.

Betty came around at just the right time; I had just finished a big freelance job, so I could buy her for $3,000 cash. Besides meeting my basic requirements — V8, automatic, power steering and factory air — I got the bonus of the 327 engine, my favorite body style, rare wire wheel covers with spinners, plus it was the same color as the Impala I learned to drive in. It was also complete, unmolested and ran beautifully, even if cosmetically it was less than I had hoped. Even if I hadn't had the cash, I would have found a way to buy that car.

That was 11 years ago, and I have not a single regret. I've probably put over $20,000 into restoring and maintaining Betty over the years and 75,000 miles, and it's been worth every dime. When you have a passion for something, you accept the cost or find a passion that you can afford.

Now, my situation is a bit different since I'm older, well established in my career and own my home. Nor do I have kids, and I'd be surprised if I married again, though I wouldn't say no should the right woman came along. But even if I did, I'm too old to have kids. So I have more disposable income than someone with a family.

However, I teach online classes and do freelance PR and e-mail marketing; that income is what pays for anything Betty needs, big projects around the house or travel. My day job is what pays the mortgage, utilities, groceries, etc. I end up working several evenings a week and a few hours on the weekends, but the financial rewards are worth it to me.

THIS. Sounds like Gary had his head on straight. Established, career/job, home, income are important words here.

ga_etc
10-05-10, 11:21 PM
THIS. Sounds like Gary had his head on straight. Established, career/job, home, income are important words here.

I don't know what you are studying for in school, but I see either a high school guidance counselor or evangelical minister position in your future...

Bro-Ham
10-05-10, 11:35 PM
Chad, I have full confidence you'll find the proper amount of pleasure in your life. My life in my 20's was so full of excess that I don't need any more, at all, at this point in my life. I'm so very happy I have it out of my system because now I'm content with less being more. Simplicity is wonderful, but I have to say that if I didn't do what I did when I did it that there is no way I'd want to start doing it now.

Some people think they have all the answers when they're young. As you age you will find out this is not so and life is a continual learning experience. I say relax and do what is right for you, and don't be afraid of the "what if's" since they are the basis of regret. If all else fails there are always cocktails. :) :) :)

ga_etc
10-05-10, 11:48 PM
Well said Dave.

Bro-Ham
10-05-10, 11:51 PM
Thanks GA, how's that Roadmaster? :)

ga_etc
10-05-10, 11:55 PM
Fantastic. You'd never know it's a '92 from the way it runs and drives.

I may have inadvertently removed about a third of the tire tread on the passenger rear tire not showing off....

Bro-Ham
10-05-10, 11:59 PM
I picked up a 92 RML a couple months ago, it now has 244k miles, runs like a Swiss watch, I'm amazed. :)

gdwriter
10-06-10, 12:01 AM
Some people think they have all the answers when they're young. As you age you will find out this is not so and life is a continual learning experience. I say relax and do what is right for you, and don't be afraid of the "what if's" since they are the basis of regret. If all else fails there are always cocktails.Yup. :alchi:

I've certainly found life doesn't always go how you think it will, but you learn and adapt and grow.

gdwriter
10-06-10, 12:03 AM
I don't know what you are studying for in school, but I see either a high school guidance counselor or evangelical minister position in your future...I want this high school guidance counselor:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cmibqHEYw_g/SvNyTiMpelI/AAAAAAAABSQ/HLwlfiYO5KI/s400/emma+pillsbury++jayme+mays+green+necklace.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cmibqHEYw_g/SvN0p18R5NI/AAAAAAAABSw/D1BnwuJBQ78/s320/jayme+mays+fox+dot+com+2.jpg

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-06-10, 12:09 AM
Thank you Dave & Gary. That was very smart.

As many of you know, I work in sales. I'm the southeast MN representative for a company called BG Products. What we do is automotive preventative maintenance, as in the chemicals and tools to clean the various systems on a modern automobile and keep it running to a T. I call on about 50 different accounts in the area and being in sales, I'm always looking to expand with new clients and new products into my existing clients to further income for all parties involved and keep their customers happy and keep their vehicles running in top shape. Now, part of this job is that my clients want to see me on a consistent basis and keep seeing the same representative to further the trust in the company and keep confidence up. So the more time I spend in the business, the more people see me and trust me. This will only further my sales penetration as many of the accounts I'm prospecting with will see me more than their current vendor and will be more inclined to switch to us. This will really enhance my paychecks when I start to acquire some of the big dealers in the area, as they can often do a lot of preventative maintenance.

Anyways, point of story is that in a year when our sales were down 40% overall as a whole over last year, I was the only one of the four of us to have four consecutive months of growth in sales over the previous year! The ball is starting to get rolling! I've acquired on average 4-5 new accounts per month as of recent, but they've mainly been small independent garages, which are much easier to get into than the dealers due to the levels of beauracracy in a dealership.

While this may not be as solid as a salary paid job, this job is turning into be something quite solid. Not to mention that I work a second gig as an independent contractor for an automotive broker that should get me a few hundred extra per month and I'll be taking on a third job once I move into my new place. I'm looking for something brainless and easy, something to do between 12-20 hours a week on nights and weekends. Maybe some sort of a cashier or something just to supplement my current income and have some additional money to save up.

ga_etc
10-06-10, 12:19 AM
I want this high school guidance counselor:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cmibqHEYw_g/SvNyTiMpelI/AAAAAAAABSQ/HLwlfiYO5KI/s400/emma+pillsbury++jayme+mays+green+necklace.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cmibqHEYw_g/SvN0p18R5NI/AAAAAAAABSw/D1BnwuJBQ78/s320/jayme+mays+fox+dot+com+2.jpg

Tonight's episode was better than I expected it to be. I like her character more when she's assertive.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-06-10, 12:21 AM
I like "Raising Hope" and "Running Wilde"

gdwriter
10-06-10, 12:22 AM
Tonight's episode was better than I expected it to be. I like her character more when she's assertive.Yeah, me too. It's going on the Tivo right now, and as soon as dinner's ready, I'm going to start watching. I just love those big eyes. She's adorable.

ga_etc
10-06-10, 12:23 AM
I picked up a 92 RML a couple months ago, it now has 244k miles, runs like a Swiss watch, I'm amazed. :)

They're impressive beasts. I'm still amazed at how smooth that 350 is. You can tell the car was really well cared for. With the 2.56 rear end it's getting 19+ mpg around town.

ga_etc
10-06-10, 12:24 AM
Yeah, me too. It's going on the Tivo right now, and as soon as dinner's ready, I'm going to start watching. I just love those big eyes. She's adorable.

