WinterInAmerica wrote:

> Hi there. I would be very interested in anyone's opinion on this
> matter. I am looking to buy my first car (always lived in philly, used
> public trans for years before this). I really would like my first car
> to be a mid-60s era cadillac. My friends think this is a phenomenally
> bad idea. Folks point to a lack of 'crumple zones' or airbags in older
> cars, that I would constantly have to replace parts (which would be
> some serious long green), and even then, where would I get parts, that
> I couldn't rely on it to get me to work, and that it is just plain
> dangerous, blah blah blah. In your expert opinions, how seriously
> should I regard these naysayers, and how much of what they are saying
> is mambojahambo? Despite all of this, I still find myself pretty
> dead-set on the idea - what advice could you give someone in my
> position who knows very little about cars, and who is looking to buy an
> older vehicle?
>
> Thanks!
> WiA
>

I think that your friends are full of crap, a '60's Caddy would be an
excellent driver car. Unlike Chevys and Fords of the same era, the
Cadillac engines were excellently engineered and will last a long time
with only routine maintenance. Moreover, they're usually owned by
little-old-lady types and not abused.

That said, if you know "very little about cars," you likely will be
violated most unpleasantly by the first repair shop you bring such a
machine to, and you should also not even buy a 30 year old car unless
you know how to look for common signs of trouble. Some problems that
look very scary are no big deal to someone who knows how to hold a
wrench; some that appear to be no big deal mean lots of expensive work
in the future. I'm not trying to discourage you from dreaming of one;
just saying that you should learn how to work on an old car first, then
go shopping. Sorry if I just burst your bubble.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel