LINC400

Even if Pontiac still existed, that does not mean that this car would have ever been built. GM used to build tons of concept cars, many very cool ones, that never got anywhere near production. I am talking about the last 10 years too, not the 1950's. What surprises me is not that this car did not get built, but that the Camaro actually did. If they had actually based the new GTO on this instead of that lame Cavalier look alike Holden, I bet it would have sold way better.

It depends on what car it is, where it will be driven, and who is using it. A 1920 open touring car would not be a good idea in Pennsylvania or Chicago on expressways in winter. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason why a 1975 Cadillac cannot be driven year round in Florida or California. They are not lacking anything a new car has except I-pod connections. And if there was a wife that complained about riding in an antique car, I would get rid of the wife and keep the car.

My 1976 Mark IV has 4 wheel disk brakes with antilock. So did my 1978 and 1979. I will be headed to the Chicago Auto Show next week. Just looked at the previews, and other than the Camaro and Challenger, both of which are old news by now, I do not see anything of interest. To me the question is not whether to use an older car for daily driving, but why would anyone buy a new one when they all look the same and are about as exciting as a toaster, and cost $30,000 - $40,000 for anything that is not a bottom of the line econobox.

I was someone elses someone else. Idiot on a cell phone didn't pay attention that all cars were stopped in front of him and rammed, and totaled my antique car and his piece of crap. Was the call really that important? I highly doubt it since he was BSing with his buddies.

Sounds to me like you have one estimate. And the insurance company also has one estimate. You need to get at least 3 estimates of your own. That will tell you which of the two, yours or the insurance, is full of it. Also, if you take this to court, the judge will be much more swayed in your favor if you have 3 estimates at your price as opposed to one low ball from the insurance co. Sometimes just the threat of taking it to court with three or more estimates will get the insurance co. to cough up the cash.

I agree 100% with that and already said that at the beginning of the post. I also agree with the comments about the parts. Anybody looking at the car will just think it needs those parts in order to run. They will have no clue of their value, and will probably throw them out. The only way to get extra money for them is to sell them seperately.

NO I have an extremely hard time believing that all the drivers on their cell phones are on extremely urgent calls that cannot wait five minutes until they pull into a parking lot somewhere or get to their destination. I have a prepaid cell phone in my car in case there is any kind of emergency. I have never used it because nothing is so urgent that it cannot wait until I get to wherever I am going. I have seen people pulling out of the parking lot at work on their cell phone almost crashing into cars. Now why is it so necessary that they have the car in motion while talking? How much time are they saving? They could be sitting there with as many distractions as they want while parked, but instead they have to put the car in gear and endanger everybody. Every time I see a driver doing something stupid, driving through a red light, sitting at a green, weaving back and forth, driving partially on the shoulder, almost hitting another car, I look to see if they are on a cell phone. About 85% of the time they are. Yet they always think that they drive perfectly while on the phone.

If he has 2 houses, sells cars to Leno, and gets free superbowl tickets, he should have no problem getting his hands on $1700. By the way, this is not a "horror story". This is what happens whenever tire kickers look at a car.

You can see what pops up multiple listings of crap you don't want, and then just remove those words from your search. For example: 1950 Buick -floormats -subwoofer -antenna That will get rid of a lot of crap

Put the blame where it belongs, on the idiots that list the stuff. Ebay is simply a listing service. They do not know whether a brass nut is a legitimate part for a 1910 Thomas or is just new generic junk. They get paid for the listing whether it sells or not, so if these idiots keep listing hundreds of items that Ebay gets paid for, I can't blame them for not doing anything when a handful of people complain that whatever is not an appropriate part for their 1908 X. If the idiots listing the crap had any brains, they would not list 50 at a time. They would list one, pay for one listing, and get multiple bids on it. Then relist another when the auction ends. They also would not waste words in their listing title with 1908 X or Hupmobile, which probably a handful of people are looking for parts for. They would use words that people that actually want these parts would type in.

