LINC400

For anyone obnoxious enough to want ask what kind of gas mileage my Mark IV gets, wanting to gloat about how much better their econobox is, I tell them it uses about 5 tanks of gas a year. How is that guzzling gas? How much does their uninteresting econobox use? If that isn't enough to shut them up, I tell them if you want paintings for your walls you can buy Monets, Rembrandts, or Van Goghs. Or you can buy a cheap print at Walmart if cost is all that matters to you.

No

Personally I think the whole emissions concept is massively overblown. I go to concours events and local cruise nights. At a concours event, most of the cars are trailered. They travel 2 blocks max at less than 30 mph. So with this kind of usage, what difference does it make if they have 20 less horsepower? At a local cruise night, you will see idiots doing burnouts and revving engines. They are doing this with muscle cars, not Cadillacs and Lincolns. So again, what difference does it make if the Cadillac and Lincoln had 20 less horsepower in the 1970's. Someone interested in doing burnouts is not going to buy a Cadillac or Lincoln regardless of whether it is a 1970's or smog free 1950's or 1960's. My own car is driven a few thousand miles each summer. Maybe I wouldn't mind doing a burnout once a year. I would like it if the car had a little more performance. But it is no slouch, there are no problems keeping up in traffic, etc. So if I like a particular car from the 1970's, am I going to say forget it because it has emissions and buy something entirely different from another decade so I can get 20 more horsepower? No. Don't know how it is in Ca. But in Illinois you can demand an emissions exemption for an antique car. They will not tell you about it, or inform you how to apply for it. But it exists, and I demanded it for mine. Also they cannot demand that your car comply with regulations that were not in effect when the car was built. I don't think anyone with a quarter million dollar Hemi Cuda is going to sit there while the government tells them it has to be scrapped or can never be driven. So even if there ever is such a government idea, it won't last. And if anyone was nosing around my car at a car show looking for emissions violations, I would tell them to get lost.

Yes but would the ruby slippers have sold for that if they had dyed them green or blue in 1999?

I don't think anyone said "Oakies" didn't exist or they didn't use cars like this. However, this car is not a historical artifact in that respect. It is a movie prop built for the movie. The car didn't really transport anyone the way the Kennedy Lincoln or Rosa Parks bus did. Which makes it even more ridiculous to try and capitalize on the car's movie history when it looks nothing like what is shown in the movie. It also looks like more work to put it into its current racer configuration than return it to its truck body. My guess is they didn't think the truck body would be desireable enough to genereate huge bucks at auction. So they put this racer body on which they thought would generate more interest and still want to capitalize on its movie history for double hype. In my opinion, if I had too much money, I would not buy it because it is not the same as the car used in the movie and worthless to movie prop collectors. And if I wanted a racer, I could probably get a much cheaper one that was not overpriced because of a movie connection.

I know that when I am buying a new car, I base my decision on what they are producing now, not what they built 15 years ago. I have never had quality issues with any of my 1976-79 Lincolns. I liked them all and thought they were great cars. Would I buy a new Lincoln now? No, because I don't like anything they are currently making. So my decision not to buy a new Lincoln is not because of how good or bad a 1970's, '80's, or '90's Lincoln is. It is because I don't like what they have now. Cadillac brought out the Seville in 1975 to compete with the smaller European luxury cars, namely Mercedes. It sold 16,355 units in 1975 and 53,487 in 1979. Looking at the total sales for Cadillac for those years, it was only a small portion of their sales. Actually it was usually the lowest production model in those years. I am not saying it was a bad idea, it probably kept people from buying Mercedes or other European cars. But it was obviously not the car the majority of Cadillac buyers chose. They wanted the big Cadillacs. Yet by 1986 Cadillacs were the same size as and probably smaller than Mercedes. So if the traditional Cadillac buyer wanted a large luxurious car from Cadillac, and couldn't get it there, but could from Mercedes, it would make sense that many would switch to Mercedes, or BMW, or Lexus in later years. Lincoln even enjoyed a nice big increase in Town Car sales after the Cadillacs were shrunken in the mid 1980's. I can't speak for Cadillac since I have never owned one. However, as already mentioned, I have not had any quality issues with my 1970's Lincolns. And a Dodge Aspen is obviously not the same as a Lincoln or Cadillac, so comparing its quality is meaningless. In fact most 1970's Lincoln owners held on to their cars for a long time. It is still not all that unusual to find ones for sale by the original owner (or estate) now. That is how I got all 3 of mine. I would not think that you would hold on to a car for 20-35 years if you were unhappy with it or thought it was a lousy quality car.

