Soon to be Collectable Front Wheel Drive Vehicles

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

Since you threw out the Buick name.

Not sure what you meant by that.

To each his own, some folks collect newer cars, its just not my thing... Nothing wrong with collecting newer cars, its just my opinion many of them won't be saught after by collectors in the future.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Kingoftheroad (see edit history)

[Guest my3buicks]

Not sure what you meant by that.

To each his own, some folks collect newer cars, its just not my thing...

exactly, and to some that collect the newer cars, the older ones just are not their thing.

Also, just because a car is old, does not make it "collectible".

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

___________________________________________________________

I agree with you, and I have a question for you. Hot rods aside, how many 20's and 30's stock Buicks do you see at these meets?

These days at your average car show Hot rods aside again, how many stock cars from the 20's & 30's do you see? I can tell you not many. The local shows that are around my area have a cut off of 1979 these days with some people wanting to open that up to 25 or older. I think once it's accepted you will see these cars, but I worry more about not seeing stock cars of the 20's & 30's.

It seems to happen not only with cars , but with music too. Our oldies station does not play music of the 50's anymore, and the contemporary station which used to play songs from my parents generation (30's & 40"s) now plays 50's, 60's & 70's. The culture is just slipping away, and younger people will never be able to experience music from the great American song book.

D.

This is off topic but realistically most restored '20s and '30s cars have no business on the typical freeway or even most Interstate Highways, maybe not even on streets with posted speed limits of 45 mph, though some of them might do that speed okay. But will they stop? It might even be questionable if most restored or original 1940s cars should be driven on freeways and Interstates. Yeah, in their day they all managed sometimes long trips, and even navigated city traffic; but it just ain't the same today. All reasons so many of those cars are not seen at events of any nature today unless they get there by trailer. Of course what shows up at cruise nights and many car shows is all about a social era that was dead has hell by the time 1980 rolled around, as I have said many times before. A really good observation that should be made or mentioned has to do with the average age of the people that do show up with a car of any nature to show off at those events. You can bet your boots that there are many more "old farts" than "young whippersnappers." The "old farts" of today were the "young whippersnappers" that were showing up at car events with some sort of ride to show off thirty and forty years ago. Anyone who thinks the changing social aspect of automobiles has not affected the overall nature of the hobby just ain't paying attention! And that is more than likely why so many of the cars produced since 1980 will never have even the special allure a lowly Pinto might have had for someone in their youth when it was produced.

We now return to our regular programming!

[oldcarfudd]

Looks like Jim just blew off the Reliability Tours, Glidden Tours, and anything put on by the Horseless Carriage Club, either Model T Ford club, either Model A Ford club, the Early Ford V-8 Club, the Classic Car Club, and probably a few others. If I can't find someone who wants to use my brass cars as lawn art, maybe someone can use them as boat anchors.

Gil Fitzhugh, Morristown, NJ

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Looks like Jim just blew off the Reliability Tours, Glidden Tours, and anything put on by the Horseless Carriage Club, either Model T Ford club, either Model A Ford club, the Early Ford V-8 Club, the Classic Car Club, and probably a few others. If I can't find someone who wants to use my brass cars as lawn art, maybe someone can use them as boat anchors.

Gil Fitzhugh, Morristown, NJ

With respect to the personal safety involved in putting many pre 1950 cars on the typical highway or city thoroughfares today I suppose I did. Reality can be an absolute bear! Just because someone has a car of pre 1950 vintage does not mean the rest of the world is required to accommodate them on major traffic arteries. I would suggest that even you have a reluctance to take your Brass Era car out on the streets where you live. In essence you have made your own car "Yard Art." When was the last time you chose to jump into your car on a Friday or Saturday night and drive it to some sort of cruise-in event?

As an example of borderline lunacy I will direct you to the Glidden Tour scheduled for October 12 of this year in Brenham, Texas, which is quite near where I live. Being quite familiar with the area, the roads and traffic conditions in the tour route I can say without equivocation the participants will be at considerable risk from just being on the two lane roads that are often quite curvy and have considerable grade hills. Those two lane roads are also the route often traveled by 18 wheelers to make connections between major highways. Those 80,000 pound trucks do push the 65 and 70 mph speed limit along the route 24/7 and could easily top a hill and wipe out several cars chugging along at a much lesser speed. No Thanks!

Just for grins, I'll direct you to the VMCCA site for various tours, which oddly enough have scheduled "Muscle Car" tours. I guess those cars are now considered "Veteran Motor Cars."

This year

A description of the original Glidden promotional tours.

"The tours were gruelling events: cars broke down, were damaged by accidents, and encountered nearly impassable roads. Drivers and teams did repairs on the run and helped out other drivers having difficulties."

I would suggest little has changed beyond the nature of the road surfaces encountered.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Rick0matic]

How about the 1982-1984 Dodge Rampage front drive mini-pick-up trucks and their 1983 Plymouth Scamp badge-engineered cousins? Here's the 1984 I bought new. It was an excellent little driver with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder with a 5-speed. Didn't carry a lot of payload, but I hauled a full size couch in it once.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

How about the 1982-1984 Dodge Rampage front drive mini-pick-up trucks and their 1983 Plymouth Scamp badge-engineered cousins? Here's the 1984 I bought new. It was an excellent little driver with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder with a 5-speed. Didn't carry a lot of payload, but I hauled a full size couch in it once.