I missed the first half of the first season. I want to know what all I missed.

Koooop
10-06-10, 12:30 AM
Sales is where it's at! You sound like you have your head on straight and make good decisions. Work hard, but be sure you stop and smell the roses (often).

Life is only as good as you make it.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-06-10, 12:36 AM
Well thanks Koooop (what's your real name?)

Koooop
10-06-10, 12:39 AM
Bob.

Jesda
10-06-10, 12:46 AM
I want this high school guidance counselor:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cmibqHEYw_g/SvNyTiMpelI/AAAAAAAABSQ/HLwlfiYO5KI/s400/emma+pillsbury++jayme+mays+green+necklace.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cmibqHEYw_g/SvN0p18R5NI/AAAAAAAABSw/D1BnwuJBQ78/s320/jayme+mays+fox+dot+com+2.jpg

I'd let her guide me to her baby hole.

Preferably without having to use chloroform.

orconn
10-06-10, 12:46 AM
The 73 really was a miserable POS to drive at anything over 50MPH. There was so much cowl shake in that beast. The 1984 drives a thousand times better than the 73, but the 84 doesn't have the "Swank" of that 1973.

The Eldo is every bit as sloppy as the Mark IV.

I'd own a '71 or '72 Eldo if the right one surface. Heck, I'd buy a booger green '75 if the right one showed up. What do I care? I'm not marrying the cars, I just like to drive 'em.

I am married to my Corvette though.

I think the '73 was the Bargiest Barge of any Barge I've ever owned, and I've owned a ton of Barges!

Chad, I have agree with Kooop on this vintage Eldo, I drove a new 1975 convertible with an actual idea of buying one. I have to say it was probably the worst driving new car I've ever driven, it was so bad that I ordered the Mark V and at the time I ordered it actually thought it was acceptable. It is the only case that I experienced where the Cadillac actually drove worse than a Lincoln! As far as the coupes go why put up with rolling jello when it's not a convertible, not to mention the gas mileage of an Abrams tank! Kooops right the non-side vented '73 with the round headlights would be the one to have .... but the only suitable use for the thing would be as a parade car. Maybe picking up girls, if you drove it real slowly!

Koooop
10-06-10, 01:11 AM
The 75 Eldo had an improved suspension over the 73, much better driver. The 75 was more luxurious with nicer appointments as well.

The other Cadillac that I WILL own is a 1975 Coupe De Ville in Mandarine Orange with the Orange Plaid interior. I'm pretty sure they were one year only with that color combo, go figure.

Bro-Ham
10-06-10, 01:19 AM
Orr, those old Eldo converts sure had style and CLASS in their day. They were never made to be formula one cars but they were the best in big time coveted American luxury boulevard cruisers in their day - if you drove one of them you had arrived. It would be hard to be outdone unless your golf partner showed up at the country club in a new Rolls-Royce Corniche and the valets would instinctively position it in front of your Eldo. :)

orconn
10-06-10, 01:22 AM
The 75 Eldo had an improved suspension over the 73, much better driver. The 75 was more luxurious with nicer appointments as well.

The other Cadillac that I WILL own is a 1975 Coupe De Ville in Mandarine Orange with the Orange Plaid interior. I'm pretty sure they were one year only with that color combo, go figure.

The '75 handled better, couldn't tell by my experience! You mean the '73 was really worse? Are you telling me the plastic fake wood embellishments by Revel plastics on the '75 was an upgrade .... thank God they recovered some sense and taste in 1977!

Aron9000
10-06-10, 01:51 AM
The '75 handled better, couldn't tell by my experience! You mean the '73 was really worse? Are you telling me the plastic fake wood embellishments by Revel plastics on the '75 was an upgrade .... thank God they recovered some sense and taste in 1977!

I agree, Cadillac from 1971 to 1976 is dead to me. The build quality on the interiors got really sloppy, and they got dangerously close in look and feel to a Caprice.

Koooop
10-06-10, 01:55 AM
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. The 73 is so bad it's just funny.

When you mention sense and good taste do you mean the Gucci Seville type good taste? Now there's a classy ride! (Don't think for a minute I wouldn't own one. I'm so friggin' sick I actually tried to buy a 1971 Les Dunham Superfly Eldorado a few years back).

Stingroo
10-06-10, 02:11 AM
The other Cadillac that I WILL own is a 1975 Coupe De Ville in Mandarine Orange with the Orange Plaid interior. I'm pretty sure they were one year only with that color combo, go figure.

I'm pretty sure you just got Coolest-Person-On-This-Entire-Forum status. :thumbsup:

Night Wolf
10-06-10, 02:27 AM
I agree that "vintge" BMWs drive quite well for the period in which they were built , built you do have to put up with the loud valve noise and "mechanical-ness" of German cars of the period. But every vintage car has its' drawbacks, I once tried to, go back in time and buy areally nice series I Jaguar SWB XJ6, a car I had previuosly owned and enjoyed as a sports sedan in the early seventies, despite the car I was looking at being in really nice, almost mint original condition and driving really well for its' type, I found I could not tolerate the really poor "no feel" steering that this period Jaguar's power steering had.