Cadillac sales 1959 142,272 1965 182,435 1975 264,732 1979 383,138 Lincoln sales 1959 26,976 1965 40,180 1975 101,843 1979 189,546 It doesn't look like Lincoln or Cadillac were suffering through dark ages of low sales and struggling in the 1970's in spite of emissions, gas crisis, large bumpers, little foreign cars, etc. Seems they were selling quite well. Even with lower total sales, Lincoln was thrilled that the Mark series was consistently outselling the Eldorado.

It seems ridiculous to me to try to be selling this car by hyping it as the car from TGOW when it looks nothing like the car used in the movie. You would not buy the dress from Gone With the Wind if they shortened the skirt to knee length and dyed it hot pink, or the staircase replica from Titanic if they painted it purple and sawed off the carvings and used steel banisters instead. The point of owning a movie prop is to have what was used in the movie. If it could not be restored to movie condition, then I would like to have seen it restored with its original body. This racer configuration has nothing to do with the history of the car, which they want to hype to sell it. Personally I do not see how changing it this drastically in appearance was supposed to be easier than just restoring what was there. Didn't they have to fabricate that whole goofy tail section? That was easier than putting on a wood truck bed?? If they wanted to make a race car, they should have done it with a car that did not have this car's history.

I thought about mentioning Superdawg. My Grandmother used to live a block away from it. With the giant male and female hot dogs with blinking eyes, it is the ultimate in 1950's drive in decor. However, the food is ok, but not as impressive as the building. Unfortunately the places I can think of with great food aren't as impressive to look at. I'm hoping this post will get me a list of places to check out this summer.

No new designs until the late 1980's??? Cadillac was all new for 1977 and severely downsized. So was Lincoln in 1980. Cadillac redesigned everything again in 1985-6. A 1970's Mark series looks nothing like the 1961-1969 Continental 4 doors. So how is that no new designs? I think it is just a mind block about gas guzzling, smog strangled, bumper mandated cars. So how many 1959 Eldorado's are being drag raced? Most that I see are on a trailer. So what difference does it make if a 1970's car has a little less performance because of emissions? None of them are slouches. Most that I see are driven like little old lady cars anyway. Bumper mandates? I prefer the look of the bigger bumpers on the 1975-76 Mark IV and chrome tiara on the roof. It gives the car a sleeker appearance IMO than the fat chunky look it has with skinny bumpers, moldings, and full vinyl. And I hate those buck teeth taillights in the bumper. However, if you like the look of the '72 Mark IV better, it really doesn't command any more money than the 73-76. So how do bumpers affect collectibilty if it doesn't even make a difference on the same car? Plus there were no muscle cars in the 1930's - 1950's, not in the sense of things like Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes, and GTO's. So if you had money, you bought a luxury car with big performance engine and all the amenities. In the 1970's, full size luxury cars were considered old people cars by high school kids when you could get Trans Ams and Chargers. Now those high school kids are 40 years older and are buying antique cars, and they want what they remember and makes them feel young. The Trans Am they always wanted will do that. A car like grandpa's Cadillac will not.

Not exactly a diner, but Oinks Ice Cream and Fudge in New Buffalo, Mi. It is a tiny little place loaded with ceramic/plastic/rubber pigs of all kinds. The ice cream is great and the whole place has a very retro feel. If you are lucky the owner will have the garage door open. His 1953 Ford sedan delivery (restored to stock!), 1916 Hudson, and Delorean have all been on display in there. We try to stop there anytime we are in Michigan.

Yes, but prewar cars started getting appreciated in the 1960's. 1950's cars in the late 1970's. It is now 30-40 years later and 1970's cars still do not get the respect the others did when they were 20-25 years old.