Ah Ha! At last an '80s FWD vehicle that is certainly a candidate for being embraced in the future. Nice looking vehicle!

Strangely, I don't recall ever seeing one on the road even in Houston during the 1980s. Maybe too early an offering for the market.

[LINC400]

FWD in general just seems to recall the cars that were downsized and made more generic looking in the 1980's. But personally I don't think actually having FWD has much to do with the issue of future collectibility. Reattas and Allantes would not be any less collected if they were RWD. And something like the downsized FWD 80's DeVilles would not interest collectors any more if they were RWD.

[Bleach]

FWD ...And something like the downsized FWD 80's DeVilles would not interest collectors any more if they were RWD.

Those were an absolute embarrassment to the marque but not as bad as the Cimarron. Those were hard on the eyes.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Those were an absolute embarrassment to the marque but not as bad as the Cimarron. Those were hard on the eyes.

The car with the Cadillac name that bore a remarkable resemblance to a Toyota Corolla. Enough to make a Caddy fan puke!

[NTX5467]

I believe that one problem with the Cimmaron was that it was too much "openly" an upgraded Chevy Cavalier sedan. The Cadillac-level power accesssories were band-aided into the car . . . not unlike what they did with the Opel that became "Catera". The real problem with the Cimmarons was that after they became "trade-ins +2 years", nobody wanted them--period. Not even the dealers! Trade-in value hit $1000 really quickly. Mechanics even refused to work on them, at any price. Kind of a shame, in some respects. IF they could have managed to keep the Chevy 4cyl in it, it might have been different, but much too much "Chevy" would have been there then.

The Rampages and Scamps were pretty neat vehicles! With limited seating, you could choose your passengers, just like in a full-size pickup. There were enough of them in DFW to see them a good deal when they were new. Every so often, now, they turn up with "for sale" signs on them up here. To me, they were a much nicer alternative than the small pickups of that era, with about the same level of hauling capacity . . . but with "car-like" comfort.

A few related vehicles I thought about today were the Chrysler K-car station wagons. Don't see that many any more, usually driven by older females who might have bought then new or close-to-new and have kept them pretty nice all of these years. Some powertrain upgrades, even a factory turbo motor, along with some chassis upgrades and it'd make a neat sleeper.

By the time the K-car chassis got to its half-life, things improved a good deal. The Plymouth Acclaim and Dodge Spirit models (especially the Spirit R/T with the Lotus 16V cylinder head!!!) were nice cars. The Chrysler 600 sedans were pretty nice for their time, too. Can't forget the factory-built Chrysler Executive Limousines!!!! But the one I thought of today was the Chrysler LeBaron coupe. It was a nicely-styled 2-dr coupe (which meets many peoples' "collectible" status. It's more basic version could have a nice interior, 4 cyl, 5-speed, and some tire/wheel upgrades. A "right-size" car with all of the basic attributes of a good commuter car or a nice car for more frugal owners. For a more sporty orientation, there were the fwd Dodge Daytona (and similar Chrysler variation) coupes with turbos, electronics, and other things "upscale" and "performance" for those earlier times. By modern standards, they might be tacky and outdated, but when they were new, they were pretty significant. For those that wanted more power under the hood, there was the Forward Motion group with modified parts and such, too.

In the performance orientation, there was also the Dodge Neon ACR sedan. "ACR" = American Club Racer, which was a race series or something back then for stock production vehicles. The Neon ACR was a 4-dr sedan with the upgraded engine, upgraded engine controller (with the top speed limiter removed, as it had Z-rated tires from the factory), upgraded suspension, race-oriented suspension calibrations and tires, and a minimum of other equipment (a/c was restricted from it for the first few years). Finding one of these cars in "nice" condition might be a trick, though . . . like finding a Buick GN that's totally "unmolested".

Just some thougths,

NTX5467

[Guest]

Those were an absolute embarrassment to the marque but not as bad as the Cimarron. Those were hard on the eyes.

_________________________________________________________

Just what did you expect Cadillac to do? Cadillac was forced into the mix with Cimmaron because of CAFE requirements, and not dealers insisting on a small car because (contrary to what some believe) Cadillac knew Cadillac buyers would reject such a car. So Cadillac used the J platform and it's technology because they could share production cost to cover the loss. We all know GM has made some bad decisions, but this is one car that came about because of government decisions. Cadillac also did it's best to downplay the car by instruction from GM, and instructed sales to do the same by saying the car was not technically a Cadillac.

D.

Edited March 17, 2012 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest my3buicks]

correct, it was not a Cadillac Cimmaron, it was a Cimmaron by Cadillac

[Bleach]

correct, it was not a Cadillac Cimmaron, it was a Cimmaron by Cadillac

It was that when it debuted but by 1983 sadly, it was a Cadillac.

