Do you think buying a low-line medium standard (sedan, engine, Buick)

[rlrl]

car back in the early 70's was a waste or pointless?

Cars like the Merc Monterey Chrysler Newport were homely in appearance(we know the Newport looked tacky as hell and oddly the Monterey looked chintzy as well) IMO the Delta 88, while better than these 2, was a bit dull; leaving the LeSabre the only car worth looking at

why would someone spend the extra $$$ on a Monterey or a Newport when they can have an LTD Brougham for less, or a Monaco or Gran Sedan for less $$$? back in the day would the price difference between say a Marquis/New Yorker/Electra be so much that they could not afford the top of the line car?

would a Monterey or a Newport offer significantly better ride comfort and protection in a crash than a Caprice or Monaco? IMO, I woudn't think so

[M3 Mitch]

Back in the day you would find some Chevys with more and better options than say some Olds - but keep in mind back in the day at least at GM each division had their own engine line, a Buick, Olds, Pontiac, and Chevy would each get a completely different engine. Ford and MoPar didn't do this as much.

But like brands of beer or whatever, some people were quite brand-loyal, not necessarily for entirely rational reasons.

Buying new in the early 70's was, in retrospect, a mug's game - one would have been better off finding a good used example from the late 60's, both in terms of immediate utility and eventual collectabilty (for non-rusting areas).

But your original point is well-taken, each manufacturer produced multiple product lines that competed with each other internally for the thinking buyer.

At least in those days whatever crash protection you had came from the basic body and frame structure, so for a same-year Caprice and Bel Air it was essentially the same.

[us66]

Also some people would rather be seen in a plain Delta 88 than a Caprice, as each brand had its own image and status.