Good morning! I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do for this week, so I just grabbed a bunch of car ads that caught my eye and started pairing them up by whatever criteria I could think of. Today’s cars both have two doors, eight cylinders, and different wheels than they originally came with. I guess that’s enough to tie them together.
Friday’s choices had about as much in common; they were both freshly-painted cars from the 70s that needed some mechanical work. And it was no contest; the AMC Hornet not only won on its charm and price, but it also pushed the nostalgia button for a lot of you. We forget, as rare as they are now, but AMC’s cars were actually pretty popular in the 70s, so nearly everyone who was alive then remembers one or two.
And I learned something about each of the cars from the comments, which is always fun – a lot more fun than when I get something completely wrong and you all jump down my throat over it. The Dodge Magnum’s clear headlight covers were retractable because DOT required it, so they’re probably not missing on that car, just stuck open. And the US Forest Service once used a fleet of AMC Hornet sedans, painted in my beloved Forest Service Green. Now that would be a cool project to find.
Non-car people don’t often get this, but a car’s wheels can absolutely make or break its appearance. Since the wheels are one of the easiest things to change on a car, a huge aftermarket exists offering just about any style of wheel to fit just about any car you can imagine. The right set of wheels can make a car look the way it was always meant to look, but the wrong set can destroy the whole effect. Luckily, if you find a car that’s otherwise appealing but has the wrong wheels, you can change them easily. These two have some questionable wheel choices, but they’re both interesting enough cars to warrant a look.
1961 Buick LeSabre – $3,000
Engine/drivetrain: 364 cubic inch overhead valve V8, two-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Auburn, WA
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: “Runs, drives, stops”
Here we have a prime example of why I have stopped trusting sellers. This car is listed as a 1963 Buick LeSabre, but it didn’t quite look right. I thought I remembered the ’63 GM full-size cars being boxier than this. This style of hardtop coupe, with its slender pillars and huge windows, is commonly known as a “bubbletop,” and it was only produced for one year: 1961.
The ’61 LeSabre is powered by a 364 cubic inch version of Buick’s “Nailhead” overhead-valve V8, along with a two-speed “Dynaflow” automatic. If you’ve never driven a car with this transmission, it’s wild – it almost acts like a CVT. The torque converter does most of the work; in fact, the Dynaflow normally operates only in high gear. If you want low gear, for acceleration or climbing hills, you have to downshift it yourself. If you’re thinking that sounds horribly inefficient, you’d be right. This is not an economy car. It runs and drives, but that’s all the seller has to say.
It has been customized a bit inside; someone has covered the seats and door panels with some sort of fuzzy purple material. I don’t know the condition of the seats under it, but I have a feeling it’s not good. If you’re OK with looking like you skinned Grimace for your car interior, it might be best to just leave it.
Outside, it has some rust, but it’s probably ignorable unless you plan to really go deep and fully restore it. The seller does say that the trunk floor is rusted out, though, so if you want to put anything back there, you should probably weld a new pan in. The wheels are unfortunate, but they can be changed, and you could probably sell these to fund something more suitable – I’m thinking steelies with baby moon hubcaps.
1983 Mercury Cougar LS – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 302 cubic inch overhead valve V8, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Odometer reading: 128,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Mercury Cougar was always a car with an identity crisis. It started out as a fancy version of the Ford Mustang, then later became Mercury’s version of the Ford Torino and Elite, and then joined forces with the Thunderbird. The generation before this was virtually indistinguishable from the Thunderbird, so for this 1983 redesign, Mercury made sure the Cougar stood out. Whether or not that’s a good thing depends on how you feel about its odd bolt-upright rear window.
The standard Cougar engine was Ford’s Essex 3.8-liter V6, but this one has the optional V8, which Ford calls a 5.0-liter, but only if you round up. It’s really 4.942 liters, but that doesn’t look as good on a badge. In the Cougar, this engine is fed by throttle-body fuel injection and makes a tire-chirping 130 horsepower. The transmission is Ford’s AOD four-speed automatic. The seller says it’s dependable and was recently “serviced,” whatever that means to them.
Ford did a slightly better job with interiors in the 80s than GM or Chrysler did, but there’s still an awful lot of creaky plastic in here. It has bucket seats and a center console, but for some reason the shifter is still on the column; maybe Mercury thought a floor shifter was just too racy for its customer base. It’s in reasonably good shape, but I can’t tell if the upholstery is dirty, or worn, or just badly photographed.
It’s clean outside, and as rust-free as you’d expect a desert car to be. I’m guessing this car originally came with steel wheels and fake wire wheel hubcaps. I guess the American Racing five-spoke wheels are an improvement. At least it has all four center caps, unlike so many cars from the ’80s and ’90s that wear these wheels.
These two are basically the same idea, just a couple of decades apart, so I guess the question is whether you prefer late Jet Age styling, or the early aero efforts of the Reagan years. You’ve got a good-running V8 either way. So what’ll it be?