There are Cadillac badges all over those cars and a Cadillac script as well. That makes it a Cadillac even though it really was a Chevy under all that glitz.

[5219]

People forget now that the Cimmaron sold fairly well at first. There were a lot of them on the road in their time. Because it was an entry level car tarted up to justify a 12K price point, it had to have been profitable for GM to peddle this dog.

I once owned a 1986 Sedan DeVille. At the time, this car was an improvement over the behemoths it replaced. A 1984 5000 pound Cadillac with a 4.1 Liter V-8 was one of the stinkers of all time. The FWD version was a much neater, better handling, nimbler package in comparison. Thankfully, I didn't own it long enough for the HT 4100 to self destruct. In their time, they sold in large numbers. GM would love to sell as many Caddies today as they did in 1986. I admit that these cars now have no following whatsoever. I am sure that any that are left have become quite troublesome.

If there was any car that Cadillac should have been ashamed of, it was the Allante. I had a 1987 that I bought when it was about 5 years old. That car barely had enough reliability to make it to the next stoplight.

There was never a day that I owned that car that every part was functional. I used to get it repaired by the dealer, pay the bill, and wait to see what would break on the way home. When I finally unloaded it on the next fool, I never missed it, not once, not even for a second.

[Guest]

correct, it was not a Cadillac Cimmaron, it was a Cimmaron by Cadillac

____________________________________________________________

Absolutely correct Keith !

Cimmaron first year sales were off a third of what Cadillac had anticipated at only 25,968 units and the last year of production, 1988 saw only 6,454 units.

A wolf in sheep's clothing amongst a flock of sheep is still a wolf. Just ask the people who were reimbursed after buying their Oldsmobile and finding out their merry Olds had a Chevy engine instead of a Rocket V-8. In Cimmaron's case it was nearly the whole car....but as said before Cadillac people were instructed to say the car was technically NOT a Cadillac.

D.

Edited March 17, 2012 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest dminer]

Wikipedia, though not always 100% right, Says that nearly 3/4 of early purchasers of the cimarron had never owned a Cadillac before and that it helped broaden their market because a large percentage of the folks that bought one were under 50, and those were big parts of their goals with this car. Also that it was possibly the basis for the CTS.

It's not a hideous car...it's an 80's car. Why does Cadillac have to be stuck in the V8 category to be accepted?

Why wouldn't 'mistake cars' be the ones that turn out collectable? If one of the U.S. mints makes a mistake, like crooked cut bills or mis-stamped coins, they're highly sought after. It's that way for a lot of things people collect of value...I don't think I've ever seen one of these cars on the road before, at least that I remember, and that makes it (though a plain-jane car) unique to me.

edit8the interior looks lovely and well equiped as well

[LINC400]

I do not think the Cimarron itself was a mistake. Just the way it was done.

At the time BMW 3 Series 2 doors were at the height of their popularity with yuppies. The Cavalier was available in 2 door, 4 door, and convertible. Yet Cimarron was only offered as a 4 door. I think they should have offered all 3 body styles and really focused on the 2 door as a 3 Series 2 door fighter. If they would have given it a little more distinctive sheetmetal (as they did with the first gen Seville), and offered a high performance V-6 and suspension from the start, I think they would have been much better off than offering a 4 door 4 cylinder that appealed to neither traditional Cadillac buyer nor European car buyers.

A high performance BMW fighter would have been a lot better image booster for Cadillac (which was getting a grandpa image at the time) than the overpriced econobox they built.

[LINC400]

correct, it was not a Cadillac Cimmaron, it was a Cimmaron by Cadillac

How is that any different than "Riviera by Buick"? Are Rivieras not really Buicks then?

[Guest my3buicks]

How is that any different than "Riviera by Buick"? Are Rivieras not really Buicks then?

This was also used by Cadillac for the Eldorado's and Seville - it is funny how the same phrase can be used to raise a model up on a pedestal to make stand out as special and then in reverse used to separate a model they are not sure they want associated with a marque.

[NTX5467]

Re: Cimmaron Don't forget, too, that when it appeared was at a time when fuel efficiency was a prime issue for purchasers AND the corporations as they sought to get all of the CAFE numbers they could. The Cimmaron fit into that situation such that ALL GM carlines had an economical (in reality and perception) vehicle for sale. BUT it needed more distinctively-Cadillac sheet metal on it as once you removed the Cadillac-specific items, you had a pretty recognizable Cavalier under the King's coat. The one thing was the V-6 engine, which was easily recognizable as "Chevy". The whole car was done "on a shoestring" budget, it appears, which is ALL GM could afford at the time . . . one of the indicators of their poor economic health in those earlier times.

Personally, when the first '80s fwd C-cars hit, I thought they were pretty nice cars. It was one of the first GM cars to have a "multi-plex" wiring harness where the various computers and sensors talked to each other on common lines at different frequencies and such . . . like a DSL line on an existing phone line . . . just add a frequency filter. This was groundbreaking tech at the time and allowed for simpler harnesses . . . a tech which had evolved from there.