The two issues you mention - valvetrain and mechanicalness, atleast to me are not issues at all, and are part of the fun. Valvetrain noise when properly adjusted isn't that bad, and only noticeable at idle, when outside the car - the engine has a smooth typewriter sound.

For me, I enjoy that sound - along with the valve adjustment itself. It is so different than modern engines... even the AMC 4.0 in my Jeep.... it's just there. It runs, runs well, is rather quiet will keep going a long time.... but the "life" of the engine isn't there. This has a lot to do with certain vehicles giving me a feel of being an appliance or not. Just by the sound of an M20 idling, I can tell if it needs a valve adjustment or its general state of tune. I like having a direct impact to the way my engine runs and performs as well as overall inspecting things. To me, I look at performing maintenace on my vehicles and maintaining them overall, as an art - just as the same way I look at driving - an art. Some people consider both those tasks to be a chore, which explains a lot.

As for the "mechanicalness" - that is one of the best things about these cars. They are built incredibly durable, and in many cases that is a product of long lasting mechanical parts. Everything about the car lets you know what is going on, it has a certain feel - opening/closing the doors is a mix of refinement and rawness, just like starting the engine, driving and most everything else about the car, and when in good tune - it is easy to tell when something is on it's way to fail.

Is it for everyone? Of course not. But for someone who likes to be involved with their vehicle - both in maintaining it as well as driving it - they are excellent cars.

Even the 5-series as more of an upscale luxury car..... it still has a certain "rawness" and as you call "mechanicalness" overall, but I really feel that is what makes these cars - both fun, and extremely long-lasting.


Then there is the cost of bringing an old BMW back to serviceable life if you are not able to do the work yourself. Most 70's american cars were super easy to work on and many independent mechanics will work on them for reasonable prices, if BMWs are like Jaguars, the mechanics who work on them consider themselves to be in class above "regular" mechanics and want to charge premium prices for there work. This factor is why a car like your 525
would hold no joy for me; the styling, while not obnoxious, was not particualrly aesthetically pleasing either and the interior was spartan, in the best tradition of German cars of that period, but let's face it, while functional, not that inviting

If one can't do their own work - then forget an old BMW, it is that simple. The car is old, but to be (properly) maintained it will cost new-BMW prices.

But, parts are very resonable, and from my experience so far if you stick with OEM/compareable to OEM (online, not at AutoZone) the quality of the parts far surpasses anything I've seen from American cars.

Now with that said.... not everyone needs to be able to do a full restoration to their car to maintain it. If someone is so mechanically UNinclined that they can't even replace a light bulb, then there is no hope.

But if someone has a basic mechanical understanding, a $35 no-name tool kit and can perform common maintenace on a lawn tractor - they can perform all "normal" maintenace tasks on one of these cars. Heck BMW even included a tool kit in the trunk with all the common tools needed - wrenchs, pliers, spark plug socket etc...

There is nothing exotic about it. Everything is logically laid out in the car, there is an inline (slant) 6 engine which leaves plenty of room on each side of it, the cars are RWD so the drivetrain is stretched out the length of the car making things overall, easy to get to. Certain tasks may be time consuming - but they are not difficult at all.

As for styling, it is in the eye of the beholder. In the past I didn't mind them, but they didn't do anything for me. Now, I have really come to like the styling a lot. Without going into deep details, nearly every part of the cars appearance interests me. In comparison, the pictures posted of the early 80's Riv do nothing for me.

I used to find the interiors to be "dull" compared to American cars - atleast in the 3-series (e30).... the 5-series (even starting with the older e28) is a bit more lively.

I thought that way before really actually experiencing and using the inteiror of the car. From a picture, an American luxury car may look more inviting - but the cars are covered in a sea of cheapness. I no longer find water color chrome and mass amounts of plastic "wood" to be appealing... actually they are now almost like a slap in the face of cheapness. The very bits that make a car look more inviting at first, reek of cheapness on the long run. I didn't fully realize this until I lived with these interiors for a while. The whole interior on the old BMW's has a purpose, and is made out of materials that fit the design of that purpose.

Interior designs vary and it is a major player in my overall take on a car, example: the e24 6-series has a very 70s interior that I still do not like... which makes wanting to own one of the cars difficult, despite otherwise really liking them.

But those two E-bodies do nothing for me, I just see a boring large flat dash with cheapness wrapped all round it in the form of plastic chrome and plastic wood. I still like the interior of the '77-'92 RWD Caddy's, maybe it is just because I grew up around them though.

But with an entire dashboard of plastic wood.... what is it really trying to get across? These cars used plastic wood trim in places where real wood, would never even go. It was like every surface on the interior was smeared with plastic wood grain. In comparison, if these cars did not have plastic wood, and instead used vinyl like German cars of the era, they would look horrible, with vast amounts of monotone blah. Also, if the German cars of the era were loaded with all the water color chrome and plastic wood of the American cars, no doubt they would also fall victim to all the "cheap" interior comments.

It really depends on the individual though. For me - as a driver, what makes an interior inviting or not is different. I see a driver-oriented interior with excellent gauges and otherwise "fun" and involving to be inviting. As a passenger, I would probably feel different, but I don't like being a passenger.

Aron9000
10-06-10, 02:40 AM
I gotta say I enjoy all the "fake" wood in my 1991 Brougham. Its the best looking fake wood I've ever seen in a car, and its about the closest looking thing to a Jaguar. I'd own a Jaguar if they weren't such an expensive POS mechanically though.

Overall I find the fake wood in the 90-92 much superior to the fake wood of those E-body Riverias and Eldorados.

gdwriter
10-06-10, 02:54 AM
I missed the first half of the first season. I want to know what all I missed.There's some great stuff in the early episodes. I ended up buying the entire Season 1 on DVD, but you can also get it on Netflix (that's how I first started watching).

