Duesenberg. The name brings back old Popular mechanics articles for me. In them, some comedian I’d never heard of before called Jay Leno would do a full page on how amazing these chrome-laden old cars were and how much powerful and better than any other car that was being built at that the time (’20s and ’30s). Way more powerful and faster too. I didn’t have the Internet back then, so I couldn’t quite figure out why they had disappeared if they had been so good. And even now that I’ve had the Internet for quite some time, I never knew that they had tried to revive the brand a couple of times. Let’s take a look at the latest of these to make the metal, all the way from 1979.
Now, this isn’t the first time that someone wanted to plug jump-leads to the Duesenberg name. Back in the early sixties Frederick “Fritz” Duesenberg, son of founder August Duesenberg, collaborated with noone less than Virgil Exner and Carrozzeria Ghia to bring us this, the 1966 Duesenberg. Based on an Imperial chassis and propelled by the same 340-horsepower 440 engine, it is perhaps the most well-remembered Duessy revival.
One that was on the way to success right up to the point when Fred McManis, playing the chief financier in this endeavor, decided to pull from the project and single-handedly brought it to a screeching halt after a single prototype. One that thankfully has survived through the years and recently came up for sale at an asking price of $375,000.
As for Duesenberg, it continued to make company to Packard, Cord, and Auburn in the dead brand bin until 1976; when two more Duesenbergs came into the field. Harlan and Kenneth Duesenberg, grandnephews of the original founders, were also consumed with a desire to bring the prestigious brand back into life. Of course, in order to produce something worthy of the name, they would have to get quite creative and get help from someone very talented to create a design. That last part came in the form of Robert Peterson.
Peterson had had quite a career by 1976. Having built race cars in Indianapolis until the early sixties, he joined forces with George Lehmann in 1963 to create Lehmann-Peterson coachbuilders. L-P’s claim to fame is the production of stretch Lincoln Continentals with backing from Ford from 1964 until 1970, when the venture fell apart. By the time 1976 rolled around Peterson was working on Moloney Coachbuilders, who bought what was left of L-P, in some unspecified capacity.
So that’s the talent, now about the basis. It is of course extremely expensive to design and develop a completely new car from scratch, so they needed a base. Fortunately, it was 1976, and body-on-frame sedans are still the bread-and-butter of American manufacturers. And if you’re going to use an American chassis, why not use the finest chassis from the most luxurious American manufacturer still around? The 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham would provide a fantastic base for the vehicle. Though, apparently, not its engine.
Here’s where things get a bit confusing. The sources I saw say that the engine on the prototype was Cadillac’s Fuel-Injected 425 V8, then producing a…respectable-for-the-time 195 horsepower. However, the 425 wasn’t released until the later, trimmer 1977 Fleetwoods, so presumably the buyer of a neo-Duesenberg would get a brand new Cadillac engine in that two or three-year old body. Isn’t that generous, for a mere $100k ($411k adjusted)? Were they going to buy used ’76 Caddys if anyone actually wanted one?
In any case, the list of changes to the original Cadillac included a quite tasteful interior with what looks to be full instrumentation.
A modern chrome interpretation of Duesenberg’s bowtie front bumper, and then a small pile of by the book 70’s styling cues. Wire wheels, stacked headlights, chrome waterfall grille, whitewalls. It all looked very 70’s Americana kitsch when it’s all said and done. I like a good slice of 70’s cheesecake, but this somehow just doesn’t do it for me if I’m honest, especially when compared to how some of those cues looked on the Ghia ‘66.
It did get good press at the time, with newspapers placing the $100,000 price tag front and center and noting that something that size and heft was unlikely to attract many buyers in a time where gas prices remained somewhat uncertain. Unfortunately, what wasn’t uncertain by the time that picture with the two happy Duesenbergs was being taken was the future of the car. In the words of Harlan, “we were underfinanced. We realized the effort was going to fail just after the prototype was shown.”
And sure enough, after that initial blip of press, there was nothing. No more pictures, no more info, no word about anyone actually putting down that initial $25,000 deposit (for the record, $25,000 would buy you six Toyota Corollas or one Jaguar XJ6 in 1980). Unlike Exner’s prototype, the 1980 Duesenberg simply vanished, nobody clamored for it and the last thing I can find about it was that someone had seen what was left of it sitting forlorn on a parking lot somewhere in Chicago.
