Should I buy this car?

File: car2.jpg (123KB, 1080x810px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1080x810px

Additional Pics

>>17088297
>>17088300
>fifth avenue
>chrsler
>170k miles
>1300$

wat those are like 600$ cars at best

Should try to get him down a bit on price, but he probably thinks its worth more than hes offering even at $1300. Depending on where you're located its not an impossibly rare car, but uncommon enough to make someone think its worth more than it is.

Dodge Diplomats are better anyway. Can't stand the Chrysler's landau tops....

>>17088410
What price should I try to get?

File: mike car.jpg (78KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 853x480px

Looks comfy as fuck.

>>17088476
Assuming its the 318 V8, its got a lot of miles on it. They were reliable in cop cars as the Diplomat, but in Chrysler's version with a few extra bells and whistles 170 sounds like a lot. Let alone the state of the tranny, etc. I'd say offer at most $1000 but the guy, especially if he's older, is gonna reject that offer most likely.

See what he says, and remember that Craigslist is a big sea with lots of retired luxo-barges to be had.

Also remember that as Chryslers are....built like Chryslers, and both Ford and GM built all around better land-barges during the 80s-90s.

>>17088514
What do you mean "built like Chryslers?"

You'll have to forgive me, I am by no means a car guy.

File: mercury.jpg (423KB, 1801x1202px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1801x1202px

>>17088544
Chryslers are historically of a lower build quality, (FOR THE MOST PART) than say a Buick (GM) or a Lincoln (made by Ford).

If you like this type of car, a GM car like a Chevy Caprice, Buick Lesabre/Park Avenue, Oldsmobiles or maybe a Mercury (made by Ford) might be better suited to your needs, easier to repair, and better built than a Chrysler/Dodge product.

>>17088297
looks fairly clean, is it own buy a non smoker?

>>17088544
You need to learn two words, so see if you can follow along...

ahem

"Toyota Corolla"

I know nothing about these cars but I live 80's/90's landbarges.

and fuck what anyone says, they are great first cars. they are V8's, but slow, so you dont have to worry about launching into a tree, but still tend to have lots of torque, so they are powerful despite not being fast.

And because they are large, getting used to the size of a landbarge makes driving anything else a cakewalk. So they are decent for honing spatial awareness in a car. Their size also arguably makes them slightly safer for fender benders and smalltime accidents, since there is way more space between you and the car in front/back of you. (dont quote me on that, might be bullshit, but I believe it)

also, if you care for that sort of thing, there is nothing more American than driving a classic American landbarge. it gives you a very special kind of FUCK YEA MURRICA feel when passing by priuses and beat up 90s camrys and accords

>>17088771
forgot to say the whole point of my spergout:

no matter what you end up choosing, good luck op!

File: 1970-Dodge-Dart-Swinger-600x400.jpg (81KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x400px

Yeah- enjoy that first car.

I'm old as hell. My first car was a '70 Dodge Dart with a slant-6. It would go about 95 mph flat out if the road was straight for a long enough distance.

I'd drive around with my 26" bmx cruiser in the trunk, with a pot pipe in the ashtray, listening to cassettes of Talking Heads.

I wish I had a pic of that car these days. Here- this looks pretty close:

>>17088864
are you a boomer

File: pioneer stereo.jpg (50KB, 736x673px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 736x673px

>>17088864
probly got one of those cool aftermarket head units for the dash amirite

>>17088864
A little younger.

>>17088602
>implying the quality of Daimler Chrysler (1998-2007) is the quality of ALL Chrysler products
ignoring 1975 to 1980, Chrysler was always known FOR their quality. Anyone who isn't retarded and knows anything about Chrysler history knows 1982-1997 were the golden years of quality at Chrysler. Then that fucking moron Bob Eaton sold Chrysler to Mercedes and all that went down the toilet

>>17088544
Ignore him. He thinks Daimler Chrysler speaks for all of Chrysler.

>>17088514
They ALL came with the 318 V8. No other engine was offered. The 318 is bulletproof.

>>17089154
>Anyone who isn't retarded and knows anything about Chrysler history knows 1982-1997 were the golden years of quality at Chrysler.
They've probably never heard of one Mr. Iacocca.

>>17089191
All hail Lee Iacocca

File: chrys.jpg (765KB, 2294x2907px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 2294x2907px

>>17089154
I have never, ever heard anyone else say that. Even people that like Chrysler/Dodge. And I do love 80s Mopars.

But...for example...

If you're gonna tell me that the elongated K Car they used as the Chrysler Imperial/Fifth Avenue in the early 90s was/is 1.) A better built car 2.)a better equipped, more modern car and 3.) in hindsight: a more reliable/durable car than any similarly dated Ford Panther body, 3800 Lesabre/Park Avenue/Olds/Pontiac, Cadillac, or GM B-body I'm gonna have to completely disagree.

The example I'm using is the generation right after the OP's car in question, but either way I live far from any rust and still barely ever see any Chrysler luxo-barges from any decade whereas I can't leave my house without bumping into 90s Panthers and 80s box GMs.

Point is "any retard" will tell you that most any Chrysler large sedan between the mid 1970s New Yorkers to the 2011- 300 has been lackluster and always below Ford and GM's offerings, let alone when compared to Lexus or above.

If 1982-1997 as you say is the top rung of quality I don't know what else there is to say. Count how many Dodge St. Regis or Turbo New Yorker you see in the next lifetime and let me know...

>>17089362
>Count how many Dodge St. Regis or Turbo New Yorker you see in the next lifetime and let me know...
Kinda hard since I live in the rust belt and never see old panthers or box chevy's anyways, btu I still occasionally see old Chrysler models.

And no. That FWD K-car that replaced the Fifth Avenue had the Mitsubishi 6G72 V6 IIRC, which was the only unreliable engine Chrysler used at the time.

>>17089381
Where I live on the west coast nothing rusts so you see people daily driving very old cars, predominantly in shitty neighborhoods.

There are hardly any 70s-90s Chryslers but I see many big 70s-90s barges from the other two big American automakers and their respective marques. I really find it hard to believe that the 80s and 90s were golden years for Chrysler products. Some weren't even up to par with competitors when new.

>>17088747
hi mr regular

K-cars aren't the best, but they aren't bad. Fifth Avenues are comfy as fuck. I say go for it.

>>17088297
>>17090482
you should get it, all k cars are great
i have a 91 dodge dynasty
will show in the morning

>>17090482
>>17090703
The Fifth Avenue OP is looking at isn't a K-car, or even FWD, THAT Fifth Avenue is a RWD M-body car powered by an emissions choked 318 V8

But yea. It's just as reliable as the K-cars. It was actually the LAST RWD car Chrysler did before the 2005 launch of the Mercedes-developed LX cars.

>>17088297
I got it. Got it for $1,100

File: wario[1].png (288KB, 640x404px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 640x404px

>>17090918
Nice bag, fag. Hope it does you good.

>>17090918
Well done. Keep us updated on it. Congratz on your comfy luxobarge

>>17090918
Nice. Keep it original. Don't mess up the interior with some awful modern stereo unit that was designed by a 10 yr old...