77CDV
10-06-10, 03:08 AM
See, this is what I love about the forums. The threads end up so far afield from whence they started. Also, it's so nice that we all take such an active interest in Chad's personal life and finances, even though only maybe 3-4 people in this thread have actually met him, you know, in person.

As for 70s Cadillacs, I really want a '72, since it's my birth year. An Eldo convertible for preference, but I wouldn't say no to a CDV or SDV in the right color combo.

And Chad, as devil's advocate, I have to ask, why not the Mark VI? Now that would be a rare bird indeed.

gdwriter
10-06-10, 03:21 AM
^^^I can count four: me, Jesda, Dave and Rick. I knew Chad for a while on the forum before I met him in person at the Des Moines in 2007, and he's become a good friend. Jesda, too. There are others here I doubt I'll ever meet in person, but they're still friends. That's why I love this place.

Night Wolf
10-06-10, 03:57 AM
I gotta say I enjoy all the "fake" wood in my 1991 Brougham. Its the best looking fake wood I've ever seen in a car, and its about the closest looking thing to a Jaguar. I'd own a Jaguar if they weren't such an expensive POS mechanically though.

Overall I find the fake wood in the 90-92 much superior to the fake wood of those E-body Riverias and Eldorados.

I suppose I am just used to it, as I grew up around it and have had many cars with it.

But, for example, the RWD Caddys like my '79 DeVille and '89 Brougham.... I mean, it was covered in that stuff... in places that, if real wood was used as trim - it wouldn't be. The entire drivers dash insert with the 3 boxes for wipers/lights/cruise was totally crafted out of that stuff... it was even on the radio knobs.

Not really saying it's a good or bad thing, it is what it is, and I think on some cars it looks ok. But it was a major player in how I used to feel about the interiors of 80s-even mid/lateish 90s German cars... describing them as cold and sterile. I just didn't get it and looked at the watercolor chrome and plastic wood as "inviting" and creating a warm enviornment. Maybe so to a degree, but I now understand the other side that I once shot down before even experiencing... and haven experienced both.... I have been able to -really- tell what I like in a car.

Bro-Ham
10-06-10, 10:56 AM
See, this is what I love about the forums. The threads end up so far afield from whence they started. Also, it's so nice that we all take such an active interest in Chad's personal life and finances, even though only maybe 3-4 people in this thread have actually met him, you know, in person.

One of Chad's major themes in forum discussions is his financial situation. He is smart to talk about it because he's gotten lots of opinions, ideas, and advice. He can decide what, if any of it, might be a way forward for him. :)

gdwriter
10-06-10, 01:54 PM
Dave, Austin, Chad: Check out this feature (http://www.windingroad.com/articles/blogs/flip-this-car-1994-buick-roadmaster/) on a '94 Roadmaster from Winding Road. I think both of yours are in better shape than this one, but still a fun read.

ga_etc
10-06-10, 05:28 PM
Yeah. Should be interesting to keep up with it. :)

orconn
10-06-10, 05:54 PM
On the subject of "fake" wood in passenger cars. Many American makes including Cadillac, Lincoln, Packard, Buick, Chrysler and even Chevrolet used painted on "faux" or simulated wood on the dash boards and window surrounds of their mass produced models of their cars in the 1930s through the early 1950s (both my Dad's 1940 Packard 120 Touring sedan and his 1950 Packard Custom Eight sedan had painted wood dashes and interior appointments). This went out of fashion in the early fifties as dash styles changed and the post war labor cost of the painting of these features, along with painted "pinstiping," made this practice too expensive.

The use of photographiclly reproduced wood grain on palstic film applique began being used in the mid 1960's. But in my opinion never achieved the quality look of the previously painted srufaces or, of course the laminated real wood veneers used in the British and higher grade German sedan of the fifties and sixties looked very luxurious. However, the real wood veneers were a source of very many problems to the owners as the varnishes and glues used in their production deteriorated rapidlly in both humid and dry but sunny climates. It was not uncommon to see checking of the varnish and delamination of the veneer from its' substrate in cars that were only two years old in California and Texas and other U.S. climates.

While the veneered wood appliques made for a much more pleasing and truly luxurious addition to a car's interior it was, like real leather was judged too expensive and problem prone for the America consumer market. With the introduction of photo duplicated wood grain films applied to plastic substrates, American manufactures found a way to supply the "luxury of wood" to a mass market without the drawbacks of quick deterioration and and high production expense. Unfortunately for the knowledgeable, used to the real thing with the veneers, this "plastic wood" looked cheap and just like what it was, an inexpensive substitute for a true luxury item. But what the hell the buyers in the quickly expending middle and upper middle classes of the 1960's didn't know the difference so accepted it as a new quality embellishment.

It wasn't until the the bonding of real wood veneer to a plastic substrate using materials that stood up to the rigors of the extremes of the various American climates, that the real beauty of authentic real wood embellishments would be used in cars like the 4th generation Sevilles of the early nineties and subsequently in many other cars from all the international car manufacturers.

Personally I never liked the plastic film photo produced appliques of the past. To me they alsway looked like what they were cheap imitations. But they were hard to avoid during their worst period, the nineteen seventies. Their over use in the 1980's also brought on the backlash to this form of embellshment in the nineties.

As a point of interest, if you could find 1990's advertisements for various European makes , particulalrly Saab, you would see that the US ads featured cars without any wood embellishment on their dash, while cars in British publications had the new real wood veneer dash well featured! Bet the European models had a higher price tag than the US models did too!

Jesda
10-06-10, 06:08 PM
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/vehicle-pictures/2008/volvo/s80/4608-059-wide-dash-view-480.jpg

I like the wood in the S80. Its natural and unlaminated, so it looks like nice furniture.