Good Lord, what is the obsession with massive wheels and tires with next to nothing for sidewalls?
They don’t ride well, the rims get bent or broken by curbs and pot holes, and maybe it’s just me but I think they look like crap, too.
The only time a 15 aspect tire makes sense is when it’s over a foot wide and under the back end of a super car – then they actually look great.
Cougar, if the no other reason than to not reward the LeSabre owner for what was done to the car.
If the Buick wasn’t such a P.O.S the Cougar wouldn’t stand a chance.Mechanical repairs are one thing but a rust bucket is something I have absolutely no interest in anymore.Those days are over for me.
I’m a GM man, and fully expected to vote team Buick when saw the headline, but ended up on team Cougar. The Buick is gorgeous (except for the gawd-help-us wheels) but there was a bit too much sketch: 1) rust 2) more rust 3) misinformation about the year and the engine 4) can you really trust the judgement of someone who chose those wheels? What other nefarious decisions were made? Plus, although it looks unique, I’m not really a fan of the pre-buckled A-pillar.
The Cougar has a trustworthy motor and a mostly innocuous design – it’s good enough to eke out a win today.
You make some good points; however the classic car market makes the buick a better value; running driving for $3K? Gotta be a scam
I’m feeling like taking on a project today so I would take the Buick and fix it up.
Anyone who was alive and aware of cars when the Cougar debuted in 1967 probably considers this generation Cougar the nadir of model design. Beginning with Gen 4, the Cougar just got bigger and sloppier (we won’t talk about Gen 8) with each succeeding generation, although there was a bit of downsizing in there. If you came along later, these Cougars probably didn’t look any worse to you than its contemporaries. I’m older, so I hate these cars.
The Buick doesn’t do much for me either, except that when my grandfather finally felt that he’d arrived in the world, he began to drive Buick Special coupes. The Special became the LeSabre in 1959 and ‘61 was his last Buick before he switched to a VW Squareback (!) in 1963. All of his Buicks were black and white. The LeSabre is getting the nostalgia vote today.
On what planet was the VW Squareback sold in 1963?
Siri says first year is 1966. Which is what I remembered but?
I am old too. Sometimes it’s a bit of a memory thing.
Type 3 debuted in the early ’60s. I don’t think it really landed in the US market till ’66, but it was already old-ish by the time they tried pushing them hard here in the late ’60s and early ’70s.
And, as much as I love the Squareback, the Type 34 Ghia is astoundingly handsome and rare.
Yeah, it should’ve read 1966. They did exist overseas before then, but not here.
That Buick is a stunning car. (Minus those wheels, of course) Shine that one back up.
I like both choices, but the rust and crust on the Buick is making me go for the Cougar. I always liked how they look.
I’ve always liked the styling on this generation of Cougar plus the custom interior on the LeSabre looks like a bathroom mat.
I knew that Cougar would have a red velour interior.
That Buick has some cool lines. Maybe the wheel will grow on me. I hope that fuzzy interior doesn’t literally grow on me.
That is NOT a Nailhead in that Buick. The distributor is up front, and should be behind the carb, and the valve covers aren’t upright. I’m guessing it’s a later Buick V8 currently in it along with some transmission of unknown spec. I’m taking the Cougar purely because it’s “less messed with”.
Not a Nailhead at all – could be a later 350/400/455 tho.
That’s better. Nailheads don’t breathe for shit because the head design was supposed to be 4 valves per cylinder with a whole other section of rockers and valves canted outward (and the XP version of the engine was supercharged, too!)
Instead, they made this small-valve thing.
The later 455 and its brethren were only like 100 lbs heavier than a fully-dressed Chevy 305 and had a much deeper well of torque.
Agreed. I had a 322 in a ’54 Century, and the only good things about the engine were how it looked (classic hot-rodder engine), the torque, and the cam lope it had from the factory. Beyond that? Not much else. The later engine would be a better option.
I never knew about the 4-valve design intent with the Nailhead. My dad was a Buick nut and owned several ’62s, including at least two Wildcats, and this sounds like a bit of trivia he should have known but maybe didn’t.
More info here: Secrets of the Buick Nailhead V8 – Mac’s Motor City GarageMac’s Motor City Garage
The Nailhead intakes are nice and straight, but the exhaust path is real pinched. It’s not as bad as the Ford Flathead that routes the exhaust port through the water jacket (!) but it’s pretty limiting. The cylinder head of the Nailhead is half what it was supposed to be.
Crap, you’re right – I was in a hurry last night and just looked up the specs without looking closely enough at the photos.
No worries. I only caught it because I’ve owned a Nailhead and I expected to see one here, and didn’t.
Keep up the good work, I look forward to the showdown every morning!
This is the battle of rooflines.
The Bubbletop Buick has one of the absolute best-ever. That’s such a sharp-looking car. Unfortunately, this one is disgusting.
