Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
19375 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 4:03 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 06, 2008 2:32 pm) Those that want used luxury can find plenty of pre owned 90s E or S Classes, 5 or 7 series BMWs, Lexuses, Acuras, Infinitis, Jags, and pretty much most midsize sedans that have same features that that old Benz had (leather, sunroof, a/c, CD, power windows, and locks.
|
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Nov 06, 2008 2:38 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 06, 2008 2:32 pm) So if he thinks his '79 Benz oil burner is worth $11,000, then my friend's 1995 toyota Corolla is worth $16,000 and my 1997 Subaru Outback is worth $20,000. |
|
|
|
Yeah, $2,700-$2,800 sounds more reasonable to me for a '79 than $11,000, even considering it's a large, low mileage, seemingly very well maintained MB. At that price it's appealing, with the idea that you'd get rid of it before you put any serious money into it.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm) Yeah, I'd say $3,000 is a fair price for it.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 06, 2008 5:47 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 06, 2008 5:47 pm) Back in 1979, nobody would have considered that Benz to be a large sedan. At least, nobody in America. It pretty much fell in range with the cars that were marketed as compacts at the time. The EPA rated it at 96 cubic feet of interior and 15 cubic feet of trunk. That put it ahead of the Granada/Monarch and AMC Concorde. It had the same interior space as a Nova (96) but a larger trunk (Nova only had 13 cubic feet). But the Fairmont/Zephyr, Aspen/Volare, and Diplomat/LeBaron were all larger, at least in 4-door form. My '79 Newport, which had a 318-2bbl with a small throat and a tall 2.45:1 axle, would get around 22 on the highway. I wonder if there was any "true" full-sized car back then that could hit 25? The most efficient full-sized configurations I could find for 1978 (the EPA only listed combined numbers in 1979, but 1978 shows the city/highway cycles) were... 18/25: Olds Delta 88 with the 260 V-8 17/25: Pontiac Catalina/Buick LeSabre with the 231 V-6 17/24: Pontiac Catalina/Bonneville and Buick LeSabre with the 301 V-8 16/23: Olds Delta 88 with the 350 "Rocket" V-8. Oh, and any full-sizer with the 350 Diesel was rated 21/30. Those were the old fashioned, overly generous, raw laboratory numbers, though...the same ones that gave so many small cars in that era EPA ratings of 40+ and even 50 mpg. |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 06, 2008 5:47 pm) People would line up to pay 5-6K for it, I have no doubt. Heck, if its as good as it looks, I'd pay 3K for it right now. A nice diesel W116 is uncommon anymore. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 6:19 pm) I don't consider it large now (at least the interior). Look at the last pic of the back seat. There is no legroom at all. I would think a CamCord would have more room with the front seats all the way back. |
|
|
Are these worth this little? or is something amiss? This blue is prettier, but twice the mileage.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