Koooop
10-06-10, 06:19 PM
At one time plastic was a cool feature in a car, bakelite knobs and such add value to a car that's supposed to have it. Cadillic sure took it to the extreme in the 70's and 80's. There was a ton of that faux woodgrain stuff in them, it always makes me laugh a bit when I hop in a Caddy from that era. At that time Americans would buy anything.

I believe the only reason Cadillac went back to wood in the nineties was marketing, they had to raise the appearance of the quality of the product or die.

orconn
10-06-10, 08:24 PM
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/vehicle-pictures/2008/volvo/s80/4608-059-wide-dash-view-480.jpg

I like the wood in the S80. Its natural and unlaminated, so it looks like nice furniture.

I like the wood in the Volvos and SAABs too, but I bet if you were to take the wood facia assembly of you would find it is actually wood laiminated to a plastic substrate.

77CDV
10-06-10, 10:04 PM
We all deride plastic now, but back when, it was considered a miracle material. It could be anything you wanted, be as light as you wanted, and it would never corrode. And, it was cheap! It made a lot of things less expensive and raised the standard of living for a lot of people.

As for the plastiwood in 70s Cadillacs, they just reflected the fashion of the times. Plastiwood and bright colors were everywhere. They were, God help us all, "in". Cadillac (and other cars) just followed along to look current. Their fault lies in holding onto it long after the fashion had passed.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-06-10, 10:15 PM
The Cadillacs from the '70s are very over the top and fitting for the era, but since it's a big luxurious Cadillac, it works well. What looks really goofy and doesn't work well is the '70s over-the-top gaudiness in smaller, cheaper cars such as the Dodge Aspens and stuff.

Bro-Ham
10-06-10, 10:25 PM
Quality real wood in real luxury cars is true richness. Fake wood, especially in old Cadillacs, is over the top. I like them both. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-06-10, 10:39 PM
I totally forgot to consider the ultra-sweet 1977-84 Buick Electra and the still nice but less sweet 1977-84 Oldsmobile Ninety Eights.

drewsdeville
10-06-10, 10:54 PM
I totally forgot to consider the ultra-sweet 1977-84 Buick Electra and the still nice but less sweet 1977-84 Oldsmobile Ninety Eights.

IMHO, in the '80-'84 years, Olds had it all over Buick in the styling department for both exterior and interior, but exterior especially. There was something about the way the Buicks had the flat, squared off grill with the sloped headlight frames that never sat right with me. The Olds was more uniform and bold.

69004

69005

I'm probably somewhat biased having started out on an '84 Delta 88, however.

Both were sharp looking cars though.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-06-10, 11:03 PM
I prefer the Buick. The Olds looks very square cut and stodgy, especially with the egg-crate grille and rear wheel skirts. The Buick looks a little more modern, light and aerodynamic, and I like how the Park Avenues have the portholes in the side, and the full width tail lamps. I also prefer the Buick's interior as well, with it's rolled pillow-top seats and big round chrome gauges and lighter wood grain trim. Like you, I'm probably biased, when I was little kid, my grandma had an '83 Electra identical to the one you pictured, and I have fond memories with that car. My grandparents always had Buicks so it's in the family. Not to mention that I've owned two Buicks and a third only seems natural.

However, if I found a nice Ninety Eight, preferably the post '79s, I certainly would consider it.

Koooop
10-07-10, 12:04 AM
Quality real wood in real luxury cars is true richness. Fake wood, especially in old Cadillacs, is over the top. I like them both. :)

So true, the tons of super shiney fake wood at the end of the 70's was hilarious.

The best American cars had fake wood and hub caps, the MBZ rolled on Alloys and had real wood. I've owned both, the American cars can be cheap fun but the European stuff just eats you out of house and home and the owners take their old POS so seriously it takes the fun out of the hobby IMO.

I love stuffing a whomping big ass crate motor in some old American sled. Like you could do that with ANYTHING from Europe without a major hassle and some $9,000 widget blowing chowder once you think you're done.

orconn
10-07-10, 12:51 AM
IMHO, in the '80-'84 years, Olds had it all over Buick in the styling department for both exterior and interior, but exterior especially. There was something about the way the Buicks had the flat, squared off grill with the sloped headlight frames that never sat right with me. The Olds was more uniform and bold.

69004

69005

I'm probably somewhat biased having started out on an '84 Delta 88, however.

Both were sharp looking cars though.

I agree with you, the Olds looks better ... cleaner more distinctive. The Buick just looks "rehashed" to me, a half hearted attempt to keep an old design going one more round!

Stingroo
10-07-10, 01:05 AM
I would almost *ALMOST* venture as far as to say that Olds looks better than a Brougham from the same era.

:hide:

Koooop
10-07-10, 02:09 AM
You can leave now.

Stingroo
10-07-10, 02:12 AM
But... but... we share love for all things orange and Corvette related. :(

I really really like Oldsmobile. Always have.

Night Wolf
10-07-10, 02:31 AM
I agree with the above... the Olds is a very nice and clean design... the Buick, I just don't like for the same reasons mentioned... rehashed and the sloping headlight bezels, it just dosen't flow.

Stingroo
10-07-10, 02:48 AM
:highfive: I'm not alone! Yay!

Koooop
10-07-10, 02:51 AM
Most anything has some kind of redeeming value, even a Yugo.

I had a 98 with the 403 in it. That pile tossed a rod out the top end.

77CDV
10-07-10, 03:40 AM
Put me in the column of prefering the Olds to the Buick. The 80-84 Olds 98 in black with a light grey cloth interior just looks so incredibly rich and impressive. The Buick, not so much.

Stingroo
10-07-10, 09:14 AM
:highfive: I knew Craig was a man of taste.