To me, the styling of the fwd DeVilles was appropriate and classy. They were wider than the similar Chrysler products,which was another plus for them. Possibly what some seem to not realize is that they were some of the last Cadillacs which were still Cadillac when they were designed. They hadn't been evolved into some sort of "Euro Luxury" car, but were still AMERICAN LUXURY in all aspects. They were also the only C-car with a V-8 engine, which was an image thing back then. The later-gen aluminum V-8s (another status thing) were much better engines. It should also be remembered that those were "jug" engines where the cylinder assembly was replaceable as a unit, if needed. By the end, they were up to 5.0L and had decent power ratings and performance. They were followed by the NorthStar V-8 and its much more complex and complicated "build", which obviously cost GM LOTS of money in labor and parts to produce. Sad thing is that the front wheels didn't know they had all of that hi-tech NorthStar power turning them, just that something was doing it. At that time, Lexus was the benchmark vehicle and if Lexus had something, Cadillac and others had to also . . . didn't matter if it was a good thing, they had to follow the perceived leader, which they did, thereby handing Lexus what Lexus was after in the USA car market (for which it was designed) . . . sales, status, and prestige.

To me, the Lexus-ized DeVilles are NOT nearly as good in design and esthetics as the earlier fwd Cadillacs . . . with their "sculptured potatoe" shape that's allegedly needed for proper EPA fuel economy numbers, which also has seemed to become "the standard" everybody strives for in more current times. Much less the stark decrease in brightwork ornamentation that's allegedly done to shoe the precise assembly and panel gap alignment rather than the real cost-cutting exercise (parts, labor, etc) it's a part of!

Worst thing I don't like about the fwd DeVilles is the particular font set they used for the instrument panel. Looks a little plain, but certainly an open font that's easy to read. Kind of "underplayed" of sorts, but too much so.

There are still some of these cars around, in nice condition. They are DISTINCTLY CADILLAC unlike the newer potatoes with Cadillac grilles or the popular SUVs with Cadillac grilles and amenities. The Escalades are really quite well-done vehicles! As is the CTS, too! SRX seems too small, which also reflects the size of the door opennings.

Personally, if I was a Cadillac person, I'd be after one of the fwd later '80s pre-NorthStar DeVilles. Uniquely-Cadillac styling. Good highway fuel economy. Good performance. Cadillac STYLE interior in colors other than "beige/tan" or "graphite", too!!! I'd add some stiffer struts and find some nicer whitewall tires (at 14", VERY ECONOMICAL to purchase 14" tires!!!). Doesn't take 7 quarts of oil for an oil/filter change!!!! As they might say . . . "The LAST of the breed".

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[LINC400]

While there will always be people that don't like anything new, previously each new car year was supposed to bring out better new cars.

I recall a little flack about GM's downsizing in 1977, but overall it was the right thing to do, and they were received well enough, especially after the 1980 facelift. However the second round in 1985-6 was definitely a wrong move. I do not recall anyone who bought the 1984 and older versions having anything positive to say about the post '85's.

GM was already offering enough small and mid-size cars. Downsizing the full size Cadillac, Buick, and Olds, and Eldorado, Riviera, and Toronado a second time was definitely a bad move, especially with such look-alike styling to each other and lower end models. These were bought by people that liked full size cars and especially the Eldo and sisters were meant to convey prestige. These were very popular cars where I lived, and I can't recall anyone being happy about the second downsizing. I think GM lost a lot of customers with these cars. People were not happy that they had to "downgrade" to a Chevy to get a full size car if they didn't want or couldn't afford a Cadillac Brougham. They didn't like the idea of switching to Mercury for a Grand Marquis either if they always bought GM's, but many did during that time. Many that did end up buying the downsized cars swore they would never buy another GM again.

Maybe I will end up like the old farts that holler anything after 1930, 1942, etc, is just used junk. For me the year is generally 1984 as I lost all respect for GM when they brought these out. And while they have produced a few interesting cars since then, I don't think they have ever returned to their pre-1985 glory.

Edited March 17, 2012 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[carbking]

Interesting thread.

What is good or bad certainly depends on one's individual views.

I have read the posts concerning those who might be resoldering circuit boards, but I have to believe there are simply too many sealed gadgets on the later vehicles to restore them, regardless of how good they are.

I junked one Ford Aerostar because of an electronic/smog component that is simply unavailable, and not rebuildable; and I have some very good sources.

I have another 1996 which the cruise control is inoperable because the instrument panel has an issue that confuses the speed circuit in the cruise control. Way too many interconnections. Even with all of the factory circuit books (which I was able to obtain), just no way around some of the electronics.

And I get at least one call/week needing an idle speed solenoid for some Chrysler model in the 1970's. Several different, and I am currently unaware any are being reproduced.

My opinion only.

Jon.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Interesting thread.

What is good or bad certainly depends on one's individual views.

I have read the posts concerning those who might be resoldering circuit boards, but I have to believe there are simply too many sealed gadgets on the later vehicles to restore them, regardless of how good they are.

I junked one Ford Aerostar because of an electronic/smog component that is simply unavailable, and not rebuildable; and I have some very good sources.

I have another 1996 which the cruise control is inoperable because the instrument panel has an issue that confuses the speed circuit in the cruise control. Way too many interconnections. Even with all of the factory circuit books (which I was able to obtain), just no way around some of the electronics.