I do seem to recall hearing something about the "King of the Hill" series, but any spare cash I would have had in the 1970's would have been spent on Matchbox cars, not magazines. The Eldo Custom Classic would have been harder to locate than the Mark V DJE. In fact, one of the complaints sent to the editor was that there were 2 DJE's and a couple Collectors Series within 50 miles of the Eldo, and if they had bothered to contact the Lincoln club the owners would have been happy to make these cars available. Also about 75% of the Mark V's I have seen at car shows and for sale online are better equipped than the one they used. Even if they couldn't find one, which is not believable, it makes zero sense to admit that the one they used is a base model, and then berate it for not being as plush as the Eldo which was most definitely not a base model, but the absolute top of the line model. Or they could have just compared a base Eldo to the base Mark V, but personally I would prefer to see the 2 top of the line models. Granted these cars could not be beat on and tested like new cars, but they couldn't get a stopwatch or tape measure? Set up a few cones? I am glad that Hemmings did the feature on 1970's cars, but the lack of research is a big turn off. Especially when, as I said, 5 minutes on the internet would have avoided almost all of their errors. If they made all these mistakes on the Lincolns and Packards that I know about, how would I know what to believe on cars I am not so familiar with? If someone knows of a specific issue with stats for the Lincolns, I will look for it. Otherwise I gave up looking for that quite some time ago as everything I found was just opinions. My personal favorite of the opinion articles was the 1979 Consumer Reports review of the Mark V. They predicted that the new 1979 Eldo would by far outsell the dated behemoth Mark V, but they expected that the Mark V would regain its sales lead with new 1980 Mark VI. Not only did the Mark V outsell the '79 Eldo by a nice healthy margin, but sales of the 1980 Mark VI dropped to less than half of the '79 Mark V despite having 4 models to the one Mark V. The 1980 Eldo also outsold the VI by a healthy margin as well. Great prediction. I can see they knew the luxury market well.

I have looked for period magazines showing actual statistics. I haven't found any. Usually it is just unfavorable opinions. Not any actual facts or stats. Someone must have gotten some at some point, but as yet I haven't found any. I don't think I have ever seen the "King of the Hill" thing with Eldo and Mark series. Does that have any stats in it? I did of course have to go out and buy the Hemmings Mark V vs. Eldo issue last month. No statistics whatsoever. Interesting but lots of errors. First of all, it was an unfair comparison. The Eldorado was a Custom Classic (most expensive package that year) and the Mark V was a bottom of the line base model. First I have to say, make all the fun you want of Designer and special edition Lincolns, but Cartier, Givenchy, Diamond Jubilee all sound a lot classier than Custom Classic. That sounds like it should be spelled with 2 K's. Anyway to make this a fair comparison, they should have compared it to a Diamond Jubilee. They acknowledged that the Mark V had the base interior, but then constantly berated it for not being as plush as the Custom Classic's. Well the base Eldo was not as plush as the CC either. And the Mark V had 2 upgrade options on the interior that this car did not have. They also berated the Mark V for not having options that were on this CC, but were not standard on a base Eldo either. In fact they even said automatic headlights and some other options were not even available on the Mark. Every one I have ever owned has had them. They also said the wood was real on the Eldo and plastic on the Mark. Get real it was plastic on both. I'm sure they made some errors on the Eldo as well, but all the info they had wrong on the Mark could have been checked in 5 minutes on the internet. One of the Lincoln club members sent a letter stating all the errors to Hemmings (Eldo errors too). However, it was not printed in the next issue which I bought because it contains Packards. However, I hear there are lots of errors about the Packards as well. It seems their investigative reporting is not very thorough. We'll see if it gets mentioned in the following issue.

That is part of the problem. Reviews of 1970's luxury cars very rarely contained any actual data. They just complained about how big, gas guzzling, slow, poorly handling, etc. they were without any actual facts or data to back it up. There is a big difference in the handling of a 1970's Town Car and Mark V. The Mark V has much sportier and better handling. The Town Car has a softer, smoother ride. Even the Mark IV does not handle as well as the Mark V, and they are on the same chassis. Yet any 1970's review will just lump them all together as huge poorly handling beasts stating no difference between them or any other large luxury car of the era. Many people claim the 460 is supposed to be so much better and faster than the 400. I have owned both, and don't see too much difference in performance between them. I would love to see quarter mile or 0-60 times for both. But I have never found any. So how can any review comment about their acceleration being slow, or fast, with no times?

I don't recall any 1970's American luxury cars having any of these problems.

Exactly. And with Toyota it is "Oh well, they had a problem, but they are doing the right thing and stopping sales because they care about people." If it was GM, it would be about what lousy quality/design/inferior parts they have, and how they don't care about people.

