LINC400

Always annoying when a car that is decent ends up rotting away because some idiot wants 3 times what it is worth.

Why does everyone keep thinking that Buick needs to compete with Honda and Toyota and not Lexus and Mercedes? Did Buicks in the 1930's-1960's compete with Ford and Plymouth? No, they competed with Chrysler and Mercury. I don't see BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes pricing themselves in Honda or Chevys range to gain more volume. Chevy is supposed to compete with Honda and Toyota not Buick. Chevy is supposed to be the volume leader. You can make money selling a high profit car in low volume just as easily as a lower profit car in high volume. If Buick offers the same type of cars as Chevy in the same price range, GM might as well drop them too. The purpose of having Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac is to cover the price range from low to high. Not have everybody offering the same low price cars.

Most people have a special feeling for the cars they remember from when they were a kid or first started driving. Car prices generally go up when people that grew up with them have empty nests and more disposable income than when they were supporting a family. So cars of the 1970's have a ways to go before people that grew up with them are looking towards retirement and recapturing their youth. However, if you look at old magazines or articles, they say that cars of the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's whatever will never be worth whatever decade cars are at their collectible peak at that time. We can see now that those magazines are wrong. Also cars previously at their peak will go down as people that grew up with them die off, and not as many people are left to have that kind of attachment to them. Personally I am attracted to cars that were made prior to any downsizing. Basically anything before 1976-8 from GM or 1978-9 from Ford/Lincoln or Chrysler. Everybody says that cars were not the same after whatever decade they like. But I think this really applies to the pre-downsized cars. Before downsizing, they built the best car they could with no limits for styling, excesses, creativity, engine sizes, colors etc. Afterwards, it was about fuel economy, aerodynamics, weight reduction, warranties, bean counting, it really wasn't about the cars anymore. I do have a special soft spot for the cars of the 1970's and 1950's, and not really much interest in cars from before 1930. Cars of the 1960's were beaters when I was a kid, so maybe that is why they still don't impress me as much as the 1970's cars which were new or 1950's cars which were at car shows then.

I don't need lectures on finances. I pay my credit cards in full every month and have zero balances. I pay zero interest on them. My mortgage will be paid off 14 years early. By the way, a $2000 to $3000 a month mortgage payment is nothing unusual in the Chicago area. I wouldn't mind a new Challenger or Camaro. But I would rather put that $40,000 towards my mortgage. And I don't think either is worth $40,000 anyway. But if I did want to take on a car payment, there is no reason someone else should tell me how much to spend on a car. However, there are people that can afford a $650 a month car payment. If they can afford it, it is their business if they want to spend it on a car that is going to depreciate, dining out, clothes, save it or whatever. There will be car companies there to take their money if that is how they are going to spend it whether Buick pursues the more affluent car market or not. So Buick should be priced there. There are also people that will buy things they can't afford. You can lecture them all you want, but it probably won't do any good. It is not Buick's responsibility to attempt to teach them to manage their finances. Lexus and Mercedes don't. They simply offer cars at a specific price point.

Is that what automakers did during the Great Depression? Buick, Cadillac, Lincoln, Chrysler all offered cars priced the same as Chevys? No, I believe that is when Cadillac offered its V-16. Some automakers offered a lower price model to weather the depression. But they were not priced in Chevy range. And those that did not drop the cheap models after WWII, when they were no longer needed, suffered having their image cheapened. That hurt sales of both the cheap and expensive models. A $650 a month car payment for 72 months may sound exorbitant to some. But the people that have them are probably paying a $3000 a month mortgage payment, not $650. If they are making enough to pay for it, why not? If I were making $125,000 a year, I wouldn't want a $22,000 car. For those that can't afford it, some will buy it anyway, they will also probably be maxed out on their credit cards, are not concerned with how much interest they are paying, and will be screwed if they lose their job. But that is not the automakers problem. If people are going to overextend themselves, why should Lexus get the sale instead of Buick? Buick did not totally abandon its market. The Riviera, Park Ave, etc. stayed there. But the cheap models, Skyhawk, Century, etc. cheapened their image. They do not need to go back to offering cheap models. They need to build cars to improve their image, not cheapen it.

