1970's Luxury Cars Scrap them?

[Dave@Moon]

Dave,

You may have stumbled upon why those Japanese cars got such good mileage. Most cars loose a little performance and mileage as they age, but as those Japanese cars rusted away, they just got lighter and lighter....

Joe

Actually rust is heavier than steel, as long as it's still clinging to the car!

Sadly, in PA at the time state inspection (which was twice yearly) demanded no perforations of the bodywork, so for every pound of rust that fell off you had to slap on 2 lbs of Bondo. I didn't know anyone who couldn't do bodywork!

Oh we had some real pretty Datsuns in PA, especially mine!:eek:

[poci1957]

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.

Linc400, once again you make a perfect but probably unpopular observation. This weekend while watching the televised Barrett Jackson auction they had a scene with a Shelby Mustang on stage and I wondered aloud if they could possibly have filmed a shot featuring more fat old guys. FULL DISCLOSURE I am fat and aging myself, but still noticed the seeming disconnect between ultra high performance and senior citizenry.

Regarding your mention of gas mileage through history, I think we can point out that the Full Classics of the 1920s and 1930s were worth little in the 1930s through about 1950 because of their appetite for fuel (and tires). A coachbuilt 1930 V16 Cadillac that cost $6000-$7000 new would have been worth a few hundred or less in 1940, no one wanted them because of their economy. Likewise, Buicks with Dynaflows had a guzzler reputation in the 1950s. But after 20-25 years both became collectors items. Collectors can argue the merits of a 1930s Classic or a 1950s-1960s "classic" compared to a 1970s car, but bad gas mileage remains a common thread of all.

[Restorer32]

In about 1965 Dad, on one of his austerity kicks, traded in the family Cadillac on a slightly used VW Beetle. On the way home from making the deal he lost concentration on a familiar curve and managed to do a 180 in the VW. I still remember him saying "OK , if you want to go that way we'll go that way". Drove the Bug back to the dealer and retrieved the Caddy. The VW was never spoken of again.

[keiser31]

In about 1965 Dad, on one of his austerity kicks, traded in the family Cadillac on a slightly used VW Beetle. On the way home from making the deal he lost concentration on a familiar curve and managed to do a 180 in the VW. I still remember him saying "OK , if you want to go that way we'll go that way". Drove the Bug back to the dealer and retrieved the Caddy. The VW was never spoken of again.

The only VW I have seen doing 180 was spinning on it's top.

[jdome]

I never could understand how Ralph Nader could take GM to task for the Covair and ignore VW. The Covair had some safety issues for sure (as did most 60's cars compared to today) but the corvaire was a far safer car than VW. Wider, longer, lower center of gravity.

The reality is that there is no way a small wheel base, light car with small wheels is going to float down the highway like a big, heavy 70's land yacht. Sure the current scaled-down luxury cars ride pretty good but if you applied today's suspension technology to a 70's boat it would ride even better.

My interest is in pre-war cars but I am partial to big Cadillacs. I always have my eye out for a good original (I don't want to restore one myself) 70 DeVille Convert. The last & best looking of the true land yacht convertibles as far as I am concerned. I also like the looks and ride of the first generation down-sized Cadillacs.

[Dave@Moon]

I never could understand how Ralph Nader could take GM to task for the Covair and ignore VW. The Covair had some safety issues for sure (as did most 60's cars compared to today) but the corvaire was a far safer car than VW. Wider, longer, lower center of gravity.

First of all, Nader hardly "ignorred" the VW. His next book after Unsafe At Any Speed was Small On Safety. I've read them both. The Corvair book came out first and the VW book second, that's about as much of a distinction as you can make.

Secondly, the Corvair was definitely less safe than the VW despite their superficial simlarities. The reason why is very simple. Both cars had marginal (at best) swing axles for the rear suspension, but only the Corvair was powerful enough under normal circumstances to make them "tuck under" at speed creating a fatal, uncontrolable oversteer. Add to that the minor issue of the Corvair not having saftey rims for preventing the inevitable blow-out when the "tuck under" would happen, and the glaring major issue that GM uniquely knew about the "tuck under" problem pre-production, had roughly solved it with a $14.00 sway bar pre-launch, and decided it wasn't worth $14.00 to market a safer car (taking the sway bar back off).:eek::eek::eek: Then I think you can begin to guess why the Corvair book came out before the VW book.

