1970's Luxury Cars Scrap them?

[poci1957]

Even as a kid in the 1970s I liked all the "personal luxury" cars of the day that combined a little sport and luxury. They were hugely popular, all those long hood/short deck/opera window/vinyl roof cars covering several price classes. And if you could not afford a Continental or Eldorado you could still get a taste at half the price in a popular Cougar XR7 or Grand Prix. I still look for these cars to grow in appreciation someday, but as Steve says mint original or easily refreshed will be the way, no one will be able to spend the $$ for restoration. Todd

[Dave@Moon]

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.

I'm almost certainly the "greenest' person on the forum, and Glenn's comment on how little these cars are driven today is absolutely correct. However the second point of "green people" demonizing them may be a little overstated. In fact I think it's a lot overstated. I am a "green person", or at least walk among them on a regular basis. I know how they tick. I'm probably the "Jake Sully" (see Avatar) of this group.

I can absolutely assure everyone that "green people" hold VASTLY more political sway than the antique or street rod crowd could ever hope to hold. It's simply impossible to equate the survivability of the biosphere to the private property rights of any select group, let alone something as (let's face it) frivolous as saving old cars for their own sake. However despite that political muscle virtually every state exempts antiques from real emissions testing,, and it's a rare case where that had to be argued for at all during the development of the regs.

This was because the "green people" didn't push for or even desire the regulation of cars so little used as our antiques. In 30 years of living in both worlds simultaneously I've never once heard of an environmental group or even a single significant individual espousing limitations on display/hobby cars. Not even once, (although I'll grant it may have happened...., rarely).

Environmentalists are preservationists at heart. In general they no more want to rid the world of antique Buicks than they do blue whales. As long as people aren't buying & driving new 8 mpg Tornados 20K miles/yr. to work daily in large numbers, or doing the same in asinine truck equivalents, they feel their job is done.

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

BTW Speaking of demonizing, ..."crapbox"????:rolleyes:

[Guest]

What does survivability of the biosphere have to do with my 70's car? A car that is driven less than twelve times a year at less than 500 miles.

D.

[poci1957]

This was because the "green people" didn't push for or even desire the regulation of cars so little used as our antiques. In 30 years of living in both worlds simultaneously I've never once heard of an environmental group or even a single significant individual espousing limitations on display/hobby cars. Not even once, (although I'll grant it may have happened...., rarely)

Thanks for mentioning that Dave, I hope that continues to be the case.

[Dave@Moon]

What does survivability of the biosphere have to do with my 70's car? A car that is driven less than twelve times a year at less than 500 miles.

D.

Nearly nothing, which was Glenn's point. My point was that Glenn's point is a lot more universal than many people here believe.

[Barry Wolk]

:confused:

[Mssr. Bwatoe]

People collect everything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....The 70's and 80's were known for what?? oversized, fuel hogs, poorly constucted versions of once proud nameplates. I love big v-8s, but 7 litres that make 200 or less horsepower?? no od ..

chrome plated plastic...

Yes they will be collectable..but good luck selling em..Remember how rare those '76 eldos were...how many you want?? $4 buck a gallon, 30 gln tank on a Mk IV, 6 mpg..reality is a drag....I cant believe someone compared these hogs to Duesys, Lincolns, Caddys or other true classics...yes those were once obsolete..but if you dont comprehend the difference..then ..oh well.. This is the age of old=desireable..

[poci1957]

OK, now I love them and say this with tongue in cheek, so let me make my little jab and try not to be mad, but:

Criticism of overweight cars with poor build quality and underpowered large engines? Sort of like 1940-41 Continentals, wouldn't we say?

[Dave@Moon]

OK, now I love them and say this with tongue in cheek, so let me make my little jab and try not to be mad, but:

Criticism of overweight cars with poor build quality and underpowered large engines? Sort of like 1940-41 Continentals, wouldn't we say?

No.

To go back to my point about the cars that did well in the 1970s, their engines were made to best of their respective engineer's abilities and therefore were not "overweight" or "underpowered". A 1974 Lincoln Continental cannot in any way claim to have an engine that was built to the best of it's engineer's abilities the way a 1974 Mercedes or Honda can claim. Some cars, notably Datsun Z-cars, actually gained horsepower throughout that decade. A 1941 Lincoln Continental, on the other hand, did carry the best engine Ford could give it at the time. It might not have been everything that a Cadillac or even a Buick engine might have been at the time, but you cannot fault Ford for trying their best in 1941 with what they had.