The only cars people are interested in from the 1970's are muscle cars. I have no idea why. Muscle cars are fine, but you can still get a new Camaro, Mustang, Challenger or Corvette. But you cannot buy anything like a 1979 Mark V, 1976 Eldorado convertible, or 1975 Imperial LeBaron new. Those cars were generally the best products the company offered. Unlike the muscle cars that had big engines, but lacked amenities and frequently were less carefully built. I have heard about rattles and poor assembly quality for Mopar muscle cars. An Imperial buyer would not accept that. Prewar, the luxury cars are the ones that command money. Duesenburg, Packard, Cord, etc. However, postwar, Chevys are what command money, and in the 1960's and 1970's, muscle cars. I guess postwar collectors want what they had in high school or fantasized about owning in high school. Most wanted a Trans Am, Chevelle SS or Corvette, not a Cadillac. Plus there is the stigma left over from the energy crisis of the 1970's. The media constantly bashed their favorite target, full size luxury cars, as being gas guzzling behemoths with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I wonder if some of these reporters ever even drove the cars they were bashing as many times the comments made had absolutely zero basis in fact. For example, reviews of a 1976 New Yorker with 440 state things like "it is the only thing capable of moving it" or "it is so big it can't get out of its own way". While emissions did decrease performance on most cars, most luxury cars were still not slugs. In fact, my friend's 1976 New yorker with 440 held its own against 1970's Trans Ams and Camaros (there was a drag strip that had high school nite, you could enter whatever you drove). It couldn't keep up with a Chevelle SS 396, but I wouldn't call that "the only thing capable of moving the behemoth". 1970's luxury cars still get referred to as gas guzzling behemoths now even though they are really not any bigger or less fuel efficient than cars of the 1960's. In fact many times I have heard people argue that their 1970's (insert anything, Cadillac, Buick, Chevy, Chrysler, Lincoln, etc.) was 22 feet long. I have no idea where people get this figure or why they like it so much. No 1970's car was ever 22 feet long. The longest 1970's cars are the 1975-79 Lincoln Continental/Town Car and 1974-76 Cadillac Fleetwood at 19 feet 6 inches. Even stretching it into a limo with a 2 foot stretch (most were less, they didn't have the ridiculous super stretches back then) still does not make it 22 feet long. But clueless people will still argue that is wrong, they had a 22 foot long car, they know. Yet you do not hear this ridiculous comment about 1960's cars Finally even if you are interested in a Mark V for example, they built 80,000 per year for each of the 3 years. That is 240,000 cars. And they have a high survival rate. Many owners stashed them away knowing that nothing like them would ever be built again. If you look on Ebay, there are 15-20 of them for sale at any given moment. So there are way more cars than people interested in them. In fact if it has nothing unusual about it, rare options or edition, unusual colors, extremly low mileage, etc., you will probably have a hard time selling it. So if you have a hard time selling that base model in an unappealing color in excellent condition because many other more interesting ones are available, how easy is it going to be to sell if it needs work? I would love to see 1970's luxury cars get the attention they deserve. But I think it will be another 10 years before people start to appreciate them. In the meantime we will lose a lot of nice cars to scrap heaps and demo derbies.

When I had my 1979 Lincoln as a daily driver, it used premium and cost me about $250 a month for gas. Insurance was $400 per year for liability only. A new car payment is $350 to $500 per month. You have to have full coverage with a car payment so insurance would be about $2000 per year. Calculating zero dollars for gas and repairs for the new car (which even a new Prius will require), that is a savings of $2800 to $4600 per year which can be used for repairs and misc. on an old car. My Lincoln usually required 2-3 repairs per year at $300-$600 each. That is still only $900 - $1800 per year for repairs. People kept tell me to get rid of that gas guzzling dinosaur and get a new car so I could save money. A new car would cost me thousands more per year so I could save hundreds on gas. No one could understand that. Plus I got to drive something cool, not an ugly little econobox. Plus it didn't depreciate like a new car. Absolutely the only reason I stopped using it as a daily driver was because the salt was killing it.

Granted, no 2 accidents are the same. By the same token, just because you are driving a new car doesn't mean you will be safe. And just because you are driving an old car does not mean you are unsafe. If you are driving a pre-war car without seat belts and and with wood frame, your odds of survival are probably lower. However, by the 1980's many cars already had the same safety equipment as new cars now. Cars of the 1970's are also quite safe and tough despite the fact that they do not have air bags. It depends on the vehicles invloved. Not just whether a car is new or old. In an accident between a 2010 Suburban an a 1976 Chevette, I would rather be in the Suburban. However in an accident between a 1976 Suburban an a 2010 Chevy Aveo, I would still rather be in the Suburban. What it is, is more important than what year it is. And yes I survived those 2 accidents. I think that is more reliable information of how the specific car I was driving will react in an accident than someone guessing what might happen in an accident between different year and model cars. I am not encouraging anyone to drive 80 mph. But the notion that anything that is not brand new cannot be driven on the expressway is ridiculous. Anything from the late 1960's - 1980's is more than capable of driving on an expressway. If I did not feel my car was safe enough to drive at 80 on the expressway, I wouldn't drive it at all. If it is unsafe at high speeds, it isn't much safer at low speeds. BJM, I washed my 1979 Lincoln regularly and had it repainted twice. The salt still caused rust to keep coming back and even new rust to show up. the same deal with my 1994 Buick - repainted once and rust still coming back. The only way to avoid salt causing rust is not to drive it in salt. Of course in Chicago they drop 2 inches of salt for an inch of snow.