(BTW, the main issue in Small on Satey with the VW wasn't it's handling. As I said it generally wasn't fast enoough for that to be an issue. Getting a stock VW to "tuck under" is nearly impossible. Nader's main beef with it was very weak seat mounts that would break loose in rear-end collisions, sometimes ejecting the driver out the back window.)

Triumph had exactly the same problem with the GT6 in 1966 when it came out. The GT6 was basically a Spitfire with a hatchback roof and a 6 cylinder engine. They are great cars, but sadly the rear swing axles "tuck under" in the same way. This wasn't known for the first 4 years that the Spitfire used the same suspension because it just wasn't fast enough to cause the problem. Triumph redesigned the a true IRS rear end for the Mk. II GT6 in 1968, lightning speed for a British car company.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Dave@Moon
added "(taking the sway bar back off)" (see edit history)

[john2dameron]

I have owned a lot of vehicles, all domestics and none of them antiques when I owned them. A '60 Ford Galaxie Sunliner with a 352 V-8 was a fine car, not much take off but it would cruise easily at 75 and get over 18 mpg at 65. Next was a '63 Sunliner, another nice car, 390 V-8, 4-speed. 13 mpg but one of the best cars I owned for a long time. Swapped it for a new '65 Impala SS convertible, 327, 300hp. 18 mpg but it beat me to death. It absolutely was not a highway cruiser. 10,000 mile later swapped it for a '65 Cadillac convertible. Very comfortable at 600 miles per day. 14 mpg at 70 mph, performance very adequate. Next was a new '68 Chrysler 300 convertible. 440 cid, 350 hp. Very powerful car. 14-15 mpg at high speed cruising. Don't ask me where it was but I once traveled 196 miles on a interstate highway in 2 hours. I would not try that today. In the seventies I was driving compacts. Had a very nice '73 Pinto wagon that got 29 mpg. Then a Torino that got about 17, then a '72 Pinto wagon that only got 20-22 mpg. It was automatic, the '73 was a 4-speed manual. Next was a '79 Dodge Omni that was almost new when I bought it. That car got 34 mpg and was undoubtedly the most expensive car to operate I ever owned. Every few weeks something went wrong. Battery, alternator, 2 starters, drivers window kept falling down into the door, clutch & pressure plate, distributor cap, I can't remember what all did go wrong with that car. By the time it had 33,000 miles on it, a quart of oil was good for about 100 miles and I was warned when it had about 28,000 to get rid of it because it would soon start burning oil. Right now I own 5 vehicles, the oldest one is a '97 Taurus. I feel that if I could find a low mileage '76 Coupe deVille or a '70's Town Car at a decent price I would buy it and make it my daily driver. Maybe even a Grand Marquis or a Buick. I loved my Buick Century wagon until I totally wore it out. Had 200,000 miles on it. No more Chevrolets and no more Chrysler products. Most of the modern cars just don't offer the comfort the large cars of the '70's did and some of the modern luxury cars are to ugly to think about buying.

[Rusty_OToole]

First off David let me congratulate you on reading Unsafe At Any Speed. I think you and I are the only people to have actually read it, other than perhaps Nader's mother.

But let me correct the impression that the Corvair was an unsafe car. Contemporary road test discussed the handling peculiarities but added that the car would have to be going far faster than any sensible person would go, before these peculiarities proved a problem.

This was confirmed by official DOT tests done in 1972. They proved that the Corvair was no more dangerous than any other car of its time, and was safer than many.

Of course this report was quickly buried and never mentioned in the press. It was too late for Corvair anyway as it ceased production in 1969.

It is also worth mentioning that they added a sway bar to the Corvair rear suspension in 1964 and completely redesigned the car in 1965. The 1965 up models with independent rear suspension stuck to the road like glue, at least compared to other cars of the time like the GTO.

Nader's book didn't come out until 1966, after the Corvair problems were solved. Most people don't realize that his book criticized cars back to the early 50s, most of the GM models, because most of his research came from GM's own files. They gave him free access to all their engineering reports etc.

I also found it amusing that somehow it was OK for Nader to investigate GM but not OK for GM to investigate Nader.

[poci1957]

First off David let me congratulate you on reading Unsafe At Any Speed. I think you and I are the only people to have actually read it, other than perhaps Nader's mother.

I also found it amusing that somehow it was OK for Nader to investigate GM but not OK for GM to investigate Nader.

I thought I might read it someday but have never done so. I did not know GM gave him access to their records. What a PR disaster that whole thing was.

[padgett]

And naturally, now I cannot find my copy but that makes three of us (picked up at a paperback sale for 10 cents). Thought UAAS did mention the VW around page 110 (nothing garenteed from memory).