I said Buick needs to move back upmarket. I didn't say I was going to be buying one. As long as they offer only 4 doors that look like everything else on the road with only a cartoonlike exaggeration of the Buick grill to differentiate it, they have nothing of interest for me. I'd rather buy a Camaro or Challenger, which at $35,000-$40,000 for a well equipped one, is even more overpriced than a Buick. Muscle cars were supposed to be affordable cars for young buyers, not luxury car priced. The most expensive 1930 Chevy was $685. The cheapest Buick for 1930 was $1260. So the entry level Buick was nowhere near the price of a Chevy. So with the average Chevy costing more than $25,000 now, Buick most definitely should not be offering a $22,000 car. Did buyers of Specials and Skylarks really all move up to Regals and Electras later on? I don't think so. Some might have, but I think they just mostly sold to 2 different types of buyers, and sales of one had nothing to do with the other. Besides, people might have moved up from a less expensive to more expensive model in a division years ago, but they do not really do that anymore. They might with a Honda or Toyota. But when they become successful enough to buy a luxury or near luxury car, they want a name that is immediately going to impress people like BMW ,Lexus, or Mercedes. People here might not care about impressing others with one of those nameplates, but the rest of the world likes to name drop and flash their Mercedes keychain. Buick is not going to build a prestigious name for itself by offering cars cheaper than a Chevy. Yes they will sell more cars if they sell cheaper cars. But it will erode the name and eventually kill the brand. People will always buy a prestigious name if they offer a cheaper car. But then their volume will change to selling more of the cheap car. And buyers wanting something more prestigious will buy something else with a more impressive name. Then none of the more expensive stuff will sell, and they will just be thought of as a cheaper car division. People will buy a $30,000 Cadillac. But they will not buy an $80,000 VW. And if they keep selling hypothetical $30,000 Cadillacs, people wanting to name drop will not buy the $40,000 - $70,000 Cadillacs anymore. They will buy something else that immediately says "I am so successful", not "did you get the cheap one or a better one?". If Buick wants to attract younger buyers or new buyers, they need a muscle or halo car. Not a cheap one.

1955's were more plentiful, and a little easier and cheaper to find in most cases. There isn't that much of a difference either. I would never buy a car without looking at or having someone look at it. I had my friend in Seattle look at a 1956 400. The owner repainted it and wanted $7000 for it. My friend said the repaint was done in his garage with a spray gun, no trim or rust removed. He took 40 pictures of it showing all kinds of probs (not just paint). I passed. It showed up on Ebay and sold for $7500. The guy that bought it used the same pics to relist it, said it was a rust free Ca. car (it had been in Ca. since he bought it 2 months earlier), had fresh paint, and deleted all pics showing flaws. It sold for $13,000. It was worth $5000. My personal favorite is cars for sale with no pictures. Sure let me pay $20,000 for a car with no pics at all.

EBAY!! I have bought a bunch of vintage Christmas stuff off Ebay. Somehow it seems to have so much more festive, nostalgic, warm feeling than new stuff. Never bought any old light sets though.

In high school my friends and I thought the 1970's cars were much more impressive than anything made in the late 1980's-1990's. We all had 1970's cars as daily drivers. My last was a 1979 Continental Mark V that was a daily driver for many years. It was retired from daily use when it became an antique. It was rear ended and totaled in 2007. I should probably have used the money from my insurance to do practical things like pay bills since I already had a daily driver car. Instead I decided I wanted another antique car. The 1976 Mark IV was not on my list, but after looking for over a year at other cars (mostly basket cases), it showed up. I looked at, and decided to pass on it. It showed up a few months later for half price on Ebay, and I decided I couldn't pass up half price. Making it my first car to be purchased purely as a collectible in July 2008.

I was driving my 1979 Mark V home on a Fri eve. when an uninsured idiot rear ended and totaled it. It did not matter that it has no problems keeping up with modern traffic accelerating, braking, handling, top speed etc. It was stopped in traffic when it was hit. It could just as easily have been my daily driver Buick that I was driving that day as well. It does not matter around here what roads or when you drive. It is the other idiots on cell phones, eating, putting on makeup, looking at GPS or files on the seat etc. that are the problem. Also old cars used to get extra respect on the street. People would allow more room for braking and maneuvering. Now they just want you out of the way, assuming your old car must be slow even if it is a Hemi 'Cuda. It's old. It can't be fast or any good. They also think nothing of cutting off a 5,000 lb. Lincoln and then slamming on the brakes in their Honda or Focus. Fortunately the Lincoln has very good brakes. Some old cars don't.