:( I want a Cutlass even more now. Dammit automotive forums! Why must you taunt me so?!

drewsdeville
10-07-10, 09:36 AM
I would almost *ALMOST* venture as far as to say that Olds looks better than a Brougham from the same era.

:hide:


I almost dared say exactly this in the above post, but didn't for fear of getting ruthlessly flamed :suspect:

Stingroo
10-07-10, 09:43 AM
It's okay, we welcome you to the light side. :thumbsup:

ga_etc
10-07-10, 10:27 AM
I prefer the Buick. The Olds looks very square cut and stodgy, especially with the egg-crate grille and rear wheel skirts. The Buick looks a little more modern, light and aerodynamic, and I like how the Park Avenues have the portholes in the side, and the full width tail lamps. I also prefer the Buick's interior as well, with it's rolled pillow-top seats and big round chrome gauges and lighter wood grain trim.

:yeah: The Buick really looks more like an '80s design. The Olds you can tell was a '70s design. I like both as well, though.

Bro-Ham
10-07-10, 11:17 AM
The best American cars had fake wood and hub caps, the MBZ rolled on Alloys and had real wood. I've owned both, the American cars can be cheap fun but the European stuff just eats you out of house and home and the owners take their old POS so seriously it takes the fun out of the hobby IMO.

:) :) :) I love it! I've lived it too, with both European stuff and our beloved American biggies. The Euro cars I've owned have been cool but the engineering superiority is a myth, and the old story about needing two of the same car so you have one to drive while the other is in the shop sounded like a funny joke at first but it's oh so true. :)

I never thought I'd come back to Cadillacs after so many years astray but, in my experience, nothing beats a 425 Cad for mechanical toughness, magic carpet driving satisfaction, and classic luxury that oozes over the top all-American-ness. :)

Bro-Ham
10-07-10, 11:54 AM
If you study the 77 Olds 98 and 77 Electra you will see both cars pay homage to their pasts. I like both the 98 and the Electra equally from the 77-84 era, and if I were buying one it would be a 77-79 with a 403 only. Of course, I'll always be attracted to the 77-79 deVille/Fleetwood. :)

I'm not that big of a fan of the 80-84 C body cars (electra, 98, deVille/Fleetwood). No one could talk me into a 307 or an HT4100. And to my eye the 80-84 is visually less appealing with the overly blocky and formal roof line contrasted with the dainty sloping fronts, smiling grilles, and semi-geriatric back ends. They are still nice looking cars but not my cup of tea. :)

Stingroo
10-07-10, 12:50 PM
Dave I could see you in a 307 car actually. Dead nuts reliable, stupidly simple under the hood, quiet, and smoooooooooooooooth.

HT41-blowup is another story.

Bro-Ham
10-07-10, 01:19 PM
Dave I could see you in a 307 car actually. Dead nuts reliable, stupidly simple under the hood, quiet, and smoooooooooooooooth.

Sting, wake up! :) A 425 truly fits your description above, and you can add to it "never overworked." :) I have no reason to own a big car with a little 307 and its miles of vacuum lines, computers and codes, and check engine light. :)

Stingroo
10-07-10, 01:26 PM
Well I've never been in a 425 Cadillac or seen one in person. Driven two vehicles with 307's though, (even if one was very brief) and enjoyed both.

Bro-Ham
10-07-10, 02:05 PM
Sting, then I guess you don't know any better. :) The difference between the 425 and a 307 in a Cadillac would be like comparing your car with a 350 to the same car with a 231 V6 with a carb or tbi. Sure, the smaller engine is probably still smooth...but would you really want it if you could have the superiority of a capable 350 instead? :)

gdwriter
10-07-10, 02:06 PM
I'm not that big of a fan of the 80-84 C body cars (electra, 98, deVille/Fleetwood). No one could talk me into a 307 or an HT4100. And to my eye the 80-84 is visually less appealing with the overly blocky and formal roof line contrasted with the dainty sloping fronts, smiling grilles, and semi-geriatric back ends. They are still nice looking cars but not my cup of tea. :)I totally agree on the styling front. GM got it just right in '77, then messed up a winning formula in 1980, claiming improved aerodynamics. I seriously doubt it made a damn bit of difference in real-world gas mileage.

drewsdeville
10-07-10, 02:19 PM
Well I've never been in a 425 Cadillac or seen one in person. Driven two vehicles with 307's though, (even if one was very brief) and enjoyed both.

It's been almost 10 years, but my 190k mile '84 307 purred and didn't even need oil added between changes (I think that's pretty good for it's era). That car was a hand-me-down, traveling through the hands of several family members since new. The car was horribly rusted, but somehow the interior was nearly mint and the 307 and Metric 200 never quit. It ran just as you decribed, smoothly, quietly and VERY reliably even with it's miles of vacuum lines which is very true. As long as your weren't drag racing it, it had enough low end torque to move the Delta 88 around without feeling strained. If you got on it, it's poor performance became apparent real quick. But for what it was meant to do, it got the job done really well.

I ended up junking it because there was hardly anything left of the doors, the gas tank leaked, springs were shot, exhaust was bad, and there were a few other rust related issues that I can't remember anymore.

On a related note, it just goes to show that when you live in the northern US, choosing cars based on supposed reliable engines (eg, popular 3800 recommendations I see a lot here) really doesn't garauntee you a troublefree car. Rust related issues are far more serious and expensive to repair than even the least reliable engines. Rarely does a bad engine junk a car...I bet 95% of the cars junked by their owners run just fine. So for those of you shopping in the rust belt, really focus on cars with clean underbodies rather than recommended drivetrains. It'll save you money down the road!