Anyone remember the MI test of the Tempest around 1961 with both rear wheels in the air under braking and noticable tuck in. Same same.

Actually should thank Nader, GM had sceduled to shut down the Corvair when the Camaro came out but they contuinued it until 1969 to avoid anyone thinking they were caving. 65-66 Corsa was a superb autocross car particularly in SCCA Solo 2.

As to value, just look for any car that could not be sold when new. Hard to find any that is not a collectible today. To a lesser extent many that had no value 10-15 years on are worth megabucks today. Is just the market and been true for the last 60 yar.

Do admit my tastes have changed, recently replaced a 66 Corvair Monza 'vert with a 90 Reatta 'vert for less money. Gets better MPG on 87 PON and the a/c is integrated. YMMV.

[Larry Schramm]

Talk about cars that might have been considered unsafe. I remember reading about the early Toyota vans when the first generation came out in I think a Car&Driver magazine(?) or maybe another car magazine. It showed with only two persons in the van with the brake agressively applied the rear wheels came off the ground. Had a picture of the van with no rear wheels touching the ground in the magazine.

[Dave@Moon]

Anyone remember the MI test of the Tempest around 1961 with both rear wheels in the air under braking and noticable tuck in. Same same.

Not same-same.

Any independent rear end car will show some tuck in on braking, and will frequent show some "squat" under acceleration. My TR6s show ample degrees of both.

Tucking under is a very different thing. In this case the car, while cornering, will have only one wheel tuck in---and severely! While braking will make this worse (frequently as it is the natural response for an untrained driver), it cannot cause it. The tuck-in becomes a tuck-under when the car starts actually riding on the sidewall. At that point all control is lost. It was even worse on the Corvair, because without safety rims there was almost invariably a blow-out that accompanied the condition.

1960-63 Corvairs were deadly under the wrong circumstances. That they were quite nice cars under normal circumstances doesn't change that.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Dave@Moon
Added "1960-63", the later cars really were among the best handling on the road! (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

BTW, I was somewhat wrong about Small on Safety. Ralph Nader was not the author of record, he only wrote the introduction for the book.

[Reatta Man]

We now return you to our regularly scheduled program, already under way....

As for the original topic, if someone sees an older luxury car and something in them says "gotta have that!" then this is probably the one group to which you don't have to explain or justify yourself. If it is reasonably priced, in fair condition or in a condition that you can either live with or have the means to bring back to a respectable condition, DO IT!

We all would like for one more old car to stay out of the crusher. If people want to crush something, crush the 300,000 mile smokers (former taxi or police cars) or the rust buckets that are still on the road due to duct tape and coat hanger wire.

As for me, a 60's or 70's near-perfect Mercury Marquis or Lincoln ain't my cup of tea. But then, that Lincoln fan may not care for a Fleetwood, 98, Invicta or Electra. So be it; just keep it running, safe and out of the salt.

Joe

[Guest]

Interesting how this thread has change from it's original intent. Having been a Pontiac nut ever since opening my eyes most of you people don't know that when John Delorean was hired by Bunkie Knudsen to become director of Pontiac's advanced engineering in mid 1956 one of his first task was to make Pontiac a front engine- rear transaxel car and I don't mean Tempest. I have several pictures of 57-58-59 Pontiac's with that configuration. Most of the handling problems with 61-62 Tempest went away with a slight re-design of the 63 Tempest. Swing axel IRS does have a tucking issue but apparently is really exaserbated by the use of very soft springing of the vehicle. Pontiac and Chevrolet's problem (beside tire technology) was they were trying to make their cars ride as soft as the big cars (for the american public's perception of what was considered a good ride) and thats where this wild ride things come from. I have pictures of a 61 Tempest at the old Riverside raceway which conferm this.

I am also a VW nut and to prove the point of spring rates you only have to look at the difference between VW and Porsche and also the car that started all for those two (besides Tatra) the big Auto Union race cars of the 30's all designed by Porsche and his staff. The big Auto Union race cars didn't have tuck in problems.

Also interesting to note that Pontiac in 1963 built 12 super duty 421 cu in Tempest for racing ( 6 coupes and 6 wagons ). 11 were built for drag racing and one for road racing/oval track racing. The one coupe was entered in the "Daytona challenge Cup" during speedweek. Paul Goldsmith drove the car to victory against all comers Ferraris, Vetts, ect. the second place finisher was Foyt in a Corvette some five miles behind. The vehicle was allegedly purchased by Mercedes and disappeared into the Black Forrest and later to come mack and haunt us as Porsche 924-944-928.

