1970's Luxury Cars Scrap them?

[MarkV]

What is it with all these people wanting to scrap the 70's luxury cars? We got my friends coupe deville because the guy wanted to scrap it, and it is probably the best running car, and easiest starting car I have ever encountered...

[rocketraider]

Wes, they're heavy. That translates to good money when scrap prices are high. The Fed-mandated door beams and bumper reinforcements weighed 'em down.

A lot of people think they're ugly. Some were, and the Fed bumpers didn't help that a bit.

They were the vanguard of emission controlled vehicles and their driveability and performance suffered because of the Fed requirements.

See the common thread here?

All that won't keep me from loving my Ninety Eight and Hurst/Olds.

Edited January 13, 2010 by rocketraider (see edit history)

[Guest ZondaC12]

Dude you really gotta keep in mind where you live too. Especially out that way, they're vehicles that aren't that appreciated by many for the reasons stated and others probably...and they're obviously very fuel inefficient and old so for both reasons seen as wasteful and "evil" at the risk of sounding overly dramatic . Have you ever had anyone ridicule you at the pump driving that Mark V for driving such a "gas pig"? Maybe not, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it did happen.

Good to see you have the means to save another one though! Happy motoring bro.

[Guest mystarcollectorcar.com]

The good thing about that is that the rarer they become the more they are worth.

They (big 70s cars) could be one of the best low end spec buys on the face of the earth because one day guys will look around and say " geez Bob whatever happened to all of those 76 New Yorkers?"

And one guy will have a dozen of them in mint shape that he picked up at garage sales.

[Dynaflash8]

I've had a 1971 Buick Riviera under restoration for 8 years, and it is virtually finished. I like the early 70's cars better than any of the 60's cars myself. They didn't go to yuck until 1977 when they tried to scale them down. The only exception was the 1977-80 Pontiac Bonneville which was a very handsome car.

[Barry Wolk]

I love my '77 Town Car. Last of the beasts.

[Reatta Man]

You all have hit on something I have noticed lately.

The online and televised Barrett-Jackson and Meecham auctions have really driven up interest in the specialty, two-door, big block muscle cars. But, alternately, the run-of-the-mill nice cars are more affordable than ever, if you are looking!

Keep 'em out of the junkyards!

Joe

[Guest DanStr]

Hasn't almost EVERY decade gone through the 'these are old clunkers no one wants, therefore we'll scrap 'em' mentality?

[LINC400]

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.

Edited January 13, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[LINC400]

Hasn't almost EVERY decade gone through the 'these are old clunkers no one wants, therefore we'll scrap 'em' mentality?

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.

Edited January 13, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[padgett]

Suspect it is partly because 70's cars had a lot of unobtaineum in the form of plastic that disintegrated, had poorly integrated safety bumpers, odd federal requirements (e.g. 1974 seat belt interlock) , and mostly gigantic engines with a CAFE around 13 mpg (1973). It was a period of the Great American Land Barge when a Thunderbird was over 4,000 lbs.

Meanwhile economy was represented by Pintos the public expected to explode, Vegas with seizing engines, and Gremlins with over 4 liter engines. While there were a few interesting examples (SD Firebird & Buick Centurion come to mind), it took the advent of the computer car (1981) for economy to take off and a major weight reduction & restyling to match (1987-1990) before domestic cars became acceptable again.

Must admit that I pretty much skipped most the 70's and 80s (72 GTO Station Wagon tow car and 78 V-8 Sunbird autocross car then a gap of nothing new until the 1990 Bonneville as prices increased without percieved value.

Today there is a gap from 1970 to 1986 in the herd and cannot think of anything in the middle I'd trade a garage spce for.

Tastes are different and I have peculiar ideas (diesels are the Next Big Thing) so there are undoubtedly those who like GALBs and do not drive them much, they are relatively simple to work on, just keep the plastic out of the sun.

[Reatta Man]

Hasn't almost EVERY decade gone through the 'these are old clunkers no one wants, therefore we'll scrap 'em' mentality?