If you are expecting to find one in Michigan, it probably won't happen. I have driven to Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin to look at them. I have also had a friend look at one in Seattle. Most of them seem to be in Ca. or NY, where I have no one that can look at them. They seem to sell for too much on Ebay or have too high of reserves. However, if you want one for around $20,000 -$25,000, there are several on online classifieds that have been around for quite a while.

I like the 1980-85 Full size GM's, and except for the 1991-96 Caprice/Roadmaster/Brougham, consider them to be the last "real" cars from GM. However, 1970's cars (except for muscle cars) still do not get the respect they deserve. Many people on here claim that they are not worth anything and are not good enough to be called antiques. Usually this comes from old timers that demanded recognition for the cars they like when they were 20 years old, but now a 35 year old car is not good enough for them. With that being the case, it will take even longer for the 1980's cars to command any respect and increase in value. However, that means that you can buy a car that needs nothing or very little inexpensively and enjoy it. Also I drive my car, and I like creature comforts. 1970's- 1980's cars will generally be much better equipped with these. There is some perverse pleasure in going on a driving tour with "money is never a problem" people and watching them sweat on a hot August day in their V-16 Cadillac closed coupe or open Duesenberg while I have the A/C on full blast with my 8-tracks blaring away.

No offense but just because people want a car doesn't mean they should be able to afford it. How desireable would BMW's be if anyone could buy one? Would Rolls Royce be as prestigious if they suddenly decided to offer cars in the $50,000 price range? Buick should not be filling the void left by Pontiac or offering $22,000 cars. Buick was originally a premium make. GM's divisions initially overlapped very little or even had gaps between them. The hierachy was quite apparent back in the 1920-50's. However, by the 1980's -'90's, you could buy a Buick for around $1000 - $1500 more than a Chevy. That doesn't seem much more prestigious than a Chevy, and Buicks should be. I have heard Buicks referred to in old times as "the doctors' car". I don't think many doctors aspire to own a car costing $1500 more than a Chevy. You should not be able to graduate college and buy a new Buick while you are working flipping burgers to pay off student loans. A Buick is something that you should have to work years to be able to afford and save up for. A reward for years of working hard and moving up. The same as you start with an apartment, then small house, then big house. You don't get the big house at 25 just because you want it and don't like the little apartment. Moving Buick back upscale is something GM should have done a long time ago. Brand loyalty is basically gone as well. Years ago you could pass a house and see a Chrysler, Ford, or GM family. The driveway had a Ford van, Town Car, Marquis wagon, Mustang for the teenager. Now driveways have one Honda, one GM SUV, one BMW, one Mustang or Japanese tuner. I really don't see any all anything driveways anymore.

My father had one of those New Yorkers in the 1980's. When he got in an accident with it, I asked if it screamed in pain or swore at him, but he never answered me. :eek: Just gave me a dirty look.

Interesting poster. Very Southwest. Good idea having it professionally framed to keep it intact. All of my artwork is lit by picture lights. It makes them look so much more expensive and important. However, unless it is really needed to bring out the colors/lighting of the piece, (which doesn't seem to be the case with yours) I would avoid the halogen picture lights everyone favors now. They fade the artwork.

I have been looking for a 1956 400 for the last 2 years. Still have not found anything in my price range in decent condition. However, if you want a restored one, those should not be that hard to find. They are all over the internet for sale.

I would say a steak is good, and a steak with sizzle even better.