Bro-Ham
10-07-10, 02:34 PM
Sting, wake up! :) A 425 truly fits your description above, and you can add to it "never overworked." :) I have no reason to own a big car with a little 307 and its miles of vacuum lines, computers and codes, and check engine light. :)

Oh, I forgot, the 307 had the deluxe mini transmission too. :)

Koooop
10-07-10, 03:17 PM
Cadillac 425 and the 368 were tough as they could be. I sold one of my 77 SDV's with 290,000 (I used it for work and to tow my boat to the river all summer) on the clock, I saw it a few years ago still running. 425 with a TH400 was a durable car. I was always gluing the plastic fake wook back on the door panels though (LOL).

gdwriter
10-07-10, 04:47 PM
If I lived where they salted the roads, I would definitely buy a winter beater. No way would I treat a car I truly enjoyed to a winter salt bath.

When my family lived in New Hampshire in 1971, I still remember my mother taking our '64 Impala to the car wash repeatedly even in the dead of winter, saying "If your father comes back from Vietnam and finds rust on this car, he'll kill me." But it worked. Years later, a dime — maybe a quarter-size — bubble appeared in front of the left rear wheel opening. But nothing more (we had that car for 17 years and except for that one year, it spent its life in Texas).

drewsdeville
10-07-10, 05:30 PM
If I lived where they salted the roads, I would definitely buy a winter beater. No way would I treat a car I truly enjoyed to a winter salt bath.

When my family lived in New Hampshire in 1971, I still remember my mother taking our '64 Impala to the car wash repeatedly even in the dead of winter, saying "If your father comes back from Vietnam and finds rust on this car, he'll kill me." But it worked. Years later, a dime — maybe a quarter-size — bubble appeared in front of the left rear wheel opening. But nothing more (we had that car for 17 years and except for that one year, it spent its life in Texas).

After what I've noticed through my freelance work, a lot of it has to do with how the car is driven.

Sadly, I will no longer recommend highway cars to anyone shopping around here. Sure, maybe highway cars exhibit less drivetrain wear, especially on the trans, but around here, highway cars get pressure washed with road salt/slush/dust every day and it gets EVERYWHERE. Highway cars ALWAYS rust out significantly faster than a car that's driven low speeds in the city regularly.

I used to wash my '95 once a week during the winter...I guess it sort of worked. It's now 15 years old with nearly 200k, driven every winter, and only now have the steel brake lines blown and I hung a new exhaust just last year. That's pretty good for the rust belt, if you ask me.

However, I'm not sure that it's worth it, unfortunately.

A wash is $5-$10 per wash times maybe 20-25 weeks per year when it's too cold to pull the hose out for fear of freezing and splitting it. Multiply that by 15 years had I done this since new, that's up to $3750 in car washes. That's just too much. I could easily buy a newer/better used car with that when the rust finally overtakes it. Otherwise, the repairs due to rust that are necessary to keep it on the road such as brake lines and exhaust are FAR cheaper than all of those car washes. I can handle a little bubbling paint if it saves me thousands in the long run.

Besides, washing won't even save some of them. I've noticed that Ford is particularly bad about it. Within 10 years the underbodies are toast. Ford Escorts, Crown Victorias, trucks, you name it. Makes me think of my buddies 2000 Grand Marquis that he just traded in this year. It had less than 100k on it, body was clean, but stick your head underneath and you'd swear it was 25 year old. Hell, there was just a thread recently on crownvic.net about someone junking the car because it failed inspection due to the frame rotting through and sagging behind the left front wheel.

I guess, I'm applying logic again on a board full of enthusiasts. But I personally just can't justify that cost. Up here in Milwaukee, I consider cars (yes, even the "nice" ones) disposable due to rust. There's not much you can do about it besides not drive it...then there's no point to owning it.

Fortunately, I've noticed on my girlfriends Malibu that there have been significant attempts at improving rust prevention since even 15 years ago. EVERYTHING is nicely painted, all hardware is galvanized or plastic, fuel lines are plastic, brake lines are epoxy coated, suspension components like control arms are aluminum rather than stamped steel, and I even think exhaust is stainless...can't remember but that's something that only higher end cars got 15 years ago. I have high hopes that it will be a fairly long lasting car here compared to past vehicles I've been around.

Stingroo
10-07-10, 05:44 PM
Holy shit Batman. I never really thought about the costs of car washes like that. God damn. I'm never moving North. :lol:

Guess I better break the news to my girlfriend now - she wanted to move to Canada at some point. <_<

orconn
10-07-10, 05:52 PM
Roo - Check out the taxes in Canada .... before you marry her!

Stingroo
10-07-10, 05:56 PM
But she's already agreed to the Corvette limousine for the wedding! Dammit!

:lol:

77CDV
10-07-10, 09:04 PM
Orange of course! :D

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-07-10, 11:01 PM
I never thought I'd come back to Cadillacs after so many years astray but, in my experience, nothing beats a 425 Cad for mechanical toughness, magic carpet driving satisfaction, and classic luxury that oozes over the top all-American-ness. :)

Wait, you came BACK to Cadillac? I thought you got into Cadillacs after you got all that European stuff out of your system?


If you study the 77 Olds 98 and 77 Electra you will see both cars pay homage to their pasts. I like both the 98 and the Electra equally from the 77-84 era, and if I were buying one it would be a 77-79 with a 403 only. Of course, I'll always be attracted to the 77-79 deVille/Fleetwood. :)

I'm not that big of a fan of the 80-84 C body cars (electra, 98, deVille/Fleetwood). No one could talk me into a 307 or an HT4100. And to my eye the 80-84 is visually less appealing with the overly blocky and formal roof line contrasted with the dainty sloping fronts, smiling grilles, and semi-geriatric back ends. They are still nice looking cars but not my cup of tea. :)

The 1977 and 78 Electra Park Avenues have the craziest looking, most plush/deep seats ever put into a production car. The 1979's weren't as quite as nice, but still along the same lines.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Buick/1978_Buick/1978_Buick_Brochure/1978%20Buick-10-11.jpg
I also LOVE the Buick alloy wheels on these.