Nobody (here in the U.S.) was trying their best in 1974. By all accounts they didn't feel they had to. Who's going to buy those lousy "furrin'" cars when we've got 80+% of the market anyway???? :confused:

Nobody ever thought enough to predict what that little import sales snowball would do by the time it got to the bottom of the hill.:mad:

Edited January 21, 2010 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[LINC400]

People collect everything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....The 70's and 80's were known for what?? oversized, fuel hogs, poorly constucted versions of once proud nameplates. I love big v-8s, but 7 litres that make 200 or less horsepower?? no od ..

chrome plated plastic...

Yes they will be collectable..but good luck selling em..Remember how rare those '76 eldos were...how many you want?? $4 buck a gallon, 30 gln tank on a Mk IV, 6 mpg..reality is a drag....I cant believe someone compared these hogs to Duesys, Lincolns, Caddys or other true classics...yes those were once obsolete..but if you dont comprehend the difference..then ..oh well.. This is the age of old=desireable..

I don't see anything poorly constructed about any of the Lincolns I owned.

I don't think there are too many 1930's cars that had more than 200 horsepower either. And that is gross horsepower, not net like in the 1970's.

6 mpg? That is about half of what my car gets. How fuel efficient is a Duesenburg or V-16 Cadillac?

I always enjoy running the air conditioning full blast while blasting the stereo, having everything available at the touch of a button, and watching people in their Duesenburgs and Cadillac V-16's and Model A Fords sweating in 90 degree temps on driving cruises.

However, I can appreciate those cars on a show field, and do not bad mouth their owners as having bad taste. If you do not like 1970's cars, fine. But there is no reason to insult people that do.

Edited January 21, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[LINC400]

No.

To go back to my point about the cars that did well in the 1970s, their engines were made to best of their respective engineer's abilities and therefore were not "overweight" or "underpowered". A 1974 Lincoln Continental cannot in any way claim to have an engine that was built to the best of it's engineer's abilities the way a 1974 Mercedes or Honda can claim. Some cars, notably Datsun Z-cars, actually gained horsepower throughout that decade. A 1941 Lincoln Continental, on the other hand, did carry the best engine Ford could give it at the time. It might not have been everything that a Cadillac or even a Buick engine might have been at the time, but you cannot fault Ford for trying their best in 1941 with what they had.:mad:

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

[poci1957]

I might take a different angle in mentioning that good engineering and collector interest are not directly linked. I would agree with Dave that a 1974 Honda with it's CVCC engine and lightweight construction represented good engineering, but it rusted almost as bad as a Fiat and now has little or no collector interest.

Likewise a 1974 Lincoln may have been criticized for being overweight and INefficient, but slide in and shut the door (like a vault) and you are in a cocoon of overstuffed 1970s luxury with the best velour/leather/fake wood money could buy. It may not beat a Chevelle in a drag race but you can wallow in 1970s excess and represent a slice of Americana. Again, not for everyone, but of undeniable appeal to some of us.

[poci1957]

I still stand by my 1940-41 Lincoln parallel, by the way, in that even owners will say the 1940-41 Continental was beautiful and exclusive, but the body modifications were of varying quality and the V12 was and is NOT considered an engineering achievement. Maybe not as bad as some say, but not exactly beloved.

[LINC400]

I still stand by my 1940-41 Lincoln parallel, by the way, in that even owners will say the 1940-41 Continental was beautiful and exclusive, but the body modifications were of varying quality and the V12 was and is NOT considered an engineering achievement. Maybe not as bad as some say, but not exactly beloved.

True. Can't answer for the body quality as I have never owned one. But I have seen and heard of many 1940-48 Continentals that have had the V-12 removed and a V-8 installed instead. That started in the 1950's and still continues.

On the other hand I have never heard of anyone removing the V-8 from a 1970's Lincoln, Cadillac or Imperial and installing a six cylinder. In fact just the opposite. People take the 440 or 460 out, and put it in a monster truck or muscle car.

[Guest]

Getting back to the original question, 1948 Lincoln want's to know is why all these people wanting to scrap 70's luxury cars? I think it would be best to find out from him who are all these people are first. If you belong to this club and all of you like cars, then we all should be on the same side right. I will defend the right of a person collecting a Auburn or a Volkswagen, it makes no odds. Even if you just can't see why he collects this or that, just be happy for his or her's happiness and enthusiasm. Oh and don't try to take his/her happiness away from him/her either by a derogatory remark about their car or a call to your legislator. Different strokes you know. Life is too short.