Yep; some of them were called Duesenberg, La Salle, Cord, Auburn, Pierce Arrow......

[boblichty]

We seem to see a little more interest in the big luxury cars of the '70's. Unfortunately, in complete agreement with some of the above statements, there are way too many of them left at this point. And examples with much more that 20,000 miles on them go for hunger.

In my own town I bet I can lay my hands on at least 6 Mk V's with under 20k on them, and I not long ago I had a Town Car from the same era with 2100 miles on it.

It is my observation a lot of folks bought these cars new and kept them, they may have been at the peak of their life, these are stylish, super comfortable cars and have really good durablility. So, many are still around.

Eldorado's seem to be catching on faster right now. I have had good luck coupes and convertibles. The folks overseas love them, we have sold four in the past year to Australia, Germany, and Holland. I have no clue where they have roads big enough for them, can you see a 76 Eldo on a Bavarian cobblestone villiage street.

Just like muscle cars and full Classics, there will never be a category like the 70's luxury-barges ever made again. It is only reasonable to predict a big up swing in these cars someday as the numbers decrease, which they will. I just don't know if I will live long enough. But some day, when 80% of the cars on the road are 4 ft long electric cars, a Mark V is going to look like the Titanic.

[poci1957]

It seems to be a funny mentality on the big cars. People may claim to be afraid of their bad mileage, but as Linc400 correctly notes big cars from the 1950s & 60s are not any better as a group. And this is an absurd issue when comparing collector cars--does someone say "I will not buy an Imperial because it only gets 10 mpg, so I guess I will get a 440 Road Runner instead (and spend 3 times as much.)"

Of course 1960s big cars have the same issue to a lesser extent. Most old car people will praise the beautiful 1963-65 Riviera, but they have been undervalued forever relative to their beauty and significance. Likewise early 1960s Thunderbirds and other personal luxury cars of the 1960s and 1970s, and the ecomomics of a full restoration make such a project car totally illogical.

I guess ultimately what really gets the $$$ flowing is the car that was the out of reach object of teenage lust that can now be purchased by the middle aged enthusiast. And in 1970 he had the Road Runner photo on his wall, not an Imperial. Oh well, at least (unlike the Road Runner) I can consider a 1970s big car an affordable luxury, and it will be the much nicer car. I look forward to it!

[earl e rizer]

I may be different than most guys my age who were in their 20's in the 70's because I had quite a few luxo barges when I was young. At 17 yrs old I bought my 1st Cadillac, a 59 Sedan DeVille. Then a year later a 63 Eldo convertible. I loved the muscle cars also and had lots of them too, especially after the gas crisis and insurance hikes in 73-75. I still have a 66 Cadi convertible and I would like another 70 Lincoln Mk III. But no room and gas prices climbing again here in Ontario Canada are conspiring against me. I have been resisting the urge to go look at a 73 Imperial that's for sale locally because once I drive it it may follow me home. The other factor is that 2000-03 Cadillac STS and DTS are dirt cheap luxury drivers available now for a song.

[Marty Roth]

Our 1970 Cadillac DeVille Convertible is a delight to drive cross-country. We drove from New Orleans to Tucson for the start of the Founders Tour - drove "One Lap of Arizona", including Route 66, Sedona, Scottsdale, and Phoenix, and back to New Orleans - all in the lap of luxury with A/C, cruise, tilt and telescope, etc.

Before our purchase, she was a 2-owner dreamboat - triple black, with the 472 cubic inch V8, and bought new by a collector in Sacramento who drove less than 10,000 miles in her 1st 15 years - she was last year for Cadillac Convertibles in rear-wheel-drive. In 1985, the 2nd owner took her home and enjoyed her as a collectible in San Diego, and then central Virginia, before moving to Louisiana, where we were able to bring her into our collection.

While she is not stingy with fuel, neither is she outrageous. She has CLASS ! She still has only 77,xxx miles from new, and will keep up with anything on the road. She is longer than our Suburban, and draws attention with her "Tuxedo" appearance.