Final note is that Pontiac didn't have a tucking in problem like it's softer brothers had.

Don

[Dave@Moon]

Swing axel IRS does have a tucking issue but apparently is really exaserbated by the use of very soft springing of the vehicle. Pontiac and Chevrolet's problem (beside tire technology) was they were trying to make their cars ride as soft as the big cars (for the american public's perception of what was considered a good ride) and thats where this wild ride things come from. I have pictures of a 61 Tempest at the old Riverside raceway which conferm this.

Other than the Corvair, the Triumph GT6 Mk. 1 is probably the most notorious car with serious IRS handling issues related to swing axles. Standard-Triumph, which unlike GM did not know about or anticipate the problem, was forced to do an emergency redesign of the rear axle in less than 2 years (creating arguably an IRS system to rival the performance of the world-class Mercedes SL system). I've never owned a GT6, but I've ridden in and driven a friend's GT6 extensively. The last thing anyone would call it is "softly sprung". They're fun as he!!, but they're buckboards to ride in!

If an axle's geometry allows it to dip to an angle where the weight of the car shifts to the edge of the tire instead of the tread, and the car can go fast enough for that to happen, then the problem occurs.

[LINC400]

Other than the Corvair, the Triumph GT6 Mk. 1 is probably the most notorious car with serious IRS handling issues related to swing axles. Standard-Triumph, which unlike GM did not know about or anticipate the problem, was forced to do an emergency redesign of the rear axle in less than 2 years (creating arguably an IRS system to rival the performance of the world-class Mercedes SL system). I've never owned a GT6, but I've ridden in and driven a friend's GT6 extensively. The last thing anyone would call it is "softly sprung". They're fun as he!!, but they're buckboards to ride in!

If an axle's geometry allows it to dip to an angle where the weight of the car shifts to the edge of the tire instead of the tread, and the car can go fast enough for that to happen, then the problem occurs.

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

[Guest]

A few of the reasons for not to have those problems was they were not designed to stop and handle and have road feel like a sports car. In De Lorean's case he was looking for a better balanced car weight distribution wise. That makes the cars pitch and yaw in the center of the car instead of way out front. The car has better braking than the conventional layout because the transfer of weight to front is negated, That means you can put a bigger brake in the rear not having the fear of lock up. Show me a luxury model in the traditional configuration that could stop from 60 to 0 in 120 feet.

Luxury cars of that era were designed to insulate you from the road. That's great if you like that kind of feel. That is why we have cars for you and cars for me. I prefer to be in control of my aeroplane.

Don

[LINC400]

Show me a luxury model in the traditional configuration that could stop from 60 to 0 in 120 feet.

Don

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?

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Does the ability to stop in 120 feet really matter in the slightest as you aim your shiny Mark IV down the highway? I think the real issue is how loud the horn is, in case you need to move some peasants out of the way as they hold up traffic in their Pinto, Vega or one of those toys from Japan!

I really think these cars are undervalued - and represent an era that is very different from today. Enthusiast mags may not have liked them, but the public sure did! A Lincoln or Cadillac signalled success then, truly the end of an era.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[poci1957]

Yes, I guess we are back on topic, and Steve I agree completely. The resale market may or may not change, but I think these cars will be recognized as unapologetic representatives of a bygone era. For good and bad, of course, but I like them.

Hey Linc400 (and everybody else) you know what made an impact on me in the 1970s? Remember the old Motor Trend "King of the Hill" feature? Just as a reference to how important the status of these cars were to GM and Ford, every year or two Motor Trend would have their King of the Hill comparison test between the Eldorado and the newest Mark. I enjoyed looking at the comparison photos and thinking of which model's features and style I liked best. I think they threw in a few Town Car/DeVille/Imperial versions too, but the Eldo and Mark were the regulars.

[Guest]

Well Steve, stopping in 120' make all the difference to the guy that you didn't hit:eek: . Anyone read the Jan 2010 issue of Hemmings Classic Car? 1977 L. Mark V vs 1978 C. Eldorado.

Don

[poci1957]

I really enjoyed that article, just like the King of the Hill articles. I also liked one a few months earlier on big 1970s station wagons.