Don

[Barry Wolk]

Granted, my evidence is anecdotal, but none of the 15 foreign cars and all of the American cars we've owned have required engine repairs. I've never had so much as a valve cover off my German cars and mucho problems with my American cars and trucks.

Speaking of '70s cars I can tell you that my '77 Town car came to me at age 25 with under 13,000 miles on it. It suffered from burned intake manifold gaskets and charred EGR plate, both creating horrendous vacuum leaks on just about all 460s. I don't know if the 400s had the same problem.

My car only saw two Michigan winters and was then taken to a summer home where it was coddled for the next 23 years. It was so well cared for that the couple winterized their summer home and left the heat on in the windowless garage.

However, all their care meant nothing because the factory really didn't think these things would still be around. I'm finding that many of the clips that were used for fast assembly broke the paint and let the rust begin. It was poor engineering, not really poor workmanship.

That aside, there is a certain level of attention that comes your way when you're silently gliding down the street in a 20-foot long "presence". Seems to me that that's what today's jelly-bean cars lack.

[Barry Wolk]

True. Can't answer for the body quality as I have never owned one. But I have seen and heard of many 1940-48 Continentals that have had the V-12 removed and a V-8 installed instead. That started in the 1950's and still continues.

Overheating was a big problem with these cars. V-8s offered similar horsepower, but we're not as smooth.

[Guest]

This thread is turning into foreign vs American. Read the original question 1970's luxury cars== 6oo series Mercedes, Roll, Bently, Cad, Lincoln ect.

Don

[poci1957]

Don may have a point, on that note I will just make a final comment and exit.

In mentioning the early Continental my point was intended to be that a car with issues can become a beloved Classic and the 1970s model's issues need not prevent them from being a great later collectable.

Many of the stigmas of the 1970s remain in our minds (quality, smog motors, gas mileage) but like earlier cars with issues the life of a collector car becomes different from a daily driver. Gas mileage is really a minor thing with a car driven 1000 miles a year, and the reputed lower performance becomes imperceptable as there are still 400+ inches under the hood. You float down the interstate at 75, with air and cruise, and the biggest problem becomes if you can handle waxing all that sheetmetal and giant chrome bumpers. Linc400, roll to the car show in the Mark and have the kids see what it was like when dinosaurs roamed the earth! Todd C

[LINC400]

Granted, my evidence is anecdotal, but none of the 15 foreign cars and all of the American cars we've owned have required engine repairs. I've never had so much as a valve cover off my German cars and mucho problems with my American cars and trucks.

Speaking of '70s cars I can tell you that my '77 Town car came to me at age 25 with under 13,000 miles on it. It suffered from burned intake manifold gaskets and charred EGR plate, both creating horrendous vacuum leaks on just about all 460s. I don't know if the 400s had the same problem.

My car only saw two Michigan winters and was then taken to a summer home where it was coddled for the next 23 years. It was so well cared for that the couple winterized their summer home and left the heat on in the windowless garage.

However, all their care meant nothing because the factory really didn't think these things would still be around. I'm finding that many of the clips that were used for fast assembly broke the paint and let the rust begin. It was poor engineering, not really poor workmanship.

That aside, there is a certain level of attention that comes your way when you're silently gliding down the street in a 20-foot long "presence". Seems to me that that's what today's jelly-bean cars lack.

I have had 2 Lincolns with 400's, and my friend owns 2 as well. Neither of us has ever had a problem with burned manifold gaskets. My current 460 and his have never had this problem either. So unless you know of a lot more 460's with this problem, I would not say that this is a common problem with them. In fact we have never had any engine or transmission based repairs on any of them.

The worst car I have ever owned was a 1979 Cougar with 302. It was unbelievably slow, lousy on gas, and was constantly in for repairs and even rebuilt. Yet Ford used that engine for years, (in Mustang GT's, which were not slow) and no one seems to have the problems I did with mine. So I would say that one lemon does not represent all cars. The FMX transmission, on the other hand, seems to be a disaster in general. But Lincolns would not be equipped with either of these in the 1970's.

As far as poorly engineered clips or whatever, I think just about all cars from any decade will have some part that could have been designed better.