And I get at least one call/week needing an idle speed solenoid for some Chrysler model in the 1970's. Several different, and I am currently unaware any are being reproduced.

My opinion only.

Jon.

What you refer to encountering is very common among vehicles of the late 1980s and up. And by the way the lack of parts support for that Chrysler idle speed solenoid, also known in some circles as an idle stop solenoid, is not unique. The same parts problem exists for Fords of the same era.

About that 1996 vehicle with the cruise control issue, is that a Ford? If so, try replacing the switch on top of the master cylinder. The problem may go away. The whole speed control setup on mid 1990s Ford truck products was about as stupid as one can get, no logical reason for any aspect of it.

Just wait for the air bag light to start flashing. The module is no longer available but you can get around it by doing a board level repair replacing the thermal resistor that has burned out.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Bleach]

I remember I didn't care much for the downsizing of GM full sized cars in '77. They eventually grew on me but the 2nd downsize left me completely unimpressed. These cars appeared to be grossly out of proportion and downright ugly. The downsized Eldorados, Toronado and Rivieras of '79 were ugly and never grew on me as the RWD cars did and the 2nd downsizing looked even worse.

Last year I wanted to buy a "late" model RWD GM for a daily driver but could not find any in decent shape or weren't lowered with hydraulics. I settled for a retired Crown Victoria Police Interceptor that miraculously escaped the abuse these cars usually receive. I've been fairly happy with the car so far but I do see potential issues down the line from crucial operating components that Ford likes to budget engineer and leave consumers holding the bag. If these common issues do surface, I'll probably resort to a Japanese appliance type of car and join the rest of the bored commuters.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

I remember I didn't care much for the downsizing of GM full sized cars in '77. They eventually grew on me but the 2nd downsize left me completely unimpressed. These cars appeared to be grossly out of proportion and downright ugly. The downsized Eldorados, Toronado and Rivieras of '79 were ugly and never grew on me as the RWD cars did and the 2nd downsizing looked even worse.

Last year I wanted to buy a "late" model RWD GM for a daily driver but could not find any in decent shape or weren't lowered with hydraulics. I settled for a retired Crown Victoria Police Interceptor that miraculously escaped the abuse these cars usually receive. I've been fairly happy with the car so far but I do see potential issues down the line from crucial operating components that Ford likes to budget engineer and leave consumers holding the bag. If these common issues do surface, I'll probably resort to a Japanese appliance type of car and join the rest of the bored commuters.

A bit off topic but take a hard look at the Chrysler 300 and the Hyundai Genesis. The latter is a U.S. designed and built vehicle.

[The Continental]

I agree that the 1985 downsize and switch to FWD alienated some people from BOP. I'd give GM until 1987 for the G bodies. Those are always going to be more popular than the full size cars.

[NTX5467]

When the downsized '77 Caprices came online, they sold well and we had many happy customers. Only "glitches" were when one purchaser bought one, loved it, their neighbor/friend bought one but it didn't shift as smoothly as the first one did. That was when GM went to an option code meaning "automatic transmission" rather than a particular automatic transmission. The "good" one had the THM350 in it, the "other" one had the THM200" in it, all with the "MX0 Automatic Transmission" order code. Later, there were "skips" which tune-up techs couldn't get rid of . . . as it was the lockup torque converter doing its thing, but it felt like an "intermittent miss" in the engine, so it went to the driveability techs. The customers weren't prepared for it AND the service advisors didn't have the product knowledge to explain it to customers . . . all for a 3% improvement in highway fuel economy. At that time, the Chrysler lockup torque converters generally locked up at 27mph, later raised to 47mph, but the GMs were modulated by manifold vacuum and road speed.

When the fwd Buick Electra Park Avenues came out, I thought they were neat cars. I advocated a friend look at one and he ended up buying it. He later took it on a trip into the midwest and raved about how good it was in comfort and fuel economy. These cars and their companion Olds 98 models were equally as nice as any model before them, just smaller. But, to me, the "joke" was the "handling package/sport package" that they had, which was Eagle GT tires, aluminum wheels, and possibly larger sway bars. As if the cars had enough power to really use these things to the fullest.

There were some issues with prior GM C-car customers getting into the newer fwd C-cars and realizing there were more changes than they expected. "Strut noise" was a common complaint on the unit-body cars, which their prior body/frame cars didn't have -- that alone accounted for many disgruntled customers AND many TSBs from Buick.

Remember, too, that when the "2nd downsizing" cars were on the drawing boards, the early 1980s recession was in full swing. Fuel economy regulations were highly important, too. Until engine tech caught up, all that could be done was to downsize, use more expensive and lighter materials, and make the best of it with an engine that did good to make 200 horsepower. By the time the cars hit the asphalt, things were better, national economy-wise. The next gen Riviera in '88 reflected the more aflluent times when they were on the drawing board. Ways to meet the CAFE requirements and the new crash standards had eased for a while, so money could be spent on engine technology and research.