When GM downsized in 1977, they put plusher interiors in the cars to take the focus away from the smaller, boxier exteriors. In 1980, they made them even more plush. A 1985 LeSabre has a way plusher interior than a 1975 LeSabre. But they are 10 years apart, and more focus was put on the interior of the 1985. So it is hardly a fair comparison. Likewise, it does not make sense to compare a 1970's Lincoln to a 1985 Buick. However, I think they will compare a lot better. If you want to compare 1980's Buicks to a Lincoln, then compare them to the ultra plush 1980's Signature Series. Buick produced 737,466 cars in 1976. Of those, 79,462 cars were Electra Limiteds 2 and 4 doors. So I guess we just ignore 658,004 cars for the Buicks had plusher interiors argument. Of the 79,462 approx half had vinyl according to My3Buicks. Even less had the Park Ave. option. So as I said, if you want to compare 5% or less of Buicks (apparently even less than my original estimate) to maybe 10%-15% of bottom of the line Lincolns, to claim that Buicks had better interiors, have at it. But wait, maybe I should claim that bottom of the line Lincolns don't count just like people here pretend that 658,000 Buicks for 1976 alone don't count. If you regularly check Ebay for 1970's Lincolns like I do, you will see that not only do most Lincolns have the interior upgrades, but most of them also have the original interior in good condition. So I have no idea where the Lincolns do not have original interiors comment comes from. Obviously not any facts. Personally, I see no point in further discussion of the whole Lincoln vs. Buick interiors discussion. The cars did not compete against each other, both are nice cars, and any comments you can make about Lincoln also apply to Cadillac, which did not have very impressive bottom of the line interiors for more money than a Buick either. And Buicks didn't have any plusher interiors than Oldsmobile for more money either.

Neither Buick or Lincoln have a 2 door. Neither does Cadillac, Mercury, or Chrysler. That is why we ended up with a Chevy. I would like to see all of them make a 2 door. But I guess you just find it necessary to make lame attempts to bash Lincoln when it doesn't even have anything to do with the post.

Agreed, 2 door coupe. I refuse to drive anything with 4 doors. It's about time someone other than Chevy offered a 2 door.

The Park Ave was an interior trim package on the Electra in 1975-6, not a seperate model. So I cannot even find production figures on it. So as I said, probably a handful were made. So it is not exactly like all Park Ave's were a model that came with that interior standard. That interior was what made the Park Ave trim option. Regular Electras did not have that interior. The green Lincoln interior is a bottom of the line Continental from 1975-79 with base interior. What does a bottom of the line Buick interior look like from 1975-76? How about a bottom of the line Cadillac? Not any more plush I'm sure. If you want to compare the bottom of the line Lincoln with probably 5%-15% of absolute top of the line Buicks, and claim that Buicks are better, have at it. If you compare the top of the line to bottom of the line anything, I would hope the top of the line would be better unless there was a huge difference such as Rolls Royce vs. Yugo. Otherwise why would anyone pay more for the premium models? If you want to compare apples to apples, look up a 1976 Mark IV with Majestic Velour interior. It doesn't look any less plush to me than a Park Ave. I'd say it looks even more plush. As far as Lincoln costing more than Buick, so did Cadillac, and how much did they offer that you couldn't get on a Buick or top of the line Mercury? People paid more then to have the Cadillac or Lincoln nameplate sitting in their driveway to impress the neighbors. The same as they do now with Mercedes and BMW. Personally I think if the Buick vinyl interiors were intended for those wearing Depends, it would have been more useful to have them in the last 20 years than in the 1970's.

Cloth seats alone do not make a plush interior. You could get cloth seats in a Pinto. I do not consider them plush. I would agree that the Electra interiors you showed from 75-76? with the consoles are plush. I would like to know how many of those were made. That is the interior I say only a handful of were made.

Automakers copy each other all the time. Downsizing was GM's thing. Ford did follow suit in 1979-81. However, they did not do a second round of downsizing they way GM did in 1985-6. Vinyl is simply not a choice material for seats. I had a 1979 Cougar that had very plush LOOKING vinyl seats. They were not plush. They were scalding hot in summer, freezing in winter. Your clothes would get all sweated up in the summer even after they cooled down, and also in the winter after they warmed up. They cracked and split horribly, and while leather eventually splits, it is not as quickly as vinyl. And while split leather seats look bad, you can still drive on them. The split vinyl will stab and scratch you. In any case I do not see how anybody can be arguing that a company that offered vinyl seats in most of its cars had plusher interiors than company that did not use any vinyl, only leather and velour.