Also the highest horsepower Lincoln would have from 1950 through the 1960's is 365 in 1968. It would remain 365 through 1971. In 1972, horspower ratings were changed from gross to net. Horsepower listed for 1972 is 212-224. The figure I have for converting gross horsepower to net is 66%. So for 1971, that would calculate to 241 net. It would remain 202-224 horsepower throughout the 1970's. Doesn't seem like that huge of a difference to me. Especially since if you calculate 66% for net horsepower from 1957-67 it is 198-224. And even less prior to 1957. So I don't see where Lincolns lost all this power due to emissions. I don't think the 1960's 430 or 462 would be getting much better fuel economy than a 1970's 460 either.

Also, he will have to speak for himself, but I believe the original intent of the post was for domestic luxury cars of the 1970's. Not Rolls Royce, Mercedes, or Bentley since he does not own any of those. I don't think too many people are scrapping RR's.

Edited January 22, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest]

Dosen't say anything about nationality, just says 70's luxury cars.

Don.

[Mssr. Bwatoe]

Oh come on Mr POCI... I love ponchos, and have had many gas guzzling drop tops in my stable..A 1940 / 41 Lincoln Continental is a hand made full blown classic for the all the right reasons with a small economy( less than 5 litre) engine..It won the "Mobil Fuel Challenge of 1941) Should be talk about Chrysler Lebarons.. 30's vs 70s?? kind of a silly debate..

not to insult anyone...collect what you like...gee whiz ..compare any us manufactured product from prewar era vs 70's .....

[poci1957]

In mentioning the early Continental my point was intended to be that a car with issues can become a beloved Classic and the 1970s model's issues need not prevent them from being a great later collectable.

Hello Mssr Bwatoe, like I said, I love 'em. A direct comparison of a Continental Mark 1 and Mark IV? Not my intent, just trying to suggest the point I made previously above. And like 1970s cars I think the V12 is not as bad as people think.

I have to say I did not know about the V12s performance in the Mobilgas Economy Run, I guess it would make sense that the small displacement would be an advantage over a Packard or Cadillac in that contest. And you are certainly correct that as a Pontiac owner I cannot talk to anyone about good gas mileage.

[Guest]

I can, how about a 4,050lb. Pontiac with a 455" engine and a 068 cam that turns mid 13's and gets 24 mpg as long as the engine stays below 3,000rpm which would be about 62mph.

D.

[Guest]

How about this one. 1973 Buick Estate wagon 9 passenger with eight people on board at a steady 55-56 mph @ 21mpg and thats with a 455 too.

Why 55mph?? The test was made in 1976 and at the time the max speed limit was 55mph.

D.

[Dave@Moon]

How about this one. 1973 Buick Estate wagon 9 passenger with eight people on board at a steady 55-56 mph @ 21mpg and thats with a 455 too.

Why 55mph?? The test was made in 1976 and at the time the max speed limit was 55mph.

D.

In Feb. 1979 my dad dumped his 15 month old 1977 Buick Estate Wagon (350, 4 brl.) largely because it never once topped 15 mpg highway, and routinely got 12-13 mpg in city driving as well. Just before the 1979 (second) "gas crisis" hit (when gas finally topped $1/gal.) he took a loss of 45% of what he paid, selling it for 58% off of it's sticker price to the only person who looked at it. He'd thought he was getting a good deal, paying $7300 for a $9200 sticker car on a year-end deal in Nov. 1977. It was 11 years before he ever again chanced an American car, and he never again bought a new one.

I saw my father cry twice in my life. This was one of those.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[MCHinson]

Well, it is sort of off topic and possibly argumentative, but in the 1970's my father bought two small different imported cars. We got rid of one after an endless variety of mechanical issues. The other, a different brand from the first, almost killed me due to a poor design with a very high center of gravity.

I have not owned any imported car since those. So, I guess there are two sides to every story.

[Guest]

Dave, Perhaps your dad ordered the wrong rear axel ratio. When I was in high school I had a ( still have it ) 65 standard beetle type 111 with a 36hp (last year for european standards) engine. My best friend had a 60 deluxe U.S. export type 113 also a 36hp. Both had the same final drive ratio and both the same weight. Both engines were in good condition and both cars had identical top ends. My buddy could never get past 32mpg out of his car. My car averaged 38mpg and at 100kph 42 mpg. Want to know what we found out?? We traded cars for a week and we flip flopped the mph numbers.