Nobody has attempted to resuscitate Duesenberg again.
Epilogue: I don’t like ending articles on a sad note, so why don’t I close this one by showing you what Moloney coachbuilders did when they got a Cadillac to play with. Please enjoy this surprisingly tasteful pink and white 1974 Cadillac Sedan Deville wagon conversion custom ordered by the man with the blue suede shoes himself, Elvis Presley. You can find it, as well as many other interesting displays, on the Volvo Auto Museum in Lakemoor, IL. Also, I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you my web browser wants to correct Duesenberg to Heisenberg. How the mighty have fallen
Even if the prototype had gotten off the ground, I can’t imagine it would be anywhere near successful. Any car I can think of that tried to go for this neo-classical styling of a long dead brand quickly faded throughout the 80s and 90s and with some rather ill-formed exceptions, (The 1990 Chrysler Imperial), not a lot of companies were willing to do this. This would’ve been no exception.
As much as I can understand the sheer vitriol of the Stutz Blackhawk from the same time period, I at least have a soft spot for it. It’s an ugly misbegotten beast for sure, but it has it’s own perverse charm and sense of camp that I least appreciate it in a “so bad, it’s good” sort of way. It’s sheer excessive 70s disco trappings personified, and I at least recognize it’s distinctive style and appreciate it, even if I will admit it I enjoy it in a somewhat ironic fashion, recognizing the obvious lack of good graces it has (I say with the pretentious musings and ramblings I’m known to indulge in from time to time.) This car however, has no such charm. It’s just big, ugly, gaudy, and overwrought without any sort of unique charm. It looks like just a Fleetwood that somebody added Monte Carlo headlights, a bad imitation at the Mark V’s faux Rolls Royce Grille, and a bumper that from head on, looks like a unibrow. I at least recognize the skill and craftsmanship involved in the Exner-Ghia collaboration, even if I don’t care for it 100 percent myself. This just looks like what it is, a bad custom job that’s using a once mighty name to try and make it seem more special than it is.
And they wanted 100,000 dollars for this in 1980? I wouldn’t have paid 100,000 cents for this monstrosity. Just like the attempts to try and revive Packard, it fails on all fronts to try and bring it to “modern” times, I imagine if Duesenberg had continued on, it would look nothing like this. It would be more modern, I almost imagine it would take it’s cues more from the Mercedes W116 or the Porsche 928 than anything America was doing (And this is coming from someone who really likes late 70s land yachts in all their cheesy glory), it wouldn’t bother with the trappings of the Brougham era, it would be more European in it’s design language. Just my two cents anyway.
Still, this is rather interesting to read about. I do like to be educated on weird stuff I knew nothing about, so this was well worth my time.
While this is painful to look at, I give it credit for better masking its donor car. That wasn’t the case with many others from this time period and it doesn’t insult the donor name to the same magnitude as some other creations.
Having seen the 1966 Duesenberg in person at the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Museum years ago, it presents itself reasonably well. Thank you for saying it was on an Imperial chassis as I had never known its foundation.
Case in point about insulting the donor name: This “Packard” JPC, Jim Klein, and I saw this past weekend.
https://fastlanecars.com/vehicles/1862/1982-buick-riviera-bayliff-packard-sport
What a waste of a perfectly good Riviera. 🙁
I think the hearse version is even worse.
Gerardo, you made my day with that wagon. They nailed all the shutlines and contours better than some other Caddy clamshells I’ve seen. Making it a hardtop risky but it eliminates the Caddy doortops problem, and looks wow. L+P also did two four-door MkIII Continentals that worked.
Great read on a car I never heard of. Moustache grille. hehehe
By the mustaches of Plekszy-Glasz, you beat me to it!
It’s better than the Stutz, but not by a whole lot. It’s still full of the cluelessness of what would be a real luxury car. The seat looks flat and uncomfortable and the whole car is more fussy detail than it is elegance. Stutz, Tiffany, Zimmer, and others spent a decade and a half trying to build a GM or Ford luxury car while charging more and offering less than the original manufacturer. These are style over substance, and their style kind of sucks, too. A real 70s Duesenberg would’ve been sleek and would’ve taken the stillborn Oldsmobile DOHC V8 to the heights it deserved.