The 80-84's were still nice, and I actually prefer the cleaner front end on those with the waterfall grille and parking lamps in the bumper instead of the header panel, but the 77-79s have a more aggressive looking rear end and the fenders flare out at the back much like the Town Cars from those years. The interior design, aside from the seat pleating pattern, is pretty much the same so that's a draw. Granted the 403 is a better engine, but the 307, being smaller and carrying that overdrive transmission will get much better mileage and still have enough power to get around OK. Besides, it's not exactly like the 403 is some sort of rocket ship, it'll probably feel much like a 425 77-79 deVille. Anyways, I'd be happy with either a 77-79 Electra or an 80-84.

However, I much prefer the 1980-84 Ninety Eight to the 1977-79. The sloped roofline on the 77-79s doesn't look as naturally formal as the very square-cut roofline on the 80-84, and I love those big-fat c-pillars on the newer ones. And I prefer the closed rear wheels wells on the '80-84 as opposed to the open ones on the 77-79. Basically, the 1977-79 Ninety Eight looks a lot like the Delta 88, whereas the 1980-84's don't look as similar.


I totally agree on the styling front. GM got it just right in '77, then messed up a winning formula in 1980, claiming improved aerodynamics. I seriously doubt it made a damn bit of difference in real-world gas mileage.

It's the opposite for me. I far prefer the front end on the 1980 + Cadillacs. The refined front bumper looks much less like a battering ram and much more like a bumper designed for the car, it flows a lot better. And I like how the 80+ models put the parking lamps below the headlights, not next to them, and moved the headlights closer to the grille, and moved the bumper guards closer together, which all in all made it flow better and look more natural.


It ran just as you decribed, smoothly, quietly and VERY reliably even with it's miles of vacuum lines which is very true. As long as your weren't drag racing it, it had enough low end torque to move the Delta 88 around without feeling strained. If you got on it, it's poor performance became apparent real quick. But for what it was meant to do, it got the job done really well.

Great description. That's exactly how I remember all the 307's I've driven. I don't think it would be as quite as bad in a Toronado or Riviera though.

Stingroo
10-07-10, 11:03 PM
Orange of course! :D

You read me like a book. :lol:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-07-10, 11:22 PM
Anyone care to see (or buy) the world's nicest 1980-84 Ninety Eight Regency Coupe? 2062 original miles! It would be a sin to drive this, no matter where you live. Just park it in a museum and look at it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ninety-Eight-Regency-Coupe-2-062-Original-Miles-/200527495915?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2eb05ec2eb#ht_500wt_1182


The car gods (Bill Mitchell and John Delorean) must be smiling down on me today, because look what I ran into at one of my accounts today:
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-10-07_15-20-52_307.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/2010-09-28_15-02-35_161.jpg

Just like the Mark V that started this thread, this is also Wedgewood Blue, and it's also a 1979, and this has the blue interior as well, but this was the velour, and oddly enough, that velour looks like the cotton they use in nice bath towels. The car was locked, so I didn't sit in it, but I'm sure they were really deep and comfy.

What's crazy about all these '70s Lincolns is how low they sit. The roofline on this one came up to the middle of my chest, and I'm 5'6", so the car it's self is probably 53-55 inches tall. The new CTS sits 58.5 inches, so there's a big difference too.

Stingroo
10-07-10, 11:39 PM
That's AMAZING. I would have to take it on ONE road trip. Then museum it. What an awesome car.

77CDV
10-08-10, 12:01 AM
79 TC = anchors away! But yes, you would adore the seats. They are wonderful cars to ride in. As for the height, these are the last cars from the era of longer, lower, wider. It's grace and style we'll never see again.

Bro-Ham
10-08-10, 12:09 AM
Wait, you came BACK to Cadillac? I thought you got into Cadillacs after you got all that European stuff out of your system?



The 1977 and 78 Electra Park Avenues have the craziest looking, most plush/deep seats ever put into a production car. http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Buick/1978_Buick/1978_Buick_Brochure/1978%20Buick-10-11.jpg


Chad, I grew up with a 77 Sedan deVille, 78 Coupe deVille d'Elegance, and 77 98 Regency as memorable family cars during my pre-college days. Those cars lasted a long time and were so awesome to take family road trips in, learn to drive in, and also care for. The 77-79 GM C-cars are hard to beat, and I'll take them any day over almost any car. :)

My favorite Uncle had a 78 Park Avenue, bought it new and drove it for 11 years, it had the 403 and was white with white heavily padded top and RED interior, just like the one pictured above. When I was in my early teens he would let me drive the car when I was with him, and when I was 14-15 he would let me take it anywhere I wanted - by myself! This was in the summertime northern Minnesota when I would escape up there for summer vacation, hardly rush hour driving, but it was so cool to drive that car with that ultimate bordello interior. :)

Stingroo
10-08-10, 12:14 AM
Too bad uptight people these days would FREAK if they saw anyone 14 years old driving. I remember once, I was with my dad and I was about 8 or 9 years old. We stopped at the gas station, and he paid with his card and I pumped the gas while he ran inside to get drinks. I noticed the guy at the next pump staring at me, and thought it was weird. When dad came back the guy came up to us and was like "You know letting your kid pump gas at that age isn't safe. He's going to grow up to be some sort of terrorist." I was confused, and dad proceeded to tell the guy to go f**k himself.

People these days... bleh.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
10-08-10, 12:14 AM
I hate to say it Dave, but those seats look more comfortable than yours in the Sedan deVille D'Elegance.


I think I finally realized how those old Lincolns are "fun" to drive. They're fun because they're so unlike anything on the road today, and the ultimate party barge. They're not fun at all in the typical sense like I always think of (tight, direct steering, firm suspension and an uncanny ability to carve corners), but rather fun in a sense that's totally opposite of those and very unique feeling today.