BTY the 455 Estate wagon in the above thread was my brother in-law's wagon and he and my sister both could never muster more than 12-15 mpg out of the same car.

I must say though, that I get the impression you don't like american cars. Plus whatever good story someone tells about their car you need to tell a bad story just to counter.

Have a nice day.

D.

[Guest]

Sorry a correction there, we flipped MPG not MPH.

D.

[LINC400]

As much as I love big engined 1970's luxury cars, I have a hard time believing that a 455 got 21-24 mpg. If that was the case, they never would have stopped making them.

However, I fail to understand why gas mileage is always such a big issue with 1970's luxury cars, especially when they are collector vehicles, not daily drivers. As I have already said, I can't imagine a Duesenburg or V-16 Cadillac gets wonderful gas mileage. Yet no one finds it necessary to compare a Duesenburg to the gas mileage an American Bantam or Prius gets. A 1950's or 60's Lincoln 430 or 462 is not going to get any better gas mileage than a 1970's 460. A 440 in a Mopar muscle car you pay a premium for, but in an Imperial it is a gas pig. The same with any muscle car, pay a premium for the biggest engine you can get, but an equal size engine in a luxury car is always a gas pig.

If I put 5 tanks of gas in my Mark IV for the year, that is about $250.00. I take a lot of trips during the summer. Most car events take place at hotels costing $125.00 per night. I always stay at a Motel 6 or Super 8. But apparently no one else has any problem staying at the $125.00 a night place. So how is it that $250 for 2 nights in a hotel is ok, but not for an entire season of driving a car? Personally I would much rather spend that $250 enjoying an entire season of driving my car than 2 nights in a room with a little fancier bedspread and bigger TV.

[Guest]

Linc400, Sorry you don't believe me but it's true. Here is another thing you won't believe either. I once prepped ten B-210's for MPG test to be used in print adds. The average of the ten got 41mpg and the highest if I can remember right was 61 or 62 mpg. The print add says the following:

"The Limited Edition 41mpg Honey Bee"

D.

[Dave@Moon]

However, I fail to understand why gas mileage is always such a big issue with 1970's luxury cars, especially when they are collector vehicles, not daily drivers.

Because we're talking about how well these cars are remembered and how that memory is being cared for. While Duesenbergs and the like were bought in the dozens by people who had no problem with fuel costs no matter what, 1970s "luxury cars" (as has already been pointed out) were bought in many, many thousands. Many of those people (like my father with the Buick) were marginally in the demographic for those cars, and poor fuel mileage became a paramount concern with the doubling and quadrupling of fuel prices over those 3-10 years that closed the decade out.

Meanwhile the 1930s millionaires drove their mega-cruisers in an era of almost flat fuel costs, not that they even noticed.

However the main concern isn't fuel mileage, it's what you got for that mileage. A 1970 440 'Cuda and a 1974 440 Imperial don't even approach the same driving experience, and their requisite memories are very different accordingly.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Dave@Moon
punctuation (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

Linc400, Sorry you don't believe me but it's true. Here is another thing you won't believe either. I once prepped ten B-210's for MPG test to be used in print adds. The average of the ten got 41mpg and the highest if I can remember right was 61 or 62 mpg. The print add says the following:

"The Limited Edition 41mpg Honey Bee"

D.

My dad ditched the Estate Wagon for a 1979 5 speed Datsun 210. It got exactly 41 mpg on the highway reliably. It later became mine and after that my sister's, getting the same gas mileage for 180,000 miles before it succumbed to rust.:cool:

[Guest]

The sad part is that 411's LB110's, B 210's, 310's, F10's, Later 510's, 610's, 710's, 200SX, PL520, PL521, PL620 (one of my favorite) 720's ect. are never seen even at a Datsun/Nissan show. You will see some 68-73 510's and always roadsters and Z cars. Not a 810 or early Max, Stanza, early altima in sight. D-21's are still on the road and I've got one, a HD V-G30 one ton with only 45K.

D.

[rocketraider]

There's probably a pretty good reason you don't see F10's. Honest to god, for its time it was the most bizarrely styled car I'd ever seen. It could make a Citroen DS look mainstream. The B210 hatchback has recently struck me as a precursor to the Aztek.

