Returning after Toyota week, this issue is quite a jump forward in time from the last Ads’ post of 1981. More than two years ahead, 1983 seems just about to leave the Malaise era behind- at least judging by the ads.
Anyway, it’s firmly into the Eighties. Starting off with the very sleek Audi 5000 (100):
Compere the Audi with this, a car from different times.
Another relic from the past, this Golf was about to be replaced soon (I refuse to call it Rabbit, it’s a silly name).
Start the count: One.
Two.
This ad is more like a fashion ad than a car, let alone a truck.
Three.
I know we’ve rehashed this over here at CC, but I still cannot get over how they managed to turn a perfectly handsome car into this.
I mean, just look at this. I found some slides from a trip I had with my parents way back in 1984. This is the Hertz-hired Escort (in Austria).
Not a car, but a legend still.
Small SUVs are in. This, and the S-15 above.
Who can forget this- the future. Oh, and The Best GM Ever…
The Cavalier. On wait- it’s a Buick?
Four. That’s four ads involving the L-Body Charger/Turismo. And the second involving Shelby.
Some weird and wonderful cars in the classifieds:
I’ve inserted this very innocent-like piece about a new military vehicle, about to replace the iconic M151. Humble beginnings…:
More to come thought the week- stay tuned.
The Audi 100–the car that launched a thousand jellybeans.
(I mean no disrespect by that, and I thought and still think the 5000/100 is a very handsome car. But it started something, to be sure.)
It started a lot of nervous breakdowns among it’s owners.
Ain’t that the truth.
Besides exterior styling, the Audi C3 was compelling because it represented a dedicated and well-studied embrace of luxury for a fair price. It wasn’t “value-priced” luxury, as seen in a loaded Cressida or Datsun 810; it wasn’t austere luxury, as exemplified by the W123; it was luxury defined by complete integration and tactile satisfaction. The Audi C3’s interior was decadent but in a subtle way. Just imagine stepping into the new Audi and beholding its interior in late ’83:
Speakers and side window demisters were housed housed under the same grille. Power window switches were backlit. Map lights with complex lenses were placed in each corner of the headliner in a bezel which also housed passenger assist grips. Articulating headrests were placed at all four corners with a distinctive see-through design. A multi-function trip computer was standard and took up minimal real-estate on the dashboard (without garish LEDs a la BMW). HVAC vents were double the size of those in most cars; each was divided in two, could be adjusted in two different directions, were shut with a well-damped flap, and were present for rear passengers as well. Plastics were low gloss and deeply grained, velours were rich and durable. The steel sunroof had a two-piece interior panel enabling tilt-ventilation of the interior without exposing unsightly mechanical components. It was so convincing and modern in its presentation that it could overshadow power seat switches and automatic climate controls borrowed from Cadillac.
Being state-of-the-art in the early ’80s, the design wasn’t timeless, and housed as it was in a body which remained in production until 1991, it was replaced by a short-lived and more traditionally conceived interior before the end of the car’s production run.
But the kind of slickness it embodied also found expression in the superb interior of the Saab 9000 and later, the cabin of the 9-5 where (along with massively boosted B-block engines) it formed the two-part act which sold that ultimately lackluster car. The original Infiniti Q45’s interior was clearly inspired by the covert decadence of the original Audi C3 interior, but against its opulent competitors, it just looked stark and did not date well.
So it’s interesting that, while the Audi 5000’s exterior styling helped lead an aerodynamic revolution, the appeal of its interior design was a flash in the pan and, until someone revives a similar expression of luxury, an evolutionary dead end.
You’re certainly right about that. My Dad bought a used 5000S, a 1986 model, in 1994. And compared to the cars I had been used to (’79 Malibu, ’79 Fairmont, ’83 Escort) it was in a totally different league. That interior was, in a word, brilliant. Luxury without being coddling like a Cadillac or Lincoln, just extraordinarily well thought-out and well put-together. The car had over 80,000 miles on it and the interior looked brand-new and still had that characteristic Audi scent. I can’t vouch for the velour as ours had leather, but I still remember that buttery tan color and the feeling of thickness.
The trip computer was one thing we didn’t have–if it was standard in ’83 it had become an option by ’86. I can’t quite recall what was in that spot, maybe a blank, maybe another vent?
It really was a striking, thoughtfully designed, and well put-together car, inside and out. Shame that it was infested with an entire population of electrical gremlins, which made the ownership experience rather frustrating, quite expensive, and turned my father off to German cars permanently.