Nice interior, they nailed that part. Not a half-bad attempt to disguise the donor car, to the point of squaring up the corners of the B pillar. Yeah, it’s blah as heck but it’s probably what the Exner-Ghia would’ve evolved into with 15 years of low-budget updates.
What I think is unfortunate about these attempts to resurrect a brand from the past is that the designers of these newer cars fail to take into account that had the brand survived, their styling would NOT be a sad reworking of the past.
The 66 Duesenberg looks like a radical rethink of the 67-69 Thunderbird 4 door, I never would have guessed that it was Imperial based (I guess I was fixated on those suicide rear doors?).
The newer Duesenberg looks like a late 60s Ford trying to look upscale by using a lot of Mercedes-Benz styling cues. Aside from that strange (though trademark?) cow horn looking front bumper, it actually looks rather un-distinguished.
The Riviera that wants to be a Packard? Very interesting, but a tad overwrought. I would prefer it with less wood inside and either a 2 tone…or even 3 tone paint job. Yet somehow, I am not put off by that car. What would sort of embarrass me though is trying to explain what it is trying to be.
Anyone wonder if the LH rear wheel on the “Caddy wagon” was way forward in the wheel opening to “BALANCE” the way rearward RH wheel?? Shades of RVland!! DFO
This attempt (along with 1966 version) completely misses the point about what a Duesenberg was. In 1929 a Duesenberg was a race-bred monster. 420 cubic inches of dohc straight 8 with 4 valves per cylinder, tight suspensions, excellent brakes in a package that would still outperform most American cars on a road course until the mid 50s (especially the later supercharged versions). The styling was bold but conventional and in tune with the era and the custom bodywork was not unlike that on other high end cars.
These modern versions were simply neoclassic themes of debatable taste applied on top of an average luxury sedan which had nothing to really distinguish it. Thiese were all frosting and no cake.
I have long maintained that the US market has a place for a legitimate high end American car. But this was not it.
Agreed 100%
Just because your last name is Duesenberg doesn’t mean you know what the car’s really were back in the day. Cadillac chassis & engine = Cadillac, even if you put a silly bumper on it.
That being said, this was a very informative and well-researched piece, thanks to which I’ll be going to bed less ignorant tonight. Many thanks, Gerlado!
Exactly JPC, Duesenbergs were about mechanical excellence not styling kitch they really only built chassis not whole cars a bit like Rolls Royce of yore, these hideous glamour wagons the somehow reached prototype stage completely miss the point.
“I have long maintained that the US market has a place for a legitimate high end American car.”
And you’ve been right!
Totally agree
That nails the problem with most of these revival cars. The creators either had no imagination of what a luxury car could be in *their* time other than “like a Caddy or Lincoln, but more so” or had no clue how to get there and decided to get off the ground with a minimum viable product, that being the modified production car.
The Exner-Ghia comes closer to the mark than the ’80, though. Bringing an Italian design house in on the project certainly helped.
“…all frosting and no cake”. Exactly.
I’ve was actually never aware of this late-1970s Duesenberg concept before. Interesting automotive history!
I agree with J P Cavanaugh. This Faux Duesenberg is essentially “hot air” or even “vacuous emptiness” without the real underlying engineering or styling substance of a true classic Duesenberg.
Faux attempts, like this one, a superficial Duesenberg resurrection, were doomed to failure in the market place since there weren’t enough fools willing to part with their money for this counterfeit. Harsh words, likely, but the market spoke, and this attempt of rebirth died a well deserved death.
Wow, thank you for sharing this. Back in the ’70’s my Dad was getting a subscription to Old Cars Weekly. One issue had an interview with one of the engineers from the original Duesenberg Corporation. I don’t remember a lot of specifics on that article but I do remember the engineer harshly criticized these prototypes. And especially this response, the interviewer asked him what kind of car Duesenberg would build, his response was “like a Mercedes Benz, only better!”
Bob
It kind of reminds me of Mae West when she was old. The signature hair, makeup, and clothes were recognizable, but instead of getting admiring glances, people stared in disbelief.
I don’t mind the 66 attempt as much as the later versions. Its overall styling is in keeping with its times – think about the 1966 Buick Riviera – and that big nose grill was distinctive at the time. It wasn’t till some years later that Bunkie Knudsen started sheet-metal-screwing them on everything that moved.
Having mentioned the Riviera, that would have been my choice for the basis for a revived ‘Duesenberg on-a-budget’ attempt.