On the other hand, that Fox-body Cougar’s “formal” roofline is just awful shit. Automotive Sansabelt trousers foisted upon us in the last gasps of the professional lives of people who started in the car business in the 1930s. A vestige of the decade-long callbacks to the “grandeur” of the automobiles of the 1920s on the hardware of the ’70s.
The car itself is a great color combo, in great shape, and it’s a Fox body, so there’s plenty of ways to make it entertaining; and it’s not bad from the start.
Personal Luxury coupes are dope – so as much as I hate the C-Pillar gigantism due to metastasized nostalgia, the trophy is found at the Sign of the Cat today.
These cougars were hot cars in the 1980s.
Just like my dating history, I’m going to ignore all the blatant red flags and choose the curvaceous Buick that’ll surely lead me to heartbreak and financial ruin.
That LeSabre looks a lot like an Oldsmobile Starfire (which I love). I wonder if they’re basically the same car. I certainly don’t hate it.
Yes, pretty much the same car. B-Body.
The Buick looks cool (sans the wheels), but that gearbox looks like a nightmare.
The Cougar is impossibly awful. The hood-to-windscreen proportion is disgusting, as are the overhangs the size of donaldo’s idiocy, and such badly executed rear window.
None of these cars would keep me out of frequent interviews with the police a propos of nothing.
Maybe the Buick is tolerable once I change the wheels, but then again, I’d be driving a ’61 iteration of a CVT with a huge expanse of rear real estate useful only for pigeons with active bowels.
Oh, the horrible things the red velor in that Cougar has seen.
I’ve always hated that generation of Cougar. I’m not paying money for one. That Buick, on the other hand, is begging to be saved. It’s gorgeous, and just needs a little lovin’.
It’ll need more than just ‘a little’ lovin’.
Eh. Change the wheels, deal with the fuzzy interior. Drive.
And make sure the body hasn’t separated from the frame due to rust. If the trunk is gone, the mounting points are surely not in much better condition if my personal experience is any indication.
Fair point, but the rest of the body is solid enough that it could have just had a leaking trunk weatherstrip for years upon years take out the trunk floor.
I really wanted to vote for the Buick because it’s just a cooler looking car but this particular example feels too far gone. Reluctant vote for the 80’s refugee.
I’m not a Ford guy, but the Aero-Birds are my favorite generation, and a Cougar is a little more bougie. I would find a newer, stronger 302 for it though.
I’ll take the Foose
I have to make a confession. I think donks are cool. I secretly search Craigslist for them and imagine what it would be like to have one.
I grew up in Northern California during the mini-truck era, and I thought those were cool, too.
Really any vehicle that someone has gone through great effort to turn into a statement about themselves, I respect. Except for the Carolina Squat.
I’m down with the donks too! In my fantasy lotto garage is a Soul Train themed donk. I’d call it Donk Cornelious.
Donks are basically that guy you know that keeps saying deez nuts and while it’s obviously stupid, it’s just funny enough that you can’t hate it. I would never own one, but I do get an amusued little smile every time I see one.
Also, A+ naming on Donk Cornelious, seriously perfect
Gotta take the LeSabre for two reasons:
I really wanted to vote for the Buick, and I don’t hate those wheels. But I think the rot runs sooooooper deep on it. I mean, the valve covers are rusty! Looks like it’s been under water or something.
Gimme the Cougar.
Roast me if you must, but I like those wheels on the Buick.
I also like its styling a lot more than the Cougar.
I’m indifferent about the wheels, but I agree the Buick is a much better looking car. Or at least it will be, if the right masochist buys it.
I’m not with you on the wheels, but I’m absolutely with you on the Buick for styling.
To each their own taste-wise of course, but I’ll use your comment as an excuse to rant about people complaining about large wheels on older cars.
In-your-face, ostentatious, larger than necessary, shiny chrome was basically the entire styling ethos of the 1950s and 60s for American cars! If this style of wheel and tire had been practical to manufacture in the 60s, there’s no doubt in my mind it would have been factory equipment. My opinion is that people who like plain steel wheels, dog dishes, etc on chrome-festooned land yachts are missing the point.
For me, the biggest problem here is the type of modern wheel used. These are basically a minimalist racing style wheel (b/c everything is now) on a luxury cruiser. The mismatch of ethos is what’s most jarring to me. A say tiered dish approach with fine spokes would look much better to my eyes.
Agreed. It’s not the size of the wheels, it’s the style.
They’re not awful on there, I suppose; I object more to the rubber-band tires than the style of the wheels. I’m afraid that on a car like this, you’re going to get the worst of both worlds when it comes to ride and handling: jittery over bumps because of the short sidewalls, but still wallowy around corners with the soft suspension.
A suspension upgrade is definitely in order if you’re going to rims/tires of that kind.
I don’t hate big wheels on old cars, but I do hate these specific wheels on any car. They just look like the cheap verion of a knock off of a nice wheel. None of the lines work, there are pleanty of big wheels that would work nicely though.