All I see is fragile,overpriced, unreliable piece of crap with alarmingly rapid & steep depreciation.
I owned an 83 Skyhawk with the OHC engine, 5 speed manual transmission and automatic climate control. I think that Cadillac’s Cimarron did not have any of these features.
Also, three of those 10 best enthusiast cars are eluding me–the owner of the chrome-trimmed headlamp, plus both red hoods.
That chrome trimmed headlamp is from an early gen. 2 Camaro
Early Gen2 Camaro? You are kidding? That’s a Ferrari, if I remember that issue correctly. I can’t remember exactly which Ferrari, though.
I think the red-orange hood, opposite the yellow car, belongs to a Corvette. The other red one, in the lower corner, is a Fiat….if I remember correctly.
Road&Track came out with a similar cover on their Used Car Classics Buyers Guide published about the same time this issue appeared on newstands.
Howard; Are you kidding? Sorry, but that really is an early gen2 Camaro.
What Ferrari did you think it was? Picture?
And good luck finding an under $5k Ferrari even in 1983.
The mix-up is partly attibuted to my answering about the RED car with the glass headlight cover (which is an Alfa or Fiat 850 Spider), and not about the brown (?) car with the chrome ring around the headlight.
And I was really asleep when I ignored that large headline: “….ssports cars under $5,000”.
Never mind me, I’ll crawl back under my rock for another (well needed?) naptime.
The one that’s getting me is the one with that bar code, talk about vague!
…oh wait
I vaguely remember this very cover. Top to bottom, left to right:
Alfa Duetto/Spider
Gen. 2 Camaro
Gen. 1 Capri (German version, not the Mercury)
Datsun 510
MGB or MGB-GT
Fiat X1/9? (Someone said Z-Car and that’s probably right)
BMW 1600 or 2002
Gen. 1 Toyota Celica
Gen. 1 VW Scirocco
Last one I need help with. That cowl looks so familiar…Fiat 124 Spider? (If so, then the X1/9 is definitely wrong. R&T wouldn’t list two Fiats.)
I think the 240Z is right for the shot on the left, as that cut line near the cowl on the hood is pretty distinctive. The bottom right is almost certainly an early 124 Sport Spider, one with the small hood bumps.
I had a really hard time with the Datsun 510. I can’t find one that looked much like the one they used, although the fender shape is very 510ish. I initially thought it was a Mazda, until I looked at the RX2,3&4 only to discover that none of the had that headlight surround either.
Wow, summer after year 1 of law school, when a Shelby Charger seemed like the thing to do. That black Nissan sport truck looks a lot like the red King Cab version my father bought a year or so later.
And the ads. Gee, what to buy: The 1960 Maserati 3500 GT for $6500, the 65 Sunbeam Tiger for $6900 or . . . the 71 Mustang Boss 302 for $7000?!?!?!
The Superbird for $12,700 ($31k adjusted). The bargain might be the 1980 Turbo Trans Am at best offer “commensurate with future collector value” – which is zero ($0 adjusted).
The Nissan ST Sport Truck is Marty McFly approved!
Didn’t Marty McFly drive a Toyota? And a regular cab at that?
Toyota with an extended cab.
‘Sport’ is the interesting part, just what was sporty about a Datsun 4WD ute aimed at farmers until US advertising got hold of it.
“Sport” option packages say to me more about the owner’s ego delusions than the vehicle itself, for rarely are they much better performers than the baseline model, & rarely do I see these driven with any enthusiasm. Modern people are terrified of being thought of as boring or ordinary, just read single’s ads to see what I mean.
I’ll take the red Capri under the “$5,000” on the cover.
Looking at the Dodge Charger ad, it struck me that the sail panel design(s) on the rear quarter window helped save what would have been a really ungainly-looking greenhouse. (Imagine if that was all an unbroken expanse of glass…blech!) I’m partial to the clean look of the silver, “base” Charger at the top of that page.
There was actually a pretty hefty pillar behind that sail panel. It did serve to trim out the edges of the two windows adjacent to it, but it really didn’t cover all that much glass. (I had an ’82 Charger 2.2 in electric blue with the gold stripe kit. My favorite car of all time. Of course I was in high school, so pretty much anything that I was driving might have been my favorite…..but it really was a fun little car)
I never knew that about the sail panels on the L-bodies, MTN – thanks for pointing that out. I did like these hatches – looked at a Turismo 2.2 to replace the 7 year old ’84 Tempo I had inherited. These cars seemed to be a great combo of sport, economy, and utility when they weren’t “used up”.