I'd say that it has done some good as far as getting the old car hobby some attention it wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Some people just think old cars all old and worthless junk. Seeing them go for mega bucks on TV might change some of their thinking. On the other hand, these are not people that are really needed in the old car hobby. Maybe it will keep them from crushing that old car, but now they will be trying to sell it on Ebay for 3-10 times what it is worth because "they saw one similar go for that at BJ" Except that car was in mint condition, had the rare engine, rare options, and was a convertible. Theirs is a 4 door sedan with bottom of the line engine, no options, and needs work. Possibly it's even an entirely different year and model as well. These cars will probably end up rotting away because no will pay that, and no one is going to convince them it isn't worth that. I have also seen an increase in reasonably priced cars being snapped up at auctions, online classifieds, or on Ebay, and then relisted for twice the price. Really if the 1965 X sold 3 weeks ago with them as high bidder, what makes them think it is going to sell for double now on the same site? Anyone one that wanted it could have gotten it for half that price 3 weeks ago. But they keep relisting them. The annoying part is that sometimes more idiot speculators pay double and then relist for triple. As far as BJ offering only the cream of the crop ultra rare cars, that is not true either. I have been there once in person. While the over-restored, fuel injected '57 Corvette convertible will get lots of coverage, they don't even bother showing the '74 New Yorker in olive green that needs a few things. It will not make sensational TV.

Duesenbergs were bought in the middle of the Great Depression. Obviously their buyers were not concerned about bread lines, soup kitchens, and gas prices. In the same respect, Lincoln and Cadillac owners were not concerned about gas prices in the 1970's. Lincoln had its second highest sales year ever up to that point in 1979, the year your father traded in his Buick Estate Wagon because he couldn't afford gas for it. What was Lincolns best sales year? 1977, the year Cadillac downsized. If Lincoln and Cadillac buyers wanted something more fuel efficient, they could have bought a Seville or Versailles. But they didn't. The full size cars with 460 and 500 by far outsold them. In fact in the middle class suburban neighborhood where I grew up, anyone trading in their Caprice or LTD for a Datsun or Honda in the 1970's was looked at as either having financial problems or the same as someone wearing an aluminum foil hat to keep aliens from reading their thoughts. You simply did not sacrifice your family's safety or comfort by putting them in a little tin box to save a few dollars on gas. The only exception to that rule was perhaps the father got something smaller to commute to work, but the big Marquis Brougham or Country Squire wagon remained with the wife and kids so they were safer in the big car, and it was what was used when the whole family went out. So if most people kept those cars with a moderate income without going bankrupt, I'm sure Cadillac and Lincoln owners could manage. The gas guzzler stigma is just something that remains of the media hype of the day that loved to demonize big luxury cars. They are not any less fuel efficient than cars of the 1950's or 1960's. But somehow muscle cars with the exact same engines with triple carburetors are ok, and so are cars from another decade that get the same mileage. The difference between a 'Cuda and Imperial with 440 is that the Cuda goes very fast a short distance while rattling and not offering much comfort. The Imperial goes hundreds of miles soothly and in comfort with everything at the touch of a button (things that were desired in a prewar luxury car). One is not better than the other, it is just a personal preference. The difference in the mind of some collectors is that grandpa owned an Imperial, and they do not want to be seen as a grandpa even though they are probably fat, bald , and older than grandpa when he owned his Imperial. In the 'Cuda, their car or fantasy car from high school, they can pretend they are still young, hot, and can pick up chicks with the snap of a finger. Even though they probably couldn't even when they were in high school.

As much as I love big engined 1970's luxury cars, I have a hard time believing that a 455 got 21-24 mpg. If that was the case, they never would have stopped making them. However, I fail to understand why gas mileage is always such a big issue with 1970's luxury cars, especially when they are collector vehicles, not daily drivers. As I have already said, I can't imagine a Duesenburg or V-16 Cadillac gets wonderful gas mileage. Yet no one finds it necessary to compare a Duesenburg to the gas mileage an American Bantam or Prius gets. A 1950's or 60's Lincoln 430 or 462 is not going to get any better gas mileage than a 1970's 460. A 440 in a Mopar muscle car you pay a premium for, but in an Imperial it is a gas pig. The same with any muscle car, pay a premium for the biggest engine you can get, but an equal size engine in a luxury car is always a gas pig. If I put 5 tanks of gas in my Mark IV for the year, that is about $250.00. I take a lot of trips during the summer. Most car events take place at hotels costing $125.00 per night. I always stay at a Motel 6 or Super 8. But apparently no one else has any problem staying at the $125.00 a night place. So how is it that $250 for 2 nights in a hotel is ok, but not for an entire season of driving a car? Personally I would much rather spend that $250 enjoying an entire season of driving my car than 2 nights in a room with a little fancier bedspread and bigger TV.