My 1976-79 Lincolns are/were usually traveling at 80 mph on the expressway. No problems stopping them either. I see no reason why a 1966 Oldsmobile cannot be driven on the expressway. A/C conversions to 134a cost me about $100 on all of them. I also carried liability only on them for insurance. You get zero if your car is totaled. But you will spend more for full coverage each year than they would probably give you for your car anyway. I also survived two accidents without any injuries in two of my Lincolns. In spite of ABS, airbags, energy absorbing crumple zones, etc. the drivers of new cars that hit me were not so lucky. My 1994 Buick was purchased new and always babied. In spite of that, at 150,000 miles it really started piling up repair bills. I wouldn't buy a car with over 100,000 miles on it. Others might have had luck with that, but you should be able to get a 50,000 mile one for not much more and get a lot more years of life and fewer repairs out of it that will more than make up for the price difference.

I had a 1979 Lincoln as a daily driver from 1996 until 2004. I had less problems with it than people with much newer cars. The reason I stopped using it as a daily driver was because winter salt was kiiling it. My current daily driver is a 1994 Buick, purchased new. Anyone that says that anything from the 1970's or new can't keep up with current traffic is clueless. Both cars were faster, braked just as well, and handled just as well as most new cars. The 1966 Olds looks like it would make a nice daily driver - in Florida or California. I would not subject such a nice old car to snow and salt. You would be surprised at how much rust will appear in 6 months. I think all old cars have some degree of rust and salt just massively accelerates it to look like a beater when it probably would remain the same if driven only in nice weather. If you would be planning on using the Olds with that upholstery daily, I would put a seat cover on it to protect the seat material. I have been to Country Classics several times. While everything looks good on their website, many cars look like they have been pulled out of a junkyard in person. When I was there last summer, a bunch of the cars had been sitting there so long that their wheels were sunk halfway into the mud and the bottom of the car was resting on the ground.

The Tuesday before Christmas it was $2.59 a gallon, Christmas Eve $2.75, New Years Eve $2.79, and this week $2.89. I guess they didn't get enough gouging in before Christmas. I don't see what difference it makes how many times a day they are allowed to change prices if the end result is a 30 cent increase in 2 weeks without changing daily.

I know of several cars that were involved in accidents. But Carfax shows they were never involved in an accident. I have no idea where Carfax gets its info, but obviously there are some big gaps. I would say if Carfax says it has high miles or has been in an accident, it has been. If it says it doesn't, that just means they have no record of it. Not that it never has been involved in an accident or has low miles.

A few things. First, I work for a transportation company. We use a lot of different trucking companies, not just one. When gas prices went up, they all added a fuel surcharge. When gas prices went down, very few removed or even lowered it. Higher gas prices caused many consumer goods to go up in price. For example the grocery stores jacked up prices massively to cover transportation costs. However, none of them reduced prices when gas prices went down. Some stores are now claiming they are lowering prices to "help consumers in this bad economy". This is a load of b.s. They take a few cents off hugely inflated prices to claim they are saving you money. However, with these "reduced" prices, you are still paying much more than you did for the same item 1 1/2 years ago. Most people are too stupid to notice. They just see a reduction and think they are getting huge deals. Many companies have reduced the size of their product yet kept the price the same. For example toilet paper and paper towels now have many less sheets than they previously did. Or other products are now fewer ounces for the same price the larger size used to be. This is even more successful as most people notice an increase in price, but hardly anyone pays attention to a reduction in size. Also I have zero sympathy for anyone having a harder time finding zero Ethanol gas. Be happy you can still get it. Gas has been 10% ethanol with no other choice for many years here. I used to avoid it, but gave up trying to find stations without it about 10 years ago. For the last several years, all stations have Ethanol. And my cars run worse with it, newer and older. I also worked at a gas station in the late 1980's. It was a franchise, yet the company would still try and dictate what price we could sell the gas for. They would call, not fax, and send out a rep every so often to see what we were charging. The gas stations themselves make very little money on the gas. Usually only one or two cents a gallon. It is the company that makes all the profit. A few times they even wanted us to sell it for less than what we paid to match the station down the street. Yes a station owner can tell all his buddies to fill up before the price goes up. But that only allows for a 15 minute window or so to buy it. Finally, I am opposed to any kind of government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. However, I think we will see the same kind of price gouging for gas every summer, starting sooner and ending later, unless something is done about it. The gas companies certainly are not going to decide they want less profits so they can help everybody out. If people conserve and use less gas, they will just produce less to keep the price high.