I’d have changed the exterior styling very little and focused on a European style IRS ‘race-car-based’ suspension and perhaps used a supercharged Corvette engine for power. If there was a lot of backer money available, I’d have had an aluminum block for the GMC Twin Six V-12 engine cast
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/the-gmc-twin-six-v12-702-cubes-275-hp-at-2400-rpm-630-ft-lbs-at-1600-rpm/
and used that that with some mild performance modifications.
A fascinating read, Gerardo – thank you for this. Like Brendan mentioned above, I have never heard of this one before. It is often the failures that intrigue me more than the runaway successes.
About that front bumper, it doesn’t remind me of a bow-tie so much as it looks to me like it wants to give me a kiss, to which I would (ahem) pass.
I saw pictures of the 1966 prototype in magazines of the time, but had never seen this one before. Before recognizing the Fleetwood greenhouse, at first glance it reminded me of a 1980 Lincoln Town Car that had been reverse-downsized. The straight fender lines, neo-classical grille and full rear wheel cutouts are all contemporaneous Lincoln cues. The only nod to Duesenberg, the mustache bumper, brings the Lyft signature mustache to mind, not an SJ dual-cowl phaeton. As for a high-end American car, I don’t think the realities of the current U.S. auto industry or the economics of producing such a car will allow it to come to fruition. At least our luxury cars don’t slavishly copy another country’s flagship automobile, like Mr. Putin’s new R-R wannabe ride.
I think the museum you refer to in Lakewood IL is “Volo”, not “Volvo”.
And I’m curious, by 1976 (or even 1966), how much cachet did the Duesenberg name carry? You’d have to have been in your 60s to remember when the original car was on the road.
Nowadays, I’d venture that not 3 people in 10 even know what Duesenberg was.
Yep I also think it’s the Volo museum. But even with that name they got a cease-and-desist from Volvo
It’s not in Lakewood either, the town it’s in is…. (drumroll)… Volo IL!
Great place, by the way. Everything’s for sale but set up like a museum.
Family friend bought a Model T from them!
The 60s version is not a bad looking vehicle. That 70s attempt is a little odd looking at the front with that mustache grill.
It looks like a 1980 Town Car with a 76 Buick Century sedan nose.
I don’t want to make accusations and maybe it’s the loud flannel 70s sport coat, but the grandnephews seem kind of like shysters trying to cash in on their last name.
Retro-retro!
The problems are all well discussed, but it comes down to the fact that retro-inspired objects have to be fantastically modern while interpreting the look of old. Otherwise, one can buy the original object, and enjoy it as it is, rather than paying as much or more for an “updated” version. None of the retro-inspired cars of the recent past would have done as well had they not been completely better in every way over the original. Can you imagine had VW brought out a Beetle with 36HP, no a/c, roll up windows, and a 4 speed and charged modern money for it?
These dreams were ruined by not considering that a reinterpretation of the car would require more money, and more talent, than most people possess. Stutz, Tiffany, and Zimmer tried the cheaper route, and sold a few, but not many. Those who appreciate the classic ones wanted an original, which is why those originals maintain value. The copies do not hold value as they are recognized for what they are, and what they are built of, rather than as a neo-classic. Think of Antiques Roadshow: a genuine Eames chair holds a lot of value. A modern copy, while filling the same form and function, is only valued as replacement furniture. For all the time, effort, and money thrown on either of the Duesy prototypes, in the end, they are not worth near what a “real” Duesenberg is worth. That does not make them bad, just judged differently.
Not necessarily. For example most musical instruments you can go out and buy new are old to very old designs, a brand new Fender Stratocaster isn’t much different than one from 1957 other than some finish and material differences that may or may not make them better or worse, but generally the aesthetic and feel haven’t changed much at all, and if you admire the design or are nostalgic about the history of it, you can just go buy one at guitar center for similar(inflation adjusted) money as the old one originally cost, which most people do. The originals will always remain the most collectible for their historical role, but the fundamental merits remained in the continuous production since and people have bought them consistently. There are a select few cars I can think of that could have been made relatively unchanged indefinitely successfully like iconic instruments.