We think her value may increase, but regardless of value, what a ball to drive.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Marty Roth
typo (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

Information from the 2009 Collector Car Price Guide:

A #1 condition class 1963 Chevy Impala convertible is worth $45,000. No Cadillac of any kind after 1962 is worth that much, no Lincoln after 1957 is worth that much, and no Imperial after 1964 is worth that much (the 1963 Imperial Crown convertible is worth $48,000). In fact, other than the 1963 Imperial just mentioned, none come within $15,000 of that figure. At no point can I find any American luxury car after 1964 that is worth more than at least one Chevy, Ford, or Dodge, and often a half dozen or more of each (without reaching into the bag of limited/extreme cars, Yenkos, COPOs, Shelbys, etc.).

Luxury cars have been displaced by more common cars in interest for some time now. It's odd and counter-intuitive, but hardly a 1970s only phenomenon.

[rocketraider]

Just means they're more affordable, and that's a good thing for us who enjoy them.

I sincerely hope they never fall victim to the "investment" mindset.

[padgett]

Some do stand out, 71-73 Riviera, 76 (rectangular head light) Eldo convertible (particularly with FI). 72 MkIV, but all were over two tons and over 450 cid. These are still cheap and will appreciate some day and none between 1978 and 1988.

That said my personal feeling is that American cars hit a high point between 1967 and 1970 and the following scample to meet new federal laws coupled with a series of gas "crisises" resulted in no really new designs for luxury cars until the late eighties.

Yes there were some exceptions but for almost two decades it seemed that no one cared and it was not "politically correct" to talk car and it seemed to coincide with the "double nickle" national speed limit that allowed Asian "buzz bombs" (can think of several of the period that you really did not want to be in at 70 and that assumed they could reach 70) to catch up.

You really have to understand the context but with few exceptions, the new federally mandated safety bumpers and height requirements (take a 1976 MGB or Fiat 124. Please.) were "bags on the side" of existing designs and Detroit would not be able to afford new ones for a while. Anything new was going to be an "economy" car as CAFE requirements came in.

Not sure how many recall that it was widely believed that the 1976 Eldorado would be the last Detroit convertible. Period.

Frankly, as an engineer, I prefer the modern full feed back computer controlled FI systems (had my first FI car in 1970), for me they are easier to tune than a Holley and a lot more efficient at cruise. These are the good old daze ?

[Guest bkazmer]

I think there are two distinct groups of big cars in the 70's. The bodies stay large and heavy. The engines stay large and thirsty. But the early cars are still powerful - even allowing for gross vs net HP. The post-emission cars are really feeble performers. Consider a 70 vs 76 Cadillac on power/weight

[Barry Wolk]

Agreed, by '77 the Lincoln 460 was only producing 210hp.

[LINC400]

Some do stand out, 71-73 Riviera, 76 (rectangular head light) Eldo convertible (particularly with FI). 72 MkIV, but all were over two tons and over 450 cid. These are still cheap and will appreciate some day and none between 1978 and 1988.

That said my personal feeling is that American cars hit a high point between 1967 and 1970 and the following scample to meet new federal laws coupled with a series of gas "crisises" resulted in no really new designs for luxury cars until the late eighties.

Yes there were some exceptions but for almost two decades it seemed that no one cared and it was not "politically correct" to talk car and it seemed to coincide with the "double nickle" national speed limit that allowed Asian "buzz bombs" (can think of several of the period that you really did not want to be in at 70 and that assumed they could reach 70) to catch up.

You really have to understand the context but with few exceptions, the new federally mandated safety bumpers and height requirements (take a 1976 MGB or Fiat 124. Please.) were "bags on the side" of existing designs and Detroit would not be able to afford new ones for a while. Anything new was going to be an "economy" car as CAFE requirements came in.

Not sure how many recall that it was widely believed that the 1976 Eldorado would be the last Detroit convertible. Period.

Frankly, as an engineer, I prefer the modern full feed back computer controlled FI systems (had my first FI car in 1970), for me they are easier to tune than a Holley and a lot more efficient at cruise. These are the good old daze ?