I thought TSB meant "talking some bull****". Most frequently found in "for sale" ads.

Yep, gas prices raised here 10 cents a gallon since yesterday. Good thing I filled up Tuesday.

1970's cars (other than muscle cars) are first starting to get some respect within the last few years. However, even in a more positive article about them, the words gas guzzler, behemoth, and dinosaur are still likely to be mentioned. I brought them into the discussion to show that the disdain shown for them will be even greater for the 1980's and 1990's cars. In less than a month half of the decade of the 1980's will officially be antiques. Yet how often have any 1980's cars made it into collector car magazines? Usually people want the cars that were new when they were growing up. But many people growing up in the 1980's and early 1990's did not lust after new cars. They wanted 1960's and 1970's cars as several here including myself already stated. People growing up after the early 1990's seem to have less interest in history (and cars), and wanted new cars. They gladly replace them as time goes by seemingly without any nostalgic feeling for that first one. So then who is going to collect the 1980's and 1990's cars? Plus if you look at a Buick Park Ave for example, 4 years, 1976, 1980, 1986, 2000. I would say the least impressive would be the 1986. So again, who would want to collect a 1986 when they have the other choices? Not to mention attempting an expensive and complicated restoration.

Falcons, Studebakers, Metropolitans, Corvairs, Novas, etc. have their following. They may never be as popular as 1957 Chevys or 1959 Cadillacs. But I still think they will have way more of a following than minivans and Accords. I would agree that the '79-'85 Riviera, Eldo, Toro was the best downsizing ever done. The cars were still very attractive, elegant, and sporty in spite of the massive amount of inches lost. I have owned 2 Mark V's. A 1978 base model and a 1979 Cartier. I was actually looking for a 1978 Diamond Jubilee in blue when the '76 Givenchy showed up. I still like the razor edge styling of the Mark V better. However, there was something about the combo of moonroof, aqua metallic paint, aqua velour, and chrome tiara that made me buy this Mark IV. If it was an ordinary color such as white, brown or black (or olive green), I would have passed on it.

I never thought about the longer styling cycles having any effect. Perhaps it does though. If that is the case, then it will affect 1980's to current cars much more than 1970's cars. They still had a 3-5 year body run then. Starting in the 1980's it became more commonplace for cars to remain the same for 10 years or more. The Trans Am/Camaro might have had the same body for 10 years, but it was one of very few that did, and they did get facelifted every few years. Compare that to a 1980-89 Town Car, 1980-92 Cadillac DeVille/Brougham or 1982-96 Buick Century where they barely changed from year to year. But I think the reason has more to do with still seeing what you originally started collecting as opposed to what was new or just a used car at the time. What was just a used car 20 years ago is now an antique. But many people don't like to admit to that passage of time. It will be interesting in the future to see if anybody gets excited about cars they are growing up with now. I just don't see people jumping up and down over a 1985-present Caravan or Accord the way they do now with seeing a 1955 Ford or Chevy their parents had. Emissions did strangle performance in the 1970's. Build quality depends on what kind of car it is. And I think the 1970's was last time cars had style overall as opposed to a few standouts here and there post 1980. Everybody loves to bash the "chrome log" bumpers. But at least they were chrome, not plastic. Personally I think the 1974-76 Mark IV looks better with the bigger bumpers. The 1972 bumpers were too puny. Even if the bumpers were not overly stylish, at least the rest of the car had style. Compare a 1976 Cadillac Eldorado or DeVille to a 1986. Most people are attracted to cars for the styling. There are exceptions, but most post 1980 cars just don't have attention grabbing style. A 1986 Taurus, Accord, Century, or DeVille just doesn't scream look at me. To me cars died in 1985-6 when GM did its second round of downsizing. For our first cars, my friends and I all bought pre-downsized 1976 (GM) or 1979 (Ford) or older, and couldn't believe anybody thought the 1985-6 and later were better.