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 Buying Luxury used cars
411 messages, Last post on Jul 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 07, 2009 9:11 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 07, 2009 10:10 am) 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  )
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (Jan 07, 2009 10:14 am) IMO, the car didn't really accomplish anything that the old Bonneville Brougham couldn't have done. In fact, once the Grand Ville name was retired, Pontiac brought back the Bonneville Brougham. As for the Chevy Caprice, IMO the 1970's models really weren't any more luxurious inside than the 1960's models, so I guess Chevy's division execs got the short end of the stick! That mandate may have been the reason that the 1971 Chevies had sort of a Cadillac-ish looking front end, though. I don't think you could get leather in a Grand Ville or Bonneville Brougham back in those days, and I'm positive that the Caprice didn't offer it, so that was another area where the Chevy/Pontiac execs would've been screwed by that mandate. Eventually, I think the downsized Bonneville offered leather, or maybe it was the 1983-86 Parisienne. I don't think you could get leather in a Caprice until around 1987. Market saturation of various features is something else, I guess, that dilutes the meaning of a luxury car as time goes by. For instance, once upon a time, air conditioning was a luxury item. So were power windows and leather. These days though, it's almost impossible to find a new car without a/c and power windows. And leather is available in just about everything but the cheapest cars.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 07, 2009 10:31 am) Regards, OW |
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Jan 07, 2009 2:40 am) The first qualification of a luxury car is that it be an uncommon and rare motor car. A car you don't frequently see in the shopping mall parking lot. A car sold only in the cities large enough to support an NFL or MLB team. As of yet, such is not manufactured in the USA, the Orient, or Norway.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Jan 07, 2009 11:29 am) Is armor plate considered "luxurious"? And Detroit supports an NFL team.....if you can call it that.  Poor Detroit....poor, poor Detroit... median home price San Francisco $500,000 median home price Detroit: $80,000 |
|
Why do people getoff badmouthing anything American? We have a bunch of people who love to tell you how they are patriots ,but they're the same ones driving up our competitors economy and handing your brother his pink slip. The bailout we truely need is for Americans to support their own jobs. The mentality of today vs. post WW2 is 180 degrees out. People learned to adjust habits and purchases that show support beyond their big mouths. Checkout the showrooms as they are beating the comp in almost every category except sales.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gmpatriot (Jan 07, 2009 4:15 pm) We in the "Classics" Forum are trying, in this particular forum topic, to focus on the problems and pitfalls of buying older, used luxury cars. You might want to scan the list of topics in "Automotive News" forum, many of which deal with the very issues you are bringing up. I pulled it up for you: List Containing Topics on the State of the American Automotive Industry thanks! MrShiftright Host |
|
A friend at work just sold his BMW 740. It was around a 2000 model with 130K on the clock. I asked him a year ago about it, and he had nothing but good things to say about it. I noticed him driving a Honda Pilot yesterday and he explained that he sold the BMW because his new car payment was roughly equivalent to the average monthly maintenance and repairs on the Bimmer. No surprise, I suppose.
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Jan 08, 2009 6:36 am) Ouch! A friend gave me the same reason for selling his almost-new Jaguar 20 years ago, except he was referring to the car payment on the Jaguar. 
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars Buying Luxury used cars
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