Then I see no reason why it can't be used as a daily driver, provided you have something else as back up for bad weather or in case a part takes a while to locate. I used 1970's Lincolns as daily drivers for years. I don't think a 1964 T-bird's electrical system would be any more complicated than a 1970's Lincoln.

I collect antiques. A certain serving tray is available in 12", 14", and 16" from one manufacturer. I asked what size the tray was as this was not mentioned in the listing, not stating what size I wanted. The seller told me it was 16". Since that was the size I was looking for I bought it. When it arrived it was the 14" tray. The best part is the 14" tray actually measures 13 1/2" with a tape measure. The guy said his wife measured it so he is not responsible. Well I am not responsible for his wife's stupidity either. If you paid by credit card, you can file a complaint with the credit card company. I had to do that twice, and the cc company ruled in my favor. The charge was removed from my card and I got the item for free. I would have been happy with just returning the item, but since the sellers were obnoxious and greedy and refused to do that, I'm glad they are the ones that got screwed on the transactions.

I have had 2 Lincolns with 400's, and my friend owns 2 as well. Neither of us has ever had a problem with burned manifold gaskets. My current 460 and his have never had this problem either. So unless you know of a lot more 460's with this problem, I would not say that this is a common problem with them. In fact we have never had any engine or transmission based repairs on any of them. The worst car I have ever owned was a 1979 Cougar with 302. It was unbelievably slow, lousy on gas, and was constantly in for repairs and even rebuilt. Yet Ford used that engine for years, (in Mustang GT's, which were not slow) and no one seems to have the problems I did with mine. So I would say that one lemon does not represent all cars. The FMX transmission, on the other hand, seems to be a disaster in general. But Lincolns would not be equipped with either of these in the 1970's. As far as poorly engineered clips or whatever, I think just about all cars from any decade will have some part that could have been designed better. Also the highest horsepower Lincoln would have from 1950 through the 1960's is 365 in 1968. It would remain 365 through 1971. In 1972, horspower ratings were changed from gross to net. Horsepower listed for 1972 is 212-224. The figure I have for converting gross horsepower to net is 66%. So for 1971, that would calculate to 241 net. It would remain 202-224 horsepower throughout the 1970's. Doesn't seem like that huge of a difference to me. Especially since if you calculate 66% for net horsepower from 1957-67 it is 198-224. And even less prior to 1957. So I don't see where Lincolns lost all this power due to emissions. I don't think the 1960's 430 or 462 would be getting much better fuel economy than a 1970's 460 either. Also, he will have to speak for himself, but I believe the original intent of the post was for domestic luxury cars of the 1970's. Not Rolls Royce, Mercedes, or Bentley since he does not own any of those. I don't think too many people are scrapping RR's.

True. Can't answer for the body quality as I have never owned one. But I have seen and heard of many 1940-48 Continentals that have had the V-12 removed and a V-8 installed instead. That started in the 1950's and still continues. On the other hand I have never heard of anyone removing the V-8 from a 1970's Lincoln, Cadillac or Imperial and installing a six cylinder. In fact just the opposite. People take the 440 or 460 out, and put it in a monster truck or muscle car.

Lincolns did not really gain or lose any horsepower during the 1970's. They stayed around 200 horsepower the entire decade. They were designed to deliver power smoothly, not be drag strip champions or fuel efficient wonders. They were equipped with the largest and best engines Ford had in the 1970's. So I do not see how a Mercedes or Honda is supposed to be so much better engineered. Or how it is any different for a 1941 Continental. The 1970's Lincolns (and Cadillacs) delivered what their buyers wanted. How is that poor engineering? In fact when Lincoln was downsized in 1980 with smaller engines, their sales dropped to about 1/3 of their 1977-79 sales.

I don't see anything poorly constructed about any of the Lincolns I owned. I don't think there are too many 1930's cars that had more than 200 horsepower either. And that is gross horsepower, not net like in the 1970's. 6 mpg? That is about half of what my car gets. How fuel efficient is a Duesenburg or V-16 Cadillac? I always enjoy running the air conditioning full blast while blasting the stereo, having everything available at the touch of a button, and watching people in their Duesenburgs and Cadillac V-16's and Model A Fords sweating in 90 degree temps on driving cruises. However, I can appreciate those cars on a show field, and do not bad mouth their owners as having bad taste. If you do not like 1970's cars, fine. But there is no reason to insult people that do.

There is no reason a 1964 T-bird cannot be used as a daily driver - in Florida or California. However snow and salt will have that car trashed in less than a year in Pennsylvania.