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"
19346 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
|
"...like comparing an Impala to an Electra. Same basic underlying structure..." Andre, are you sure this is true of the '71-76 GMs? I owned a '72 Olds 98 4 door hardtop, and while it was way too long ago for me to remember the source of my information, it's my understanding that the Impala/Caprice, Bonnevilles, 88s, and LeSabres shared a platform, while the 98s, Electras and Caddies were on a different, as well as larger platform. Now I wouldn't bet my life on the matter of two platforms vs. one, but this is the first I've heard of this. You used the term "structure." Is that synonymous or different from platform?
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 07, 2008 4:10 pm) As for the bodies that sat down on the frame, the Electra/98/DeVille shared the same body, the C-body, and the main difference over the B-body was 3 extra inches in the rear seat area, with correspondingly longer rear doors, more formal C-pillars, a longer roof, and rear quarter panels that were a bit more substantial than the B-body. The front seat area was the same though. You could probably swap the front doors between a LeSabre and Electra, for example. And the front-end clips were probably swappable too, although the Electra had a different grille. The Grand Ville was sort of an odd beast, though. They took the B-body, but tried to graft the more formal C-body C-pillar onto it, so it used a roof and rear door glass that was not quite the same as the C-body, but not quite the same as the B-body. For 1975, the Bonneville adopted the same roofline. The Grand Ville was not offered in 1976, but the Bonneville/Bonneville Brougham still used that same roof. Also, while an Electra/98/DeVille benefitted from an extra 3" of legroom in the back seat compared to a B-body, the Grand Ville did not. As for the term "structure", I guess I meant it in sort of generic way. GM would assign different designations to different cars, but sometimes the basic underlying structure, be it the frame, body, or both, would still have something in common. For example, even when these big cars downsized to FWD, the Electra/98/Deville was known as the C-body, while the LeSabre, 88, and Bonneville were known as the H-body. But they were still very similar cars. I'm also convinced that the 1971-78 Eldorado/Toronado, while FWD, are similar to the 1971-76 B- and C-body. While this may seem a stretch, as the Eldo/Toro are FWD, they still have their engines longitudinally-mounted. And if you look at a 1975-78 Toronado, its dashboard is identical to that of a '75-76 Delta 88/98. I think the Eldorado uses the same dash as the DeVilles and Fleetwoods did. So either they're ultimately based on the same design, or that's just one heck of a coincidence! Also, the Eldo/Toro and Riv did redesign for 1971, the same year as the big B/C bodies. I think that's an indication right there. |
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Nov 07, 2008 3:11 pm) According to Edmunds... '00 S2k w/70k miles = $10,800 private party '97 Z3 2.8 w/70k miles = $7800 '97 Boxster w/70k miles = $10,500 Although Edmunds says an S2k would come close, we all know how Honda people are. But thanks for putting it in my head. I'll keep it in mind when and if the time comes.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Nov 07, 2008 5:09 pm) it looked pretty nice. i will take a fly by tomorrow to see if it is still there and get some info if it is. don''t get your hopes up.
|
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Nov 07, 2008 12:53 pm) |
|
|
pics don't get much better than this I just don't find this attractive |
|
|
Thanks for the feedback .. I knew I could count on you guys! I think I'll use Shifty's update to the ad text. As to the rust, I will admit that I didn't take a real close look at the fenderwells, firewall and other hard to see places. I do have a picture of the left taillight, where there was some surface rust:  See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com The idea is that I would field and screen the phone calls, and those who were serious would get my MIL's name and phone number in Wyoming to set a time to see the vehicle. Note - not that it matters much, but it wasn't my FIL who passed away, it was my MIL's husband. Wife's parents divorced when she was 16 and her mom remarried not long afterwards. My FIL passed away almost 3 years ago - that's where we got the '92 Subaru Legacy wagon that was ultimately driven to California and given to my son as a graduation gift. |
|
|
|
|
Well, although there's no controversy over the fact that the '79 SD is heavy and substantial, we never really settled the matter of whether the SD is roomy. As if we hadn't already discussed the size, bulk and interior space to death, and at the risk of reigniting a contentious (although always civil) debate, did you know that the SD was not all that much roomier inside than a...a Honda Fit? No! YES! Today's edition of The Wall Street Journal features an article (on W12) extolling the virtues of the '09 Fit. A caption over a picture of the car reads "Ridiculously Roomy -- A high roofline and wide opening doors contribute to the feeling that the Fit is larger than its compact dimensions." Just how large is ridiculously roomy? Ninety-one cubic feet large. Now that's not quite as much as the SD, with 96 cubes of space, but if 91 is ridiculously large, then 96 must be, what, outrageously large? I don't mean to start an argument over semantics here, but it may also mean there are no adjectives to adequately describe the interior space of one of the Detroit mastodons of the day. In the end, roomy may be relative -- as Einstein would say if he were participating in this intellectually challenging discussion...and I have no doubt that he'd be a participant in this discussion if he were still alive. And, oh yeah, in a glaring omission, the WSJ article failed to mention whether the Fit's "high roofline" was sufficiently high to accommodate a Viking hat. Sorry, Shifty, but you might have to don that hat upon exiting one of those wide opening doors. I know it's not the same as wearing it while driving, but, hey, one must be willing to accept some tradeoffs for fuel economy. Oh, did I mention fuel economy? The article pegs the EPA fuel economy for the '09 Fit at 27/33/29. Hmmm, I know of a nice '79 300 SD that can do that. Well, almost. But you can buy it for only a fraction of what it costs to drive that Fit out of the showroom. I'll leave it to you to decide the moral of this comparison, since I may not have enough morals to make the call.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 08, 2008 6:28 am)  Remember it's not fair to compare an old car you will use as a "toy" with a new car you will use all day everyday. If you want to calculate the probable cost to own an old Benz diesel, you have to assume you're going to have to keep it in the condition necessary to drive at freeway speeds for 12,000 miles a year. That's a big difference from owning one as a vegetable oil experiment going 2,500 miles a year as a grocery getter.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 08, 2008 8:25 am) |
|
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