Nissan made Datsun bizarromobiles in the 70s and then came around to more mainstream styling cues by the 90s. Then it was the domestic styling studios who went Buck Rogers on us...

[Guest]

Yes your right Glenn, those Z cars were pretty bizzarmobiles.

don

[LINC400]

Because we're talking about how well these cars are remembered and how that memory is being cared for. While Duesenbergs and the like were bought in the dozens by people who had no problem with fuel costs no matter what, 1970s "luxury cars" (as has already been pointed out) were bought in many, many thousands. Many of those people (like my father with the Buick) were marginally in the demographic for those cars, and poor fuel mileage became a paramount concern with the doubling and quadrupling of fuel prices over those 3-10 years that closed the decade out.

Meanwhile the 1930s millionaires drove their mega-cruisers in an era of almost flat fuel costs, not that they even noticed.

However the main concern isn't fuel mileage, it's what you got for that mileage. A 1970 440 'Cuda and a 1974 440 Imperial don't even approach the same driving experience, and their requisite memories are very different accordingly.

Duesenbergs were bought in the middle of the Great Depression. Obviously their buyers were not concerned about bread lines, soup kitchens, and gas prices. In the same respect, Lincoln and Cadillac owners were not concerned about gas prices in the 1970's. Lincoln had its second highest sales year ever up to that point in 1979, the year your father traded in his Buick Estate Wagon because he couldn't afford gas for it. What was Lincolns best sales year? 1977, the year Cadillac downsized. If Lincoln and Cadillac buyers wanted something more fuel efficient, they could have bought a Seville or Versailles. But they didn't. The full size cars with 460 and 500 by far outsold them.

In fact in the middle class suburban neighborhood where I grew up, anyone trading in their Caprice or LTD for a Datsun or Honda in the 1970's was looked at as either having financial problems or the same as someone wearing an aluminum foil hat to keep aliens from reading their thoughts. You simply did not sacrifice your family's safety or comfort by putting them in a little tin box to save a few dollars on gas. The only exception to that rule was perhaps the father got something smaller to commute to work, but the big Marquis Brougham or Country Squire wagon remained with the wife and kids so they were safer in the big car, and it was what was used when the whole family went out. So if most people kept those cars with a moderate income without going bankrupt, I'm sure Cadillac and Lincoln owners could manage.

The gas guzzler stigma is just something that remains of the media hype of the day that loved to demonize big luxury cars. They are not any less fuel efficient than cars of the 1950's or 1960's. But somehow muscle cars with the exact same engines with triple carburetors are ok, and so are cars from another decade that get the same mileage.

The difference between a 'Cuda and Imperial with 440 is that the Cuda goes very fast a short distance while rattling and not offering much comfort. The Imperial goes hundreds of miles soothly and in comfort with everything at the touch of a button (things that were desired in a prewar luxury car). One is not better than the other, it is just a personal preference.

The difference in the mind of some collectors is that grandpa owned an Imperial, and they do not want to be seen as a grandpa even though they are probably fat, bald , and older than grandpa when he owned his Imperial. In the 'Cuda, their car or fantasy car from high school, they can pretend they are still young, hot, and can pick up chicks with the snap of a finger. Even though they probably couldn't even when they were in high school.

[Reatta Man]

My dad ditched the Estate Wagon for a 1979 5 speed Datsun 210. It got exactly 41 mpg on the highway reliably. It later became mine and after that my sister's, getting the same gas mileage for 180,000 miles before it succumbed to rust.:cool:

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

[rocketraider]

Don, notice I did not refer to the Z. The 240-260-280 were and are gorgeous and desirable cars. They did turn into pimpmobiles with the advent of the ZX. There's still a loudass Grinch green one around here, as well as a French Beige one with a magenta velour interior:eek:.

To the ZX's credit, it performed well, and a high school friend still has the 80 he got when he graduated college. Brent's however is white with a tan leather gut- no pimpadelic psychedelic disco king ride there.

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.

Linc, you're bad. You've hit the nail right square on the head, but you're bad. Think of all the shattered illusions you'll leave in your wake with that observation!:cool: You might even drive some of those guys to therapy...

[Guest]

Glenn, I know, I was just giving you the mickey on the Z car. But some American cars were bizzarrmobiles too. Take a 1942 Desoto for example, a car in my opinion that has a front grille that makes the car look like a oversized remington electric shaver. At least the F-10 got great mileage and would do 90mph.

Don