I think this version shows the least “cover up” of that pillar. These were a pretty great mix of functionality and fun. The 0-50 quoted times should serve as a clue though. They were sprightly off the line and quick, but got a little wheezy at prolonged highway speed, and the ’82 that i owned begged for a 5th gear. The upgraded “2.2” versions with the resonator in place of a stifling muffler, tighter suspensions and wider low profile tires actually had great handling in spite of their pedestrian economy car roots. Mine was without a/C, power steering or power brakes, which I think probably gave it a more pure “sporting” personality. Like most cheap, fun, “slow cars that can be driven fast” though, most were clapped out at a few years old, and by the early ’90’s they were nearly extinct.
’67 L-89 convertible for $17,500…
I saw that too…oh if we only could have…
One-owner MG TD, $9500. Anyone else read “The Red Car” as a kid? (I know, that car was a TC…)
Tge red-orange hood on the left of the yellow BMW isn’t a Corvette, but a Datsun Z car.
Yet another sobering reminder of how bad GM was, while still being full of themselves. “roomy GL station wagon” hahaha! I would take the Bronco II (and slip a 302 in it, just like my Ranger) and the Supra.
GM wasn’t yet involved with Subaru. 1999.
Never realized those Escorts had Hemis, lol.
IMHO, the car that “ended Malaise Era” is the 1982 Mustang GT, with the return of the 302 v8. It was a reversal of years of “performance cars are dead, we all will be in FWD pods by 1984”, With its HP started actaully increasing by 1987, was a hugh sigh of relief.
Wow, the classifieds have 2 SD Pontiac Trans Ams, a Plymouth Superbird, an Aston Martin DB6, and a 1967 big block Corvette. Each under $20,000.
What a fantastic collection of ads. To the surprise of no one who remembers the days when I contributed to CC frequently, the cars I’d buy among those featured here are the Saab, the Audi and the Prelude. My mother owned an ’86 Accord; my father, an ’84 5000S turbo. The difference between the two cars was stark and over rough pavement which the Audi would sop up, the Honda would bottom out and crash. Still, I wouldn’t touch an Audi C3 with an automatic transmission, and I really think that a Prelude with a stick shift would be a lot more fun than either a five-speed naturally aspirated Saab or Audi.
The Prelude was the cheapest of the three cars I chose, the best handling (especially in ’83 before power steering was added), and also the quickest if one excludes the pricey turbo Audis and Saabs.
At the same time, refinement counts when it comes to long-term satisfaction and the cheapest Saab comes close to the Honda in price (especially considering Honda dealer markups) and is the only one of the three which could offer real structural stoutness and over the road refinement at a good price. If I were to use a car for regular commuting, the Saab might get the nod over the Prelude; the Honda’s brakes, NVH and structure can’t hold a candle to the Saab’s. The base-level 900 was possibly the only car which could offer that sort of solidity in combination with size and packaging appropriate to single person use (the E21/E30 and especially W201 were so much pricier and even the Audi 4000/VW Quantum weren’t quite so stout). I’m not sure I’d want a gigantic Audi C3 to myself.
Then again, let’s pretend that the Audi was available with a turbo in combination with a five-speed back in late ’83, and let’s ignore price as a factor. The cars were just so compelling in terms of design, over the road refinement and luxury, factors which Audi took very seriously at the time. Suddenly that large size doesn’t matter so much.
The C3 Audi 5000s offered creature comforts executed with tactile quality and classy execution to such an extent that a single man or woman could still look sexy behind the wheel of such a big car. No, the Audi 5000s were no BMW when driving at 10/10ths, but they were way more entertaining than any Benz at the time (unless you cranked up the boost and added a big injector pump to a 300D turbodiesel, voiding your warranty) and offered design flair that few could touch.
If you had the good sense and taste to look at cars like these back in late ’83, the malaise era was already over.
“We’re the best GM ever”
It seems like forever GM has been implying and pleading, “I know we were crap, but we’re BETTER now — trust us!”
> On the heels of the Hummer contract AMC announced that AM General is up for sale. According to a spokesman, AMC wants to put all its energies into combining its 4wd technology with Renault’s fwd technolgy, and not into building military vehicles. But others see it as a desperate need for quick cash.
From what I’ve read, the far more crucial need to sell off AM General was that Renault had taken a majority ownership stake in AMC, and Renault was partially owned by the French government. That made Humvees ineligible for U.S. Department of Defense contracts, as they wouldn’t contract for items from companies owned or partially owned by foreign governments. So AM General had to go, and was spun off as a separate company that remains today.