The problem with automobiles is it takes just as much massive investment to physically create an all new car as it does to physically recreate an old one. And that doesn’t take into account safety, or emissions, or fuel economy standards that in many cases(like the Beetle) phased them out in the first place. Major manufactures don’t want to do that in addition because it would pretty much render their design and engineering departments obsolete and marketing departments would need to stop pitching all new newness as the major selling point to the public. And they that doesn’t even take into account rival manufacturers exploiting this easy to deride backward looking path from the years of grooming the public to crave new in cars. For these small revival companies, the economies of scale simply aren’t there to allow a legit bolt by bolt clone of an original Dusenberg, hence using a Cadillac chassis in this case, or Pontiac for Studz, and there is just no way to create a 1920s-1930s shaped car based on a long/low/wide perimeter frame doner car, and predictably the results end up badly compromised.
You do state a truth about the musical instruments, but those are continuous copies of the older versions. That Fender is still made by Fender, using the same techniques and craftsmanship. You can buy a knockoff of that style for a lot less, but it will not produce the same tone, nor play the same, which is why the brand carries value. Yes, the old ones have histories, but the new ones are clones of the original, not reinterpretations. But compare a Hindustan Ambassador against the original Morris Oxford. Which of the two holds value to the collector? The Indian one is more modern and up to date, yet not considered the equal. I think the tooling was the same for both, just different craftsmen in different companies built them, yet they are vastly different to most folks.
My point was that retro themed interpretations are going to have to be fundamentally better than the original to sell well. Reinterpreting a Duesenberg means that it has to be a modern car, with the style and the attributes of the original, and repurposing another marque’s car really does not ever work. As JPC stated, Duesenberg was known for performance and style above and beyond what was being offered at the time, and these prototypes really offered neither.
I basically agree, but for clarity I think it’s sort of an all or nothing proposition; either go the full blown continuation route building a straight up faithful clone of the most iconic examples, or be the full modern interpretation using the brand’s past ideals like Bugatti does today. Either works in many industries, musical instruments just being one example for the former, but si many external factors work against that avenue in the auto industry, which is why it’s almost never done(or done properly), and long continuous production with a model is more often done out of necessity as with the Hindustan Ambassador, rather than specific demand as with a Strat guitar(which is why there are numerous knockoffs of it) or iconic cars that are hugely collectible – afterall they’re collectible because you can’t get them anymore, and so many people want them the prices are inflated.
Cars like this 80 Duesenberg accomplished neither, it didn’t, and couldn’t, be a 1980 equal to what the company was known for in the golden age with the unremarkable bones it was underpinned with, and it obviously isn’t a continuation because it shares zero with the final real Duesenbergs. It’s just a name revival, from grand nephews who likely knew about as much about Duesenberg cars as I know about my own granduncle’s career.
I think that the most successful revival of an extinct make would be Bugatti in that the new models do look & perform as if the original company continued on from the post war era, as opposed to all these other attempts. I think that a proper 21st Century Dusenberg would have been more like a Ferrari or Lambrogini than the sorry excuses seen here.
pathetic.
If you can’t do a revived Duesenberg properly—bespoke engine and chassis of the caliber of the classic Duesenbergs—then you shouldn’t do it at all. Puts me in mind of an over-the-hill singer attempting a comeback.
I like the 1966 car. The 1980 version is an abomination.
There was an attempt of a revival in 1999 with this misbegotten Packard Twelve. It used a 525 cid Falconer Racing V-12 said to produce 440 hp. Fortunately only one was built.
I had completely forgotten about this Packard revival. I just googled it; pretty impressive specs (even by today’s standards), and it’s only slightly uglier than a modern Bentley Mulsanne.
Evoking the traditional Packard grille is fine in principle, but the way they went about it–as Moon Unit Zappa said, gag me with a spoon!
I always thought the Fisker Karma (and the cars derived from it) looked a bit like what a modern Packard may have looked like. Definitely a distant evolution of the ’56 Packard grille here.
My god, it looks like 99 reintpretation of a GM Colonnade sedan.
You’ve probably heard the expression “It’s a doozy”. Dictionaries define doozy as a slang term meaning “something outstanding or unique of its kind” (OED online). Its etymology is fuzzy, most say it’s unknown, or derived from daisy or dozen.
At least one dictionary says “doozy” came from the “Duesy” racing cars that won the Indy 500 in 1924, 1925 and 1927, and of course the supercars we remember today.
