: Opinions on a 1979 Fleetwood



89 D'elegance
09-23-04, 11:10 PM
I dont need another car and the wife would probably kill me but was there any problems with the engines in the '79 fleetwoods? Any other problems I should be aware of? Thanks.

luddyludwick
09-23-04, 11:26 PM
Just wanted to give my $0.02...

Great if it runs well and you can get it for a grand. The 77-79s are the red-headed stepchildren of the "downsized" (77-92) RWD cars. No one seems to like the styling much (me included... :helpless: ) However, the powertrain is way better than in the later cars. It actually is a 425, not a 472 (if it's stock) and has a good bit of power.

NADA says $2550 low, $4975 avg., and $7375 high for a FWB from '79...so, if it works well, I'd say that that car is a steal...get it!

Bruce

FASSTWOOD
09-23-04, 11:48 PM
I happen to like the 79's. I had a couple my self (coupes). No problems!!! Ran great, a bit of gas guzzler, but then again I have a lead foot... Power wise its night and day compared to an 89. You can't kill'em, the th400 tranny is really good also. Hell where's the car I'll get it myself!!! j/k :lildevil:

Fred Fachman
09-25-04, 11:41 AM
'77-'79's were rock solid in the powertrain dept. 425ci backed by the th400 is a simple and proven combo. The only drawbacks to these models were the normal cosmetic issues of the era such as poor plastics in the interior. You will see cracked dashboards and armrests, powerwindow controls hanging by the wires and sagging headliners.
I had a number of these models and would not hesitate to purchase another clean, well taken care of example. BTW, the 425 is the same block as the 472/500, just less cubic inches. The nickel content in these motors make them indestructable. I like the 368/425/472/500 series engines better than the Northstar in many respects.