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.

Edited January 15, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

Yes there were some exceptions but for almost two decades it seemed that no one cared and it was not "politically correct" to talk car and it seemed to coincide with the "double nickle" national speed limit that allowed Asian "buzz bombs" (can think of several of the period that you really did not want to be in at 70 and that assumed they could reach 70) to catch up.

You really have to understand the context but with few exceptions, the new federally mandated safety bumpers and height requirements (take a 1976 MGB or Fiat 124. Please.) were "bags on the side" of existing designs and Detroit would not be able to afford new ones for a while. Anything new was going to be an "economy" car as CAFE requirements came in.

I think most of this is a red herring argument. In my view the cars of the 1970s became what the management of that time wanted, and were not pre-ordained in any fashion by any requirements.

Think of the miserable circumstances British Leyland was in during this preiod. Well guess what, in my garage sits both a 1970 and a 1975 Triumph TR6. Do you want to know how much difference there is between the 2? Two horsepower, with essentially the same engine/displacement/etc (it was all done with tuning & intake and exhaust improvements, in fact it's hard to tell which is the older motor when looking at them). The performance stats between 1969 and 1976 for American TR6s are virtually identical. Can someone please explain to me why the most dysfunctional car company on earth (British Leyland) was able to pull off something that GM/Ford/Chrysler/AMC never even approached at that time?!?:confused::confused::confused: ...And they were hardly alone!

It was during this period that some of the greatest strides were made in vehicle reliability, but only among cars that were having to compete at a disadvantage because they were sold throughout the world. Few would argue that firms like Volvo, BMW, Honda, Toyota, Porsche, Nissan/Datsun, Subaru, Saab, Audi, etc. declined in any respect from 1970 to..., well now for that matter, but lets say 1980. Almost every product from every firm I just mentioned was faster and longer lived than it's predecessor throughout the 1970s.

No, they weren't faultless cars (I can hear people typing r-u-s-t from here). The point is they got better and others got worse at the same time.

It was the 1990s before you could say reliably for all "American" manufacturers that each year brought faster and longer lived cars. And they didn't have to care about 93 other countries' standards the way our "import" brands did. Perhaps GM/Ford/Chrysler/AMC would've built better cars if they thought they had to like the rest of the world seemed to understand. They certainly had fewer impediments to doing so. But VERY clearly they didn't know how or care at the time.

American "Luxury cars", being of higher content, just reflected the trends of their manufacturers to a greater degree than their lessor marques, and they continue to pay a penalty for it to this day. I remember vividly that Cadillac resale values by 1980 were so bad that a Chevy Caprice of the same mileage and condition was actually worth more money outright within 3 years. Perhaps the people of my generation that would otherwise collect 1970s Cadillacs remember this as well.

======

BTW My first "real" car after college was a 1300 cc 1979 Datsun 210, just about the bottom of the barrel when it comes to "Asian buzz bombs". It was so happy on the Interstate that it actually made peak gas mileage at a constant 75 mph (41 mpg), and drove like it was on rails the whole time. My first college car, a 1971 Datsun 510 similar to the one Paul Newman raced in SCCA, was exactly the same. I wish my 1996 Ranger was 1/2 as good a highway cruiser as my old Datsuns were.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[padgett]

Actually I thought we were discussing GALBS, I just mentioned the MGB and FIAT as examples of my observations of the worst of "federalization", the ones sold overseas were the original excellent designs while the ones sold here "had bags on the side" like the American bumpers on 80's 911s.

Most european mfrs (and I always liked the TR6 but then I also liked the TR8 & could not afford a TR3 in my yout so bought an XK-140MC Jag & still have whitworth wrenches, never cared for the TR4 though) gave up on the US during that period and it really took the Miata to revive the classic design but that brings us back to the end of the eighties.

In fact one of the few cars I had that I miss is the '68 FIAT 124 Spyder I drove all over the Rockies one year and why it saddened me to see what was done to it in later years to meet federal requirements.

