1982 Continental Signature Series at auction

[ContiFan]

A 1982 Continental Signature Series brought $25,000 ($26,250 with buyer's fee) at a recent BaT auction.
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1982- ... inental-3/

[TonyC]

About the amount it went for new (not factoring inflation, of course). Very pretty car; I always thought the '82 and '83 Humpbacks were among the best-looking cars of the decade; despite the rip-off of the Seville styling, Lincoln did that styling better.

But that VV carburetor...I just hope the new owner of that one is ready for the headaches . Maybe (hopefully) it was recently rebuilt by somebody who knows variable-venturi carburetors, or replaced with a TBI retrofit.

---Tony

[LithiumCobalt]

My personal opinion - this is the ugliest Lincoln produced, just behind the Mark VII. Just absolutely horrid. I wouldn't pay 10% of that price.

[Mike]

My personal opinion - this is the ugliest Lincoln produced, just behind the Mark VII. Just absolutely horrid. I wouldn't pay 10% of that price.

I don't agree with your assessment of the 1960s models but I'm with you on that. The hump back Cadillac wasn't any better.

[ContiFan]

There certainly was and is a love/hate reaction to styling of both the bustle-back Continental and Seville. I liked and still like both. Although the bustle-back Continental sold better than the Versailles, it didn't sell nearly as well as the next generation (1988-94) Continental.

[action]

My second Lincoln (that I owned) was a very used '86 Continental.
Had a lot of miles and was well cared for.
I rather liked it.
I remember I paid $3000 for it and sold it for $1500. I was told the buyer totaled it not long after he bought it

For a medium sized car I thought it was a far better shot at the market place than the previous non-full sized Lincoln offering called Versailles.
The next generation sold better and I did not care for that version. A personal luxury car was more my taste and moved to Mark Series.

The seventh gen Continental and Mark VII came with unique engine/transmission option for 84 and 85 models years. An inline 6 BMW turbocharged diesel with a ZF 4 speed transmission. Ford made a calculated move with a contract for that engine/transmission combination to have it installed in the Continental and Mark VII to compete with other luxury car manufactures. It did not do well at all.
I had a brand new 84 as a company car, a fully decked out Mark VII LSC and the oil burner. It was smooth and not too loud. However at 114 ponies versus 140 for the 5.0l, there was a very noticeable lack. The standard for me was to floor it from a stop and wait for the turbo to kick in and spool up. Because it is so rare, I wonder if it will become a sought after collector car in a decade or so.

I also saw a pre-82 seventh gen Continental in late 1980. The company produced a fully drivable pre-production unit that was shipped from Wixom to the Seattle area to get an employee to drive it and give feed back. This unit was driven in Central and Eastern Oregon for a couple of months to get 8 to 10,000 miles in real world operation. The car was later shipped back to Dearborn and likely scrapped.

Action

[TonyC]

I recently saw on YouTube a MotorWeek review of the '82 Continental, done back in its day. Funny, in that review they hinted at the diesel option that would soon come. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqQ6ds8-BUw I can tell it was done back in the day, not just from the video resolution, but also from the fact that they never mention that car's Achilles Heel.

I know some consider the Humpback ugly; I respect differing opinions, although I cannot agree with them. I still maintain Lincoln designers did the Seville styling fad better (technically, Seville wasn't a humpback, it was just a s**t-pushed-in back). Even Chrysler's first failed attempt to revive Imperial looked better (never mind the second attempt, just a gussied-up Dynasty). Now, the "Continental" series that followed, in '88, now that was drab to the point of homely! Yes, it sold better...and I still can't understand why with its drab styling, weakling performance, and numerous mechanical and electrical problems; but it did.

---Tony

[ContiFan]

IEven Chrysler's first failed attempt to revive Imperial looked better (never mind the second attempt, just a gussied-up Dynasty).

If you're going to call the 1990-93 Chrysler Imperial a gussied up Dynasty, you might as well call the 1981-83 Imperial a gussied up Mirada.

Chrysler/Iacocca may have been a bit too optimistic to think that the 1981-83 Imperial could successfully play in Cadillac and Lincoln price territory. They were certainly way too optimistic about sales. Its EFI problems didn't help either. To some degree, the car was simply a way to try to help re-build confidence in Chrysler.

[TonyC]

Well, it was. I can remember the first '90 "Imperial" I ever saw; the only things that differentiated it from a Dynasty were the padding on the roof and the rear-panel treatment. Even the '80 Imperial, which was clearly built on the Mirada platform (and which I had to look up just now as I did not remember that model), still had enough differences in its sheetmetal to distinguish it from its lowly sire. Yes, badge-engineering goes back farther than many people realize; but the farther back one goes, the more distinct the differences are (well, except for the Wildcat/LeSabre, admittedly).

Yes, Iacocca was a shrewd illusionist. That was how he lasted at Ford as long as he did...and Chrysler was so desperate to avoid extinction that they were prepared to let anyone take the helm. Somehow, he pulled off magic to stop Chrysler from joining White Star's crowning glory at the bottom of the sea.

---Tony

[Mike]

The same can can be said about Lincoln's of the same period that they're gussied up Ford's. They were all playing that game.
The 90s imperial has different interior then dynasty, different front and rear even different wheel base. But there's no arguing it's the same basic body.

Like Iacocca or not he was good at what he did. He was the right man for the job at the time to save Chrysler.

[TonyC]

The same can can be said about Lincoln's of the same period that they're gussied up Ford's. They were all playing that game.

Admittedly true; the Town Cars and 4-door Mark VIs were little more than re-dressed Vics/Marquises, and a bit too boxy-looking for my taste. But there were still enough outside changes to distinguish them. Now, by '98, the badge-engineering really got out of hand; it was even harder then to tell the difference between a Linc and a Merc...or even a Vic, for that matter, save for the yellow slivers in the tail lights of the Vics.

I'm not really a fan of Iacocca; that said, I will not deny that his business practices, dubious as they were, were in fact successful. As a result, Chrysler paid back the loaner they got from the government and even were able to absorb the foundering AMC without dire consequences to itself in the process. I don't have to like Iacocca, just respect the results of his actions.

But back to the '82 Humpback, I still think it was one of the more distinguished-looking cars of the '80s despite its styling rip-off; like it or hate it, I'm one who liked its look...although I think I would have liked it better with a slightly-longer wheelbase and clap-door configuration. At least the wheelbase stretch; I remember how cramped the back seat was.

---Tony

[ContiFan]

Although both 4-door sedans and sharing similar platforms (the Imperial on a stretched/extended wheelbase Y-body version vs. the Dynasty's C-body), they didn't really share any body panels. The 1981-83 Imperial shared more with the Cordoba/Mirada than the 1990-93 did with the Dynasty.

However, as has been mentioned, many were doing it back then and had been doing it for a while. One of the worst "offenders" in the luxury market was the Lincoln Versailles. The bustle-back Continental (and Versailles replacement) did a much better job hiding its Fox platform roots. Of course, that still didn't stop some from calling it a gussied up Ford, just as people were doing before and since regarding other Lincoln models.

There are also those who complain that cars (from the same era) look too much alike even when they're from entirely different manufacturers. That's been going on for ages too.

[ContiFan]

For those who missed their chance at the 1982 bustle-back Continental above, there’s now a 1987 Givenchy available on BaT. Current high bid Is $5,000 with a little over two days left in the auction.
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1987- ... inental-2/

[ContiFan]

Winning bid on the 1987 Continental Givenchy was $12,750 ($13,388 with buyer's fee).