Buying Luxury used cars

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 06, 2009 11:22 am)

Replying to: texases (Jan 05, 2009 12:59 pm)

Replies to this message:
• fezo (Jan 06, 2009 3:54 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Jan 06, 2009 8:57 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 06, 2009 10:01 am)

True. My 1989 Cadillac Brougham is spartan compared to today's luxury cars. Heck, a new Hyundai Elantra probably has more features. I thought my 2002 Cadillac Seville STS was a loaded car, but even it seems like a plain jane compared to my Cadillac DTS Performance which has far more features than I'll ever use - or even figure out!

Replying to: lemko (Jan 06, 2009 12:30 pm)

What? Only 21 years old and it needs a battery already??

Replies to this message:
• Mr_Shiftright (Jan 07, 2009 9:11 am)
  • andre1969 (Jan 07, 2009 10:10 am)
    • texases (Jan 07, 2009 10:14 am) and 2 more...
• euphonium (Jan 07, 2009 11:29 am)
  • Mr_Shiftright (Jan 07, 2009 11:52 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Jan 07, 2009 2:40 am)

Luxury to me means rich, unattainable, special. The PA is just a mass-produced Buick with softer seats. I don't get the luxury part. How can luxury be common and ordinary? Makes no sense. Will we be talking about the luxury of the Malibu next? Hope not

Replies to this message:
• andre1969 (Jan 07, 2009 10:10 am)
  • texases (Jan 07, 2009 10:14 am)
    • andre1969 (Jan 07, 2009 10:31 am) and 1 more...

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 07, 2009 9:11 am)

Luxury to me means rich, unattainable, special. The PA is just a mass-produced Buick with softer seats. I don't get the luxury part. How can luxury be common and ordinary? Makes no sense.
 
I think the 70's, and the push for more luxurious cheaper cars, probably muddled a lot of people's ideas of what a luxury car should be. Also around that time, sales of more expensive cars just exploded. Lincoln and Cadillac both had some record sales years.
 
The main reason I'll still defend something like Lemko's Park Ave and my '79 New Yorker is because their forebears were luxury cars. Or at least, IMO they were. If you go back to, say, 1955, a New Yorker or Buick Roadmaster were very luxurious cars. They were still a step below a Cadillac or Imperial in price, although there was a bit of overlap with Lincoln. Well I always considered a Caddy, Lincoln, or Imperial to be a luxury car, so because the NYer and Roadmaster were close enough in price, I'd just lump them in as well, as the bottom end of the luxury market.
 
Back in those days, the Olds 98, while the top Olds, had very little in common with the Roadmaster. The Roadmaster shared the big C-body with the Cadillac. Actually the Super did as well, but it was much lower in price and not as well-appointed. More akin to a DeSoto Fireflite or Chrysler Windsor in price, IIRC. In contrast, the Olds was on the B-body, same as the 88 and the Buick Special/Century. They stretched the wheelbase to make it look more impressive, but managed to do it in a way that yielded no more interior room (a common trait back then ) The 98 was also priced more in the middle of the market in those days, again about on par with a DeSoto Fireflite.
 
As the years went on, though, the cheaper cars got nicer, while the nicer cars got cheaper. The Roadmaster was replaced by the Electra for 1959. That same year, the 98 went from the B-body to the C-body, so it became more of an equal to the senior Buick, and at the point I'd consider it a luxury car. But soon, cars like the Caprice, LTD, and VIP would be on the scene, with interiors that were as plush or plusher than some of the base trim levels of the Electra/98 and New Yorker. And when equipped with the right engine, performance would be as good or better.
 
The 1970's was when it really got convoluted, though. Ford launched the tacky, pretentious Granada, which was an instant hit. Mopar issued the Dart SE and Valiant Brougham, which had enough velour, shag, and thickly padded vinyl to out-rival a Cadillac or Lincoln. And they'd do more of the same with the Aspen SE and Volare Premier. GM put out luxury versions of the Nova, Skylark, et al. The impudence probably peaked with 1977, and the Lincoln Versailles. IIRC it was the priciest Lincoln that year, yet it was little more than a tarted up Granada, which itself was based on the humble Maverick...and I hear that can even be traced back to the Falcon.
 
People were definitely demanding more luxurious cars in the 1970's, especially in the later years. In the past, cars like the Chevrolet Caprice and Pontiac Bonneville had been relatively scarce compared to the mainstream Impala and Catalina. Yet in 1977, the market shifted and the Caprice and Bonneville were outselling the cheaper Impala and Catalina. Similarly, with Olds and Buick, the higher trim levels of the Delta 88 and LeSabre were outselling the cheaper models.
 
I guess that for all the whining about what a bad era that was, car buyers had enough disposable income to get into those pricier models. And while they were still upscale, plush cars, they were no longer relatively scarce, as they had been in the past. If anything, it was the more base level cars that were becoming the rarities.

Replies to this message:
• texases (Jan 07, 2009 10:14 am)
  • andre1969 (Jan 07, 2009 10:31 am)
    • circlew (Jan 07, 2009 11:22 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 07, 2009 10:10 am)

"I think the 70's, and the push for more luxurious cheaper cars"
 
Here's a question - I remember reading somewhere that Chevy/Olds/Buick fullsize cars added lots of available luxury features when the edict came down at GM that all division executives had to drive cars from their division. This created a need for 'luxurious' models. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this? (wish I could remember where I read it )

Replies to this message:
• andre1969 (Jan 07, 2009 10:31 am)
  • circlew (Jan 07, 2009 11:22 am)