OK, pollution is bad and it really took closed loop fuel injection to bring back power and efficiency. In the 70s and 80s we mostly still had not big (well, 5.7 liters has always been big to me, Judge is 6.6 but is more of a stress reliever than transportation) V-8s with carburators (pooly controlled leaks), really congestive catalytic converters (with wanings not to park over long grass), low compression to hadle 87 PON with a 4" bore, and ded cams.

Clear back in 1972 I ran a series of studies while a GMI student (and got into some spirited discussion with Bruce Crower) about economy. It was clear to me that to make a big V-8 economical (and I was getting 25 mpg from a 67 Camaro ragtop with 327 and a Rochester FI & meeting '75 emissions stds without a CC that also won autocrosses) you needed to have it turn very slowly. Keep in mind that in 1972, a 3.08 was an "economy axle" and top gear was 1:1. I envisioned a high compession engine with a sort of reverse cruise control to limit the manifold vaccuum for detonation control.

At this point overdrive and lockup transmissions were still a ways off so I was using really tall tires. Guess someone noticed all of those computer runs on the 370.

Problem is that VVT was also in the future so to have good torque below 2000 rpm (I was turning 1800 at '70, most Detroit iron was more like 3200 rpm) you could not have a wild cam.

Of course there were two other factors back then: high overlap cams and high compression resulted in high chamber temperatures that would really pump out the NOx (why everyone had EGR and catalytic converters were expensive (few cars had two and a V-8 needs duals, a six doesn't) and congestive. Exhaust back pressure would kill high rpm in any case.

Result, egines that had been peaking at 4800-5200 rpm were now maxing as low as 3600 (why the HP dropped so much and don't forget that in the early 70s the hp rathing change from gross (floor it and see how far the Toledo needle would swing) to net (more like at the rear wheels and not so much correction for STP).

Torque did not drop much, just hp (HP is torque x RPM/5252) mainly because of the lower revs.

Bottom line everyone was scrambling and real improvement didn't come until the mid-eighties Gen 1 was probably 1985-1995 and gen 2 1995-2002, I figure we are now in the third generation and a real 400 hp is back.

Thing of it is that it began in the small cars, not the GALBs and probably with the chevvy 2.8/3.1/3.4 and its variants and the Oldsmobile Quad-4, the predecessor to the Ecotech and Northstar lines (none of which I want to do another head job on).

Mean while Buick bought back the 3.8/3800 from AMC and the SBC soldiered on. Both superb designs but both doomed in the new milennia by iron blocks.

My leanings have always been toward GM, I grew up in a GM town (and remember Harley Earl or Bill Boyer on Worth Avenue with next years edition or a show car) but both Chrysler and Ford had similar events, really the period from 1973 to 1988 had few bright spots, emphasis was not on performance at all. Those passionate about the subject mostly avoided conversations at parties and found other subjects to talk about.Was a period to be endured and to seek other occupations.

[LINC400]

My leanings have always been toward GM, I grew up in a GM town (and remember Harley Earl or Bill Boyer on Worth Avenue with next years edition or a show car) but both Chrysler and Ford had similar events, really the period from 1973 to 1988 had few bright spots, emphasis was not on performance at all. Those passionate about the subject mostly avoided conversations at parties and found other subjects to talk about.Was a period to be endured and to seek other occupations.

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.

[MarkV]

Well, and there were some big changes in the luxury car industry, especially with cadillac in 1975 with the Seville. Fuel Injected, still Cadillac quality, they, too, were popular. I own one myself and though it is a jerk to start in the morning, (they were not like that when they were newer) it has the powerful 350 and gets decent mileage on the highway, around 18 or so. And to toot my other horn, I think the MKV through '79 will be valuable because it was the last of the land cruisers, for the same reason Seville will one day be valuable, in the reverse, as it was the first with fuel injection, first small size cadillac, which marked a shift in the industry from that point forward...

[Dave@Moon]

Most european mfrs...gave up on the US during that period and it really took the Miata to revive the classic design but that brings us back to the end of the eighties.