To fully understand sales figures, you have to realize that how many units a particular model or group of models sold might not have anything to do with how good or bad they might have been, but also whether the economy was such that many consumers might have stretched their trade cycle to be an extra year or so longer. Not wanting a continued car payment for a year or so, or needing to put that money somewhere else in their budget. Then, when they did feel the need to trade (more necessary at that time than in prior times), they got the best match for what they wanted, even if it wasn't really what they might have wanted . . . at a higher price than they might have wanted to pay. Then, throw in some "unusual' technology or designs and it's the perfect set-up for "I liked my OLD car better" orientations. Then, when that payment book was used up, they went elsewhere to shop, maybe finding a better dealership experience or somebody who better explained why things were why they were . . . an explanation they could understand, so they ended up with a different model or a different brand than what they had. Be that as it may . . .

In the car business, there is NOT the luxury of trying to stay exclusively with models prior to a particular cut-off date. You have to stay current with what's on the showroom floor as time marches on. Existing stock must be sold to make way for the next shippment of vehicles on the way. I don't know how many times I've heard the brake techs complain about "Why didn't they stay with a ______ ABS system, which worked well with few complaints, rather than this ____________ they went to this year!" You would think that an ABS brake system would be pretty cut and dried, but apparently not as GM seemed to want to try everyone in production to check them out . . . at the customer's expense. They paid for that in warranty claims and disgruntled customers.

I like older vehicles, even own many, but I also knew that I wanted to have the confidence that when I take one in for service, the techs know what they're looking at. With my 2000 Impala, it's new enough that they know what they're looking at, gets good fuel economy, AND old enough to have been inexpensive enough to pay cash for.

And the discussion continues . . .

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Back then, remember that when a new model was first considered, it was about 4 years before it would hit the end of the assembly line. As in "completely new" model rather than a "mid-term refresh" or similar. But then one day I realized that GM had 2 or 3 different platform designations, all with wheelbases within a 3" range of each other--max, and they all took different parts! How the heck did that happen???

[LINC400]

It was more than holding on to cars an extra year or two for economic reasons. When the Buick Roadmaster came out, there was quite a bit of newspaper coverage about how Buick dealers were shocked to see the high amount of pre 1984 BOP's coming in on trade (some even dating to pre-1976) and even Marquis and Caprices coming in on trade. Their owners simply held onto them waiting for BOP to come out with the type of car they wanted again, or had switched to Marquis or Caprice because they got tired of waiting.

While the Caprice and Brougham restyle and Roadmaster were long overdue, they were still not as well received as they should have been. In the 1960's for example, Elvis, Motown stars, young successful people all bought Cadillacs. They changed every few years with trendy styling, offered sportier coupes, convertibles, and high horsepower engines.

By the late 1980's, the Brougham had outdated boxy styling, was only a four door, and was not offering any high performance options (eventually the Corvette engine was available, but it was too late, they waited too long). By this time they were considered grandpa cars. So the rounded aero look was too drastic, unlike the 1990 Town Car which managed to combine boxy and aero into a more palatable look for the elderly buyers. Plus the trio were not very well proportioned. The Brougham's grille was too large and the C pillar too small. The Roadmaster's C pillar was too big, and trunk above the taillights too tall. The Caprice was the best proportioned of the three, but even with those buyers complained that the rear looked like it was jacked up. This was resolved by fully opening the rear wheel well, but that left it less interesting looking IMO. Plus all three had ridiculously huge dashes.

With these cars now out of favor, Hondas and Toyotas were now considered every bit the equal of the downsized BOP's. This would never have been the case with the full size BOP's in 1975 or even 1977.

Edited March 18, 2012 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest cargeek2014]

I'd have to say the late 80's, early 90's T-Birds might be. "Big" car, and they still have some power behind the wheels.

[NTX5467]

If the Caprice re-style was long overdue, what about the Crown Victoria?

. . . back to fwd discussion . . .

I fully realize that many in here (and in the outside world) that would never consider ANY fwd car for anything other than "appliance" transportation AND that many of these people either re-trenched into the rwd cars they liked better or moved into light duty 1/2 ton pickup-chassis vehicles. Yet, that does not mean a fwd vehicle might not be a credible vehicle and worthy of some sort of collector status (other than the "garbage collector"). Combine that with general orientations that fwd cars were sometimes associated with econobox imports that were used and discarded, or recycled to other owners who desired something "cheap and economical". Combine that with the "They haven't made a decent car since 19__" orientation and it's easy to understand how many vintage vehicle hobbyiests didn't consider the fwd cars worthy of their attention when they were new, much less in more current times as "future collectible", or even used cars.

It's also understandable that the "retrench" group would seek to find vehicles which they like and keep them on the road for many years into the future. I've been a part of that group, to a certain extent, for many years. That's one reason my '77 Camaro has over 700K miles on it, as others in my "fleet of semi-worthless vintage vehicles--pre-Y2K Impala" are generally under 200K miles. But, like others, I HAVE to admit to current realities, especially fuel costs. Plus ease of getting it serviced by others and having confidence they know what they're looking at.