Chevrolet outsold Buick and Cadillac every year. Does that mean Cadillac and Buick were also-rans, and Chevy was better? I don't think so. Just because a model sold more does not necessarily make it better. Duesenberg did not sell many cars. Does that make them an also-ran? Lincoln is not the only automaker to produce models in reaction to someone else's. ALL automakers have done that at some point or another. $3.00 a gallon gas or not, I would rather have a Versailles than a Cimmarron. I am not a fan of the Versailles, but it was a very well made car every bit as good as the Seville. There are all kinds of reports on the quality tests done on them. What was unfortunate for Ford, is that while the Nova and Cavalier had plain sides and very non-descript styling, the Granada had very distinctive sculptured sides. Making the Versailles origin immediately recognizeable. However, I think the Cimmarron was even less disguised than the Versailles. And is this article by a reporter that also reports on the stock market and current events, or does he actually have an automotive background? The books I have state that Henry Ford II (I think it was II?) did not like the downsized GM's, and did not want to downsize because he thought they would not sell. They did sell, and Ford responded very quickly. He was right in a way, as the downsized Lincolns initially did not sell. Chrysler did not downsize either. That was GM's thing. However I would say Chrysler was due to financial problems, not a stubborn Henry Ford II. The Taurus/Sable outsold the Crown Vic/Marquis. However, both were available for the buyer to chose from, or for whatever way gas prices swung. Not so with GM's 1985-6 downsizing. Large 4 door cars were deemed "grandpa cars" at that time, and were out of favor. Look at a 1968 Cadillac. Not a sports car obviously. But sporty for a large car, and with a large performance engine. Even more so for the Eldorado. 1971-76 Cadillacs (and I do like them) were much more grandpa-ish in terms of styling. They still had big engines, but they did not perform as well with all the newly added emissions crap. Plus they were focusing on being smooth as opposed to being fast at that time. By 1984 you had a 4 door Cadillac with a 4.1 liter V-8. Certainly no performance there. Lincoln of course followed suit in 1980. Leaving large luxury 4 doors as old people cars to avoid as opposed the most desireable best of styling, engineering, performance, etc that they were in the 1950's and 1960's. By the way, I worked for a Chevy dealer in 1991. I liked the look of the new Caprice. However, the elderly buyers did not like the more modern aero-look. It was too radical for them. Also it drove, handled, and braked much worse and more sluggishly than my 1979 Cougar which was the same size. Giving credit to the grandpa statements about that type of car at that time. I do not like small cars. While not the best for parallel parking, I'd rather have a too big 70's car than a too small new one. That is a personal opinion. As far as poorly handling, poorly engineered, junk, that depends on the individual car. For its size, a Mark V handles, brakes, and performs very well. The stablemate Town Car however, does not handle and perform as well. However neither are indifferently put together. My complaint would be the amount of plastic in the 1970's as opposed to the 1960's Lincolns. However, all manufacturers had to do that in the 1970's in order to try to reduce weight and costs. But that does not necessarily make them bad cars. I can't really comment on 1970's GM's as I have not had that much experience with them. New car buyers were for the most part not car people in the 1970's, and they are not now. Currently the collector focus is all about muscle cars. I would like to think that somwhere in the future, the 1970's luxury cars will be appreciated as the 1930's-50's ones are. They are vehicles that you simply cannot get anything like anymore. Whereas you can still get a new muscle car. However, I really don't see a newer Honda Accord, Taurus, Camry, Century etc, ever causing a huge collector following. As I already said, special editions were nothing new. However, I would say it was a genius move for Lincoln to focus and put the effort into them that they did. The Bicentennial edition Eldo convert was also a genius move by Cadillac. I believe most ended up selling for double list price. However, if you are going to copy the name of someone else's edition. At least put some effort into it to make it better or at least different. If Lincoln offered a Bicentennial edition and put zero effort into it, I would think it was just as tacky.

What supposedly doesn't measure up to the Electra interior? I suspect I could post pictures of the plushest interiors Lincoln ever offered, and they still supposedly won't be as plush as the Electra. Interesting how the LeSabre (subject of this post) and Centurion interiors don't count. Also the vinyl interiors which were in probably 80% of 1970's Buicks don't either. We are only supposed to count the absolute plushest interior in the absolute top of the line Electra which was probably in a handful of cars to show how Buick interiors are supposed to be so much better than Lincolns. By the way Lincoln put much less effort into the Town Car Collector Series (your pic) than the Mark V Collector Series. But still a lot more than Buick put into the Collector LeSabre.