Actually during the 1970s none of the import brands that were here in 1970 left before 1980, except for Austin. And all of them were building cars in 1980 that, often unsuccessfully, were meeting every standard the U.S. had. That British Leyland was able to still market the Spitfire and Midget in 1980 is nothing less than amazing. The major European exodus began with Fiat and British Leyland after 1981.

It wasn't until the late 1980s that Peugeot, Renault, and Rover ("Sterling") left the U.S., with Alfa Romeo sticking it out through 1995. The former group left prior to OBD I requirements, and Alfa left prior to OBD II coming online. So by that time there likely was some effect of regulation on their ability to compete. However in the 1970s, when American car quality and performance was going to hell on the 9:05, they were keeping up and even making major progress. The European manufacturers that weathered the OBD requirements continued to make progress, and today (like GM & Ford) are building the best cars in their history.

Sadly, you cannot point to any domestic car company and see a continuous progression in quality across 3 decades like that.

[Dave@Moon]

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.

Yes, but where did the sales go from there?

Just 15 years later Cadillac was the #6 luxury car brand in U.S. sales. It's pretty clear that this fact is a reflection of what kind of experience those 1979 buyers had.

I think the poor values for those cars today is a direct reflection of how little those buyers want to remember that experience. I know my dad's 1977 Buick Estate Wagon is one car from my past I'd rather not revisit, and his 1976 Dodge Aspen is one I'd only want to have if I were able to sue Chrysler for selling it to him.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Dave@Moon
added last paragraph (see edit history)

[LINC400]

Yes, but where did the sales go from there?

Just 15 years later Cadillac was the #6 luxury car brand in U.S. sales. It's pretty clear that this fact is a reflection of what kind of experience those 1979 buyers had.

I think the poor values for those cars today is a direct reflection of how little those buyers want to remember that experience. I know my dad's 1977 Buick Estate Wagon is one car from my past I'd rather not revisit, and his 1976 Dodge Aspen is one I'd only want to have if I were able to sue Chrysler for selling it to him.

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.

[MarkV]

But, you are missing one point on the Seville issue, is that they were the most expensive Caddy out of all of the models, with the exception of the limo

[MarkV]

around 14,000 new

[Guest]

The first problem I see first is the cars built from 1971-1974. These pre- converter cars were trying to meet ever higher CO & HC standards and so drivability really suffered. Leaning CO down to meet a standard would shoot HC way passed it's limits so there was always a very fine line, then in 1974 EGR was introduced and at the time was used not so much to reduce NOX, but to control detonation and this caused mileage to suffer and engine surging in mid-range cruising.

When catalitic converters came along in 1975 we were able to faten up the engines up a bit because now the converter could take care of the emissions. To make sure a misfire ( to keep the cat from overheating) didn't occur HEI ignition systems were developed which made minor tune-ups easier.

In California today every gas powered car from 1976 to present must be emission tested every two years for the life of the car. Every car with exhaust controls ( even though not tested ) must retain them in working order. Exhaust control cars started in 1966.

I have a 1976 Olds that I bought new. I have every emission test with standards for pass/fail to present date that comes with every test. The problem is the state has been making the requirements tighter and tighter every year and even includes a NOX standard when in the beginning their never was a standard.

So the STATE has already figured out for you ( at least half the cars ) your question, it will legislate them off the road plus it's not just luxury cars.

Most people get into this hobby at the entry level especially young people and the 70's cars would be in this catagory. When you go to car shows here in Ca. most of the 70's cars are absent. Who want's to collect a car that could be legislated off the road??

You've got the driveability cars you can't mess with from the early 70's and you have the forever being tested cars past 1975 that will eventually fail testing on the other.

FYI, I was at a car show last spring. The show was a popular vote show and each person in the show gets a small voting slip of paper. So I'm walking around and I see a guy with a clipboard in front of a 1966 GM muscle car so I ask are you points judging this car?? The guy says no " I'm from the state and I'm checking some of the cars here to see if the emission systems have been removed and if enough of the cars are found to have been tampered with the state might re- start testing back to 1966 again.