[Guest]

linc400, you should try to find some old road test of those years. all the stats. are there. I've just been looking on line, and in my ref. library back to 1940. The problem was most people who bought those cars didn't care. The days of a Caddy dusting off a Plymouth or a Imperial dusting a Pontiac were long gone. This point was really driven home with the 49 Rocket.

From my point of view I like ALL cars and they ALL have their purpose.

Most importantly they all should preserved and injoyed. They reflect the different kinds of people in our country and the world.

It's only in our current government that we find the government wanting to dictate what it thinks we should want, not just cars.

Hang on to your seats it's going to be a rough and strange decade. I just hope we can hang on to the things we cherish.

Don

[Guest bkazmer]

I owned a '67 430 Buick, '73 460 LTD, and '75 455 Olds. I can tell you that the '67 was a much faster car than the other two. I think the emission control technologies of the 70's, retrofitted as it were to earlier designs, really gelded the motors. None of these cars handled worth a darn - they are big and softly sprung. Although obviously there were degrees of wallowing (the Ford's air shocks for towing gave it an edge)

So if you like 70's luxury cars as the plush cruisers they were meant to be, great! please preserve and enjoy them. It's not necessary to invent attributes to appreciate them.

[LINC400]

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.

[poci1957]

Hello Linc400, yes, I noticed some of the errors you mention, but at least they acknowledged some of that in the article. Hemmings Classic Car is one of my favorite magazines and friendly to the 1970s cars we like, but they do have spotty accuracy sometimes. I do not bother to complain anymore.

I am surprised you did not know of the King of the Hill features, they were run in Motor Trend every year or two during the 1970s and a very big deal then. If you get access to some 1970s Motor Trends at a library or swap meet you would enjoy these articles. Todd

[Guest]

Linc400, I think that in 1977 magazines compaired models as close as possible. I think in all fairness to Hemmings you just can't find those cars today so they got as close as possible. Like I said before I did find some test on 77 Mark 4, I also found the five recalls they had that year on the Mark V.

Speaking of handling , Todd why don't you tell these folks about the famous Car & Driver road test of Ferrrari 330/GT 2+2 vs 1965 Pontiac Catalina 2+2. I believe the 2+2 had the quickest 0 to 60 (3.9 sec.) time until the new super cars today. The Ferrari was less than half a second faster than the Pontiac around Bridgehampton road circuit. I'm in the process of building a 62 Cat that will be much faster in the corners than that Pontiac.

[Guest]

Linc400, sorry my mistake, four recalls for 1977 mark

Don

[LINC400]

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.

Edited January 28, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Rawja]

I think 70's luxury cars will get respect when the decade itself does, which is to say probably never. It is a decade widely characterized as extraordinarily tacky and malaise-ridden.

We've seen waves of nostalgia for previous and subsequent decades, but other than "That 70's Show" and a 6-month return of the bell-bottom during the mid-nineties, the seventies engender embarrassment and snickers more than anything else. As a decade the seventies hardly represents a high point of any sort for our culture or our domestic auto industry.

The plus side of course is that if you're into them, the vehicular survivors of that era are relatively cheap to buy, so enjoy 'em if that's your thing.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Rawja (see edit history)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

There was a time when CCCA Full Classics were under appreciated also. The really cool thing about a Mark or Eldo of that time is that they represent a now gone genre in addition to the era - the personal luxury car. The big two door is all but gone, although I think cars like the big new Audi two door seem to have that same spirit.

Anyone remember the detective series "Cannon"? It featured a Mark IV involved in car chases about once every third episode, but it was about attitude, not stats or total reality. Sure, there are plenty of cars of that same era that for some reason or another could run and hide from a Mark, but that was not the point. Would Cannon have been nearly as cool driving say, a diesel Mercedes from the early 70s??

Did anyone see the feature in HMN about the Caddy convertible & route 66 - cool car also. These are screaming deals right now, but there day will come.

[Dave@Moon]

There was a time when CCCA Full Classics were under appreciated also.

Yes, but that lasted about 10 years. The CCCA was formed in 1952. The President's press secretary is younger than some of the cars we're talking about here, and he'll be 40 next year.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Dave, it took a long time for the TR-6 to come into it's own, when I had mine they were generally not considered a good long term move; you may never get rich with one, but if you like them, the fun makes it a good investment as well. My point is these cars will have a following even if everyone does not appreciate them, now or ever. Open Cadillacs of the late 60s are starting to be appreciated - look at the prices.

Your reference to the other item from the 70s turning 40 next year does seem to show that not everything from that time is of any value...