In my "Quest to get to 30mpg on the highway", there were many cars considered, usually fwd cars. And, I also had a target of $5K investment, which means "used car". I thought of some neat projects, but then I thought I might find something "as is" that might work just as good without the trouble. And that's where I ended up, with the Y2K Impala and 95K miles on it.

Might it be a "future collectible" or "cheap wheels"? Certainly "cheap wheels", all things considered. It fits me better than some other brands of fwd cars, though. As neat as the later '80s fwd DeVilles were, I'm just not a Cadillac owner, but I can appreciate them for what they (and other brands) are. A K-car-based Chrysler Imperial turned up the other day--that was a neat car when new, too, and still could be. Certainly can't find that much luxury packed into that size car anymore!!! There's also a good deal of support in the Online Imperial Club, too.

I realize that my orientations might not be shared with others in here, but in planning for the future of what each of us will be or might be driving in a few years, at some time the priorities and realities of modern life will kick in, which will require a vehicle upgrade to something newer, which will usually be fwd (in the affordable pricepoints). So, rather than automatically dismissing vehicles (according to respective orientatioins, model year or whatever), it might be best to keep up to date as to what's new now, as you might end up driving something like that in 5 years. One orientation I developed many years ago, when I first bought the Camaro, was to "Drive something daily which is expendable, OR you can still find parts for it in the salvage yards or from the aftermarket/repro vendors". Still keep the cars you like best, but don't expose them to the perils of daily use.

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

Edited March 19, 2012 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

I'd have to say the late 80's, early 90's T-Birds might be. "Big" car, and they still have some power behind the wheels.

They were rear wheel drive.

[Guest ken bogren]

I've been thinking lately about looking for a 1988 Ford Festiva like the one I bought new in 88.

That was a fun little car. I remeber how surprised I was the first time I filled the tank after dring the car for a week or more.

42 mpg in Los Angeles commuting!

I had to fill it a few times before I really believed the mileage.

We drove it from LA to Naples FL and got over 50mpg.

Not a hot rod, but fast enough to keep up.

I traded it after getting back to MN where it wasn't such a good car for the winter snow and ice. Still see a couple driving around here in MN though.

[Bleach]

The Crown Victoria will not be restyled anytime in the near future. Ford simply discontinued the model and the entire platform late last year.

I actually wonder if all the trouble I read about Reattas here make this car a truly viable collector vehicle. It has a good following along with the great support fellow owners provide each other. When the remaining parts supplies runs out and remaining spares become unserviceable what then? I imagine the same is true for other similar vehicles with electronics of a similar or even more complex nature. Most cars of that era are simply falling to the same fate as personal computers while there are people who can fix them but the cost to get something "better" is less than what it may run to repair the obsolete vehicle "if" the parts are even available.

A friend scrapped an early S-10 pick-up because of a carburetor that was not adjustable or rebuildable and a replacement could not be located for even twice what the truck was worth.

[NTX5467]

One of the possible saving graces on the Reatta is that it's (basically) a smaller Buick Riviera. Certainly, there are some trim items which are unique to the car, but the mechanicals and electronics were usually shared with the Riviera. Possibly the ABS brake components might be different?

Even when the cars were newer, there were issues with various parts of the ABS system being discontinued from GM. That's why many were traded-in back then, as the cost to repair (when parts were available) was a significant cost for many owners, who just chose to not deal with it. The 'tv' screens had factory repair shops which fixed them under warranty, so these entities just kept on repairing them after they were out of GM warranty. Most of the ABS items were in the aftermarket, which were already remans, but dealers generally didn't want to use reman parts for various reasons, but they were out there.

When the 2nd gen Reatta (with the normal instrument panel) were new, I had to get a weatherstrip where the convertible top sealed against the sheet metal, under GM warranty. It was ONE BIG rubber weatherstrip item! Even back then, those items were such low production that I had to call a particular engineer at GM to order one, as the GM part number wasn't in the parts book. I rather doubt that part will ever be in repro, but possibly could be replicated with roll stock of the correct shape and finessed together with appropriate adhesive.

As mentioned, obviously, there will be an ultimate end to replacement body parts, at some time or another. But we have those issues on higher production vehicles, too.

By observation, the Reatta Forum is one active place. Lots of long-standing tech support in that group, too. AND they like to drive their cars daily, it appears.

When I was mentioning the Caprice vs. Crown Vic redesigns, I was referring to the later 1980s Crown Vics, which stayed on for several more years in that "square" shape as the Caprice became rounded like a "Porky's" Hudson. In retrospect, GM could have done better by not going so far "round" as they did AND not seeming to copy the 1962 Rambler American's rear wheel placement forward of the center of the rear wheel openning in the quarter panel.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Edited March 19, 2012 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[LINC400]

When I was mentioning the Caprice vs. Crown Vic redesigns, I was referring to the later 1980s Crown Vics, which stayed on for several more years in that "square" shape as the Caprice became rounded like a "Porky's" Hudson. In retrospect, GM could have done better by not going so far "round" as they did AND not seeming to copy the 1962 Rambler American's rear wheel placement forward of the center of the rear wheel openning in the quarter panel.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Essenitially the same would apply to the Crown Vic, Marquis, and Town Car.