Don

[Dave@Moon]

FYI, I was at a car show last spring. The show was a popular vote show and each person in the show gets a small voting slip of paper. So I'm walking around and I see a guy with a clipboard in front of a 1966 GM muscle car so I ask are you points judging this car?? The guy says no " I'm from the state and I'm checking some of the cars here to see if the emission systems have been removed and if enough of the cars are found to have been tampered with the state might re- start testing back to 1966 again.

Don

I think this might be the same guy who was "testing for R12" at another show!

First of all, while CA emissions standards did start in 1966 Federal standards did not start until 1968. If you're standing "with a clipboard in front of a 1966 GM muscle car", how are you supposed to tell what state it was sold in? Are you going to trust that someone who removed the emissions equipment at the same time did NOT removed the CA labeling? Or was he also carrying an iPhone so he can check VIN numbers against a database of initial state registrations from 1966 (with a guide to locate VINs in different cars prior to 1973's standardization)? And if you were running a state agency with the kind of budget and P.R. problems that CA is now enduring, would approving overtime for a weekend car show sound like something that you would do?

At best I think somebody was pulling somebody else's chain here.

Also CA may be testing for NOX on 1976 cars, but if there was no standard to enforce there can be no retroactive standard made....., period. I made a living (of sorts) in environmental regulation. One of the key precepts of the entire concept is you cannot make people retroactively conform to standards that were not in force when their activity began (i.e. driving a 1976 OLDS). That's an "illegal taking" by the government, and actionable in court (at least that's how the attorneys I worked with explained it). There's no doubt that they are testing for NOX, almost certainly to keep the test standardized for all cars and simplify the procedures for the technicians, but if they try to fail your car for something it never had to comply with in the past.....SUE!

BTW--This does not apply to corporate and commercial operations. They're not citizens of the U.S.

Being "legislated off the road" can't happen to private vehicles in the United States. Fearing the government's "awesome power" may be fashionable in some corners of this country, but it's just plain wrong-headed.

=================

As for the increasing standards from 1971 to 1974 hurting car performance, it didn't hurt my Triumphs in the least. There's virtually NO difference from 1969 to 1976 in the same car, and that's not atypical of quite a few "foreign" cars of the time. When people saw Detroit allow that to happen when others didn't, it was the beginning of the end for Detroit.:mad:

Edited January 19, 2010 by Dave@Moon
Added 2 small paragraphs (see edit history)

[LINC400]

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.

[Guest S_A_W]

Don't these old heavy cars guzzle a lot of gas?

[LINC400]

Don't these old heavy cars guzzle a lot of gas?

No

[rocketraider]

Don't these old heavy cars guzzle a lot of gas?

Compared to modern crapbox cars, yes, but they were no worse than other cars when they were contemporary.

It's a moot point anyway as people who own them as collector cars DO NOT DRIVE THEM ENOUGH TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON EMISSIONS OR FUEL RESERVES.

That's what a lot of green movement people either cannot or will not understand. It's easier to demonize them than to understand their limited use.

[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.

[poci1957]

It's a moot point anyway as people who own them as collector cars DO NOT DRIVE THEM ENOUGH TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON EMISSIONS OR FUEL RESERVES.

That's what a lot of green movement people either cannot or will not understand. It's easier to demonize them than to understand their limited use.

That is EXACTLY right!

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Hopefully some of these will be collected and kept. I remember a friend's father bought a Mark lV when they first came out - silver with red interior, so cool. Gotta love the opera window, no legroom in the back of such a big car, and the 17 foot long hood. He was also the first "collector" I knew of - he went out and bought a silver Continental Mk ll to go with the new car. These cars define the era better than twighlight of the era muscle cars IMO, and at the time big American was considered top shelf. Like the '79 - '85 Eldo-Riv-Toro also.

I would look for mint original, not too hard to come by and way cheaper than restoring one of these, I would imagine.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Steve_Mack_CT (see edit history)