Edited January 28, 2010 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)

[poci1957]

I think the nostalgia aspect has a lot to do with most old car issues, so Rawja probably has a point on the 1970s being seen as a little cheesy. In fact even then there was already nostalgia for another time, remember American Graffiti in 1973 was celebrating 1962 and Happy Days in 1976 was looking back at roughly 1956. 1955-57 Chevys, Thunderbirds and more were already being collected. So indeed the nostalgia of a huge generation has done a lot for old car attention and prices and the post-muscle 1970s will probably not see such fanfare.

But IMO for the middle class hobbyist the muscle cars are pushing the envelope on cost and 1950s and 1960s cruisers are (slightly) harder to deal with for less-experienced hobbyists (drum brakes, bias tires, no safety equipment, etc). So the 1970s become a lower cost alternative that are still of a distinctive retro style but can be driven anywhere in comfort and purchased at reasonable cost. I think they will not be blue chip investments for speculators, but will serve as fun diversions for a family hobby, and that may be refreshing in our old car world.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Exactly, well summarized, poci1957. I am really not that into the era, but this caught my attention because I think these cars are overlooked. Some rather mundane 70s cars seem to get a lot of ink, and if people like them, good for them. The luxury cars are just interesting enough to me that I think they will stand out in time - and it would be refreshing to see more of them out there.

[john2dameron]

Trans-axles in '57-59 Pontiacs. I have to disagree with that. Unless some experimentals wre built I say it didn't happen. I know the '57 Chieftain Catalina piece of crap that I owned did not have a trans-axle. Had a Hydramatic transmission that was not really a transmission but a sorry excuse for a transmission. That car was a bah humbug is I ever owned one.

[Guest]

John, these vehicles I mentioned(57-59) were built in advanced engineering for the test bed for the rear transaxle Tempest and for the full size Pontiac to later follow. Only Tempest from 61-63 were actually production cars.

Perhaps you had a lemon 57 Pontiac. They were very good and fast cars for thier day. Pontiac swept Daytona that year and set the record on the sand at 141mph.

As far as bad auto transmissions go you probably got a car that had been hammered on. That trans was one of the best and most efficient auto trans built until the advent of lock up torque converter models, actually more efficient in 4th gear than a turbo400. I had one in a 59 Catalina that my dad special ordered for drag racing. Now we did beat on that car, but we also did all the maintenance and adjustments to it and never a problem with. Sold it ten years later with 96,000 miles. It would still smoke a 8" slicks all the way through first, second, and chirp third. If they were so bad why do you think they were used in Pontiac from 56-64, Olds 56-60, Cadillac 56-64??

Any car will turn into a piece of crap if you don't take care of it.

Don

[Reatta Man]

I think we all need to keep in mind the influences surrounding us when we consider whether these cars will ever be collectible.

Right now, we are surrounded with a sea of grey plastic interiors, chrome is still considered just slightly more desirable than the plague for many designers, and anything that doesn't have hybrid, electric or green in the name or description is barely considered worthy of media attention. And, of course, of all groups of people, the vast majority of people in here know well of the media bias in favor of anything imported.

As I watched Mechum tonight, the HUGE Caddies from the 50's and 60's were show stoppers, and bringing big bucks. They were underpowered and drank gas like a drunk sailor at a free beer bash. Yet, they are respected for what they were, and people DO like them--and buy them.

When the automotive world again wakes up and realizes it isn't a sin to be comfortable and have lots of room in a car (NOT a truck, SUV, CRV, SUT or whatever else they want to call them) then the 'pioneers' in the comfortable car business may be looked back on with due respect.

As for the Marks, Eldos, Imperials, 98s, Electras and 225s and all the others, buy 'em, enjoy 'em, and remember that you are buying a car for YOUR taste, not mine.... So enjoy them now, not for what they may be worth in another decade.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Reatta Man (see edit history)

[Marty Roth]

I am at an age, such that I have earned my enjoyment.

I've raced European Sports Cars (Alfa, Jag, MG, TR-3, Lotus, Citroen, Peugeot).

I,ve restored and Toured extensively my various Chevy, Dodge, Rambler, Plymouth, Kaiser, and several other varied moderate-priced chariots.

Now I (we) thoroughly enjoy the Luxury, and the Comfort of Touring at speed ----

Three sources of that enjoyment are:

Our Cadillacs

Our Buicks

Our Packard

Each person is welcomed to pursue his or her own type of enjoyment, and for us it is the pure exhileration of a marvelous, big, elegant, expensive symbol of the achievements of our past efforts.