However the three did get a mild aero restyle of the front and rear in 1985 which the rwd Caprice and Cadillac did not. Their facelift mainly only got composite headlights and a little trim variation, and it wasn't even until 1990 for the Cadillac when Town Car had an all new body that year. And Marquis was available from 1986 on when there was no such offering from Buick or Olds until the Roadmaster.

Back to FWD, as I said earlier, it is not so much the actual FWD or RWD that matters but the type of vehicle usually associated with it. Pre WWII the most desirable cars are luxury cars. Duesenberg, Packard, Pierce Arrow, V-12's, V-16's, etc. But this is not the case after WWII, especially by the mid 1960's - 1970's and beyond. On the Lincoln forum the most collected cars are the 1961-79's. However, outside the forum, these cars (especially 70-79) receive very little collector attention. The same applies for RWD Broughams in the Cadillac club. What receives all the attention are muscle cars and Corvettes. And those cars are RWD. It is not whether they are RWD or FWD, but the fact that they are muscle cars and Corvettes. Since these cars continue to be built with RWD, the FWD cars simply will not be as popular even if they are more unique or offer a performance version. For example the new Challenger is being discontinued. I think it will become a big collectible item. Not because of RWD instead of FWD, but because of it being a retro themed muscle car.

What we may or may not choose or be forced to drive as daily drivers does not not necassarily have anything to do with them becoming collectible. I drove 1970's Lincolns for almost 2 decades as daily drivers. It was no problem when gas was $2.50 a gallon. However, I do not think I would want to be driving one as a daily now with gas approching $4.50 a gallon. That does not mean I want a collectible that gets 30 mpg.

Also my FWD Buick has had way more work done to it than it is worth because it is fine as a daily. I don't want new car payments. And it has been owned since new, so buying something else used would probably be more problems than my Buick plus with an unknown history. That does not mean that I would want to go out an get one in a few years when it becomes an antique and do a full restoration on it. In fact I am unsure if I want to even have my current one's rust repaired again.

[padgett]

It is strange how many long threads are really people arguing the same side of a discussion, sometimes violently.

Every thutty yar or so I buy a new car. This time it had ABS, big 4 wheel disk brakes, 18" tires, 4 wheel independant suspension, and a DOHC/FI/VVT (i&e) 3.6 liter 6 cyl like the Jags of my yout, digital display with readout of coolant, oil, and transmission tems & dual a/c. Sirus, CD and plain radio. Was available with AWD but did not need. Has pushbutton starting and bluetooth and personal recognition.

Personally have had FWD, RWD, and AWD. with front, rear, and mid engines. Gas and diesel. Just went through a thinning process so down to drivers (all different prpose) and one project. Being a Floridian I like a rear engined car (easier to a/c) but not essential. All-in-one powertrain packages make a lot of sense to me as an engineer.

Is a lot of emotion involved in my car selection (no reason to just use logic) though tend to cluster around a powertrain for commonality of spares.

Only real requirement is that all (including the 4spd-400 cid toy) have a/c.

Current herd ranges from a 42 year old and all but one are old enough to vote.

So "I never met a car I didn't like." (though a stripper 60 Ford came close). People joke about the Yugo but without eager buyers would we have had a Bricklin ? Just sold my last Fiero so no longer have a car like the Trabant.

Result: I really do not care where the engine is as long as the vehicle, as a whole, is "interesting". Also enjoy these forums, particularly when cultures clash. Is odd but I have had cars go from new to old to collectible before and remember GTOs being too new for POCI so the GTOAA was formed (and talking about 64-74, not ones this century). It is a fun ride in more ways than one.

BTW I even kinda liked the Cimmaron perhaps because I never had one, never has an '80s Caddy diesel either for which I am thankful.

ps my new car is a Heapdirow.

Edited March 19, 2012 by padgett (see edit history)

[LINC400]

I just have to say that I find it insteresting that almost everyone has spelled "Cimarron" incorrectly (not Cimmaron).

Probably not a good reflection on the car or the name chosen for it.

[padgett]

I guarentee nothing from memory, particularly speeling. YMMV.

[Guest]

I just have to say that I find it insteresting that almost everyone has spelled "Cimarron" incorrectly (not Cimmaron).

Probably not a good reflection on the car or the name chosen for it.

#143

helfen

Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2010

Location: vulcania

Posts: 1,222

Re: Soon to be Collectable Front Wheel Drive Vehicles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleach

Those were an absolute embarrassment to the marque but not as bad as the Cimarron. Those were hard on the eyes.

__________________________________________________ _______

Just what did you expect Cadillac to do? Cadillac was forced into the mix with Cimmaron because of CAFE requirements, and not dealers insisting on a small car because (contrary to what some believe) Cadillac knew Cadillac buyers would reject such a car. So Cadillac used the J platform and it's technology because they could share production cost to cover the loss. We all know GM has made some bad decisions, but this is one car that came about because of government decisions. Cadillac also did it's best to downplay the car by instruction from GM, and instructed sales to do the same by saying the car was not technically a Cadillac.

_________________________________________________________

Thanks mom!

D.