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"
19248 messages, Last post on Nov 09, 2009 at 3:32 AM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
My previous message is just a transcript of what went through my mind, as I read the article about the '09 Fit, and recalled the comments about the 30 year old Mercedes. For a brief moment I thought, hey, for around three large you can be surrounded by leather. And, although the parking attendant at a fancy restaurant might not park your '79 SD between the new Ferrari and the Bentley in front of the establishment, he might park it in the front row on the side, where the grille and the three pointed star are in full view, rather than in the back of the restaurant, next to the bushes. However, my rational mind soon prevailed, and I agree fully with what each of you said. By the way, I rarely hand my keys over to a valet. I prefer to tip the valet and park my own car. Also, contrary to what might be inferred by this and my previous message, I'm not into status symbols. If I bought a MB, it would be for the driving experience, not the status.
|
|
|
|
|
wicked clean how about 14WD?! seats 9 classic 70's seems cheap crazy thing too much hard cider before writing ad? couldn't git er done not as cool as the name how much? laser stripe and all scout II gram mobile ad title: Dodge $950 this guy will never have his own show about towing another saab story
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 08, 2008 6:28 am) Now, is it roomy? For my needs, I'd have to say no. Front legroom is something like 41.3 inches, and rear is around 34.5". Shoulder room is about 52.7 up front, around 52 in back. Headroom is where it gets its volume from. Something like 41" up front, 39 in back. So essentially, it's sort of like a 1984 Cavalier with a VERY high roof. If you were comfortable in a 1984 Cavalier, then you'll be fine in this thing. However, that shoulder room is going to feel tight to me, most likely putting the door right up against my shoulder, and don't even get me started on the curvature of the windows, which would probably force me into a "gangsta lean" driving position. And that mimimal front legroom is probably gonna be a killer for me. As for fuel economy, I'm sure the Fit would do much better than 27/33 in the real world. I'm convinced that the numbers the EPA uses these days are way too low, and designed so that ANYBODY could beat them. Sort of a "no child left behind" of the automotive world? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that 27/33 would roughly equate to around 31/37 using the EPA's older numbers.
|
|
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