But according to Wikipedia, “Merriam-Webster completely rejects any attribution to the automobile, noting that doozy originally appeared as “dozy” in eastern Ohio in 1916 — four years prior to the production of the first Duesenberg vehicles. They also claim there is little evidence connecting the Duesenberg and doozy during the 1920s and 1930s, when the car was most popular.”
I still think “It’s a doozy” came from the automotive “Duesy”.
MikePDX, I’m with you. I give a whole “so what?” to to credence given ‘dozy’ in Ohio a few years earlier. This is 1919—the Duesenberg Brothers aren’t selling a car yet, but if the newspapers are using the nickname. It must be in some kind of common use to be in “vernacular quotes,” right?
And this is a **used** Duesenberg in Chicago in 1917. They hadn’t moved to Indianapolis and set up a factory yet, but they were making and racing cars:
Fascinating clips, George, amazing you could dig those up!
All I can see are those Rosco P. Coltrane headlights.
Eek.
Eek, I say.
Much eeking.
Eek, indeed. The front bumper has had far too much collagen injection. I also thought it looked T-bird based.
Given the amazing level of engineering Duesenberg showed in the thirties, what should a modern Duesenberg really be like? Certainly not this!
I’d envision something like a Bugatti Veyron engine for starters, with a chassis to match. So maybe a modern Bentley is the real successor to the Duesenberg?
Please see my comment above. Also Mercedes did try to do this with the Maybach.
Bob
A period photo of the ’66 (eBay):
Another angle:
I can now see what inspired the 1970 Pontiac Lemans rear bumper/taillight setup…
The Malaisenberg.
Discoberg?
A 1929 Deusenberg/Lycoming 8-cylinder engine with 5.7:1 compression, dual overhead cams and 4 valves per cylinder, generated 265 (gross) hp @ 4250 rpm, from 420 cubic inches on 1920s gasoline.
This abomination allegedly used a borrowed 8-cylinder engine with 8.5:1 compression, pushrods and overhead valves, and generated 195 (net) hp @ 4000 rpm, from 425 cubic inches on 1970s fuel.
We should be glad it failed.
An excellent point – even if the Cadillac 425 got a gross horsepower rating somewhere near the Duesenberg’s 265, it doesn’t say much that Cadillac was getting an output/cubic inch that Duesenberg had achieved 50 years earlier. If ever there was evidence that Cadillac was no longer a top-tier car, this was it. The Caddy 425 was a good, durable engine and there was nothing wrong with it. But it was in no way advanced.
Very interesting article. I knew the revived Stutz from the 70´s but I´ve never heard about one of these “new” Duesenbergs. That one from 1966 looks like a typical Exner creation.
Retro design has come and gone with several manufacturers over the last ten to fifteen years. Some designs were well received and successful over a fairly long period, others not so much. Most have traded on a company’s historic design cues, just reinterpreted and incorporated into a modern design. VW’s new Beetle achieved some success. The 2005 Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro still seem to be selling well.
Jaguar went with retro inspired designs from the late 90s into the mid 2000s. Then they went to a contemporary idiom with the XF and XE models initially then finally with the XJ. Whatever you thought of them, at least they had a legitimate claim to their heritage cues.
These new Duesenberg,Packard and Stutz designs had no link with their historical namesakes, and did not have the cachet of advanced engineering and quality that would be expected of them. At least Mercedes got that right with the relaunch of the Maybach series.
These are really just cheesy overpriced kit cars and a sad display of poor taste and conspicuous consumption. Today there are plenty of very expensive, high end legitimate, automobiles available to those with the means to purchase them.
This fools nobody. In the same league as the Easyrod (“Sleazyrod”) kits for the MN12 Thunderbird/Cougar and fourth-generation Camaro/Firebird. Hideous.
The guy who says it looks like a town car mated with a 77 century is right. I like it.
Back in 1980 I was in a vocational work program at Evanston Township High School, and had a job at a classic and import garage on Davis St.. The front half of the building was occupied by a consigner, and on occasional I would help him move cars around the floor. I got to drive it, albeit about 35 feet across the shop floor. I do remember it having the standard GM engine and emission tag under the hood. Of course this was way before people had phones with them. let alone cameras in them. So I have no idea where it ever went to after that after the butthole that was my boss fired me on December 27th after I had gotten done fibreglassing a mid 60s Rolls Royce under dash air plenum for him. I just remember that car looked 3 feet longer than the standard Fleetwoods of the day. which were huge.