Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





What Classic/Collectible car couldn't someone GIVE to you?

2

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    I know someone who has a Seville Diesel, and he swears by the thing! (as opposed to swearing AT it!) He took it to someplace called "Diesel Doctor" or something like that, and evidently they sorted out a lot of its problems. I saw it at a car show in October, and it was actually moving under its own power. Not sounding all that great, but then it probably never did, even when new!

    I like those bustleback Sevilles, but I think the only one I'd want would be a 1980, which had the Caddy 368. I might chance an '81 with the V-8-6-4, as I hear it's easy to disable the cylinder deactivation.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    I'd actually wouldn't turn down a bustleback with the good engine, no vinyl top, "road wheels" or whatever they were called, etc. A nice light blue or two tone blue would work for me. Same for a similar year and equipped Eldo.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,120
    A V-8-6-4 is the same as a 368. You can tell a V-8-6-4 engine because it's got very tall valve covers that also house the solenoids for the "variable displacemement" feature. It was a cool idea, but the technology just wasn't there. It was like Flash Gordon trying to construct an i-Phone out of 1930s components.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    but would never own - A Lancia Scorpion. It looks like it might be lots of fun. But it was slower than a contemporary VW Rabbit and somehow even less reliable.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,599
    When the bustleback Sevelles first showed up, a family friend said " They look like a garbage truck from the back"

    And, they do!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,599
    You mean a "Lawn Chair"?

    A shop I knew called them that because like lawn chairs, they usually just sat around, not running.
  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    any of those horrible neoclassic revivals that were all the rage in the 70's...Packard, Stutz, and so on

    AMEN!

    At the risk of being sacrificed to the Automotive Gods...Frankly I wouldn't take many of the Italian exotics (Lamborghini, Maserati, Ferrari) either. Beautiful to look at, thrilling to drive (probably), BUT, I think I would look like a complete Poseur in most of them, and I wouldn't have the stomach to maintain them. A guy in my old neighborhood used to drive a Lambo around, it just looked so ridiculously over-the-top and out-of-place in our quiet middle class neighborhood. It would be like Barney Fife relocating the Taj Mahal into Mayberry...
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,599
    edited April 2011
    Yeah, what were those fake Maserati's that were being sold in the early eighties? I think Chrysler stores sold them?

    THAT is one I wouldn't take!

    I wouldn't take one of those Shay Reproduction Model A's either.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    Chrysler TC. I'd take one for free, I guess. I wouldn't think it would be too much trouble. It is basically just a LeBaron.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,593
    edited April 2011
    There are lots of cars I wouldn't take but the ones that came to mind are Corvette C3s (1968-1982). I like most 'Vettes but the C3s were slow and ugly. No thanks.

    Maybe a late one in the right color in super condition but I doubt it.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    Not even this? :shades:

    Actually, I would LOVE to take that to Corvette shows and concours...see how many people I can piss off. Act like it is a sacred work of art.

    Thinking about cars I wouldn't want, that Lancia mention makes me think...I don't want anything that will routinely leave me stranded...like a 70s Lancia.
  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    C L A S S Y

    The really scary part is that they made 50 of these things... :sick:
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Personally, I wouldn't consider any Nash or Rambler product up through and including 1962. The '63 Classic and Ambassador look a lot better IMHO, but still no hardtops or convertibles, nor a V8 in the Classic at all until midway through the model year.

    For styling, I never liked the Pinto or Gremlin. Never liked the Maverick or Hornet sedans. Dislike the 1970 Dodge Coronet (although would take a performance version, just to sell it!).

    Other than that, I think I'd 'take' anything else in good condition.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,408
    I don't think I'd take any tremendous gas hog. I mean, some of those old cars would now cost you .40 cents a mile to drive. YIKES!!

    MODERATOR

  • oldbearcatoldbearcat Posts: 165
    I'm talking about the 4 cylinder model. One of my friends in college had one. It was pretty sorry. Back then, I was driving a Dodge Dart with the 225 in it, and, wanted an Olds 4-4-2. I finally got my Olds in 69 when I graduated from College and scored a decent job.

    Regards:
    Oldbearcat
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    I don't think I'd take any tremendous gas hog. I mean, some of those old cars would now cost you .40 cents a mile to drive. YIKES!!

    Heck, I'd be happy with just 40 cents per mile. My '85 Silverado got about 8.5 mpg on the last tank. And fuel is around $4.00 per gallon now, so I'm looking at around 47 cents per mile for the gas for that thing! Needless to say, it doesn't get driven much, and mostly short-trip driving, which probably helps contribute to that crappy mpg.

    A lot of those old musclecars are really over-rated as daily drivers though. They usually had no air conditioning, a minimum of other options, short gearing which meant they sounded like they were screaming even when idling along, and those big, powerful engines put off a lot of heat, great for cooking you on a hot summer day when you're stuck in traffic. And, for all that inconvenience, most decent V-6 family cars would still take you in 0-60 or the quarter mile.

    So, I think I'd rather have, say, a nicely equipped Coronet with a/c and just a 318 or base level 383, than an R/T or Superbee with a 426 or high-output 440.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    I'm talking about the 4 cylinder model. One of my friends in college had one. It was pretty sorry. Back then, I was driving a Dodge Dart with the 225 in it, and, wanted an Olds 4-4-2.

    I'd imagine that most compacts with the tiniest engines probably sucked back then. A 4-cyl Chevy II is pretty lame, but I don't think I'd want a Valiant or Lancer/Dart with the smaller 170 slant six, either! And the same goes for a Falcon or Comet with the 144 or 170 CID 6-cyl engines.

    I used to own a 1969 Dodge Dart GT hardtop with the 225 slant six, and I liked it alot. Roomy up front, comfortable, adequate performance, and good gas mileage. It would get around 15-18 mpg around town an 22 or so on the highway, even with the a/c cranked up. When it got wrecked, I bought a '68 that had a 318. Gas mileage sucked...best I ever did was maybe 17.5 on the highway, and local it was more like 12-13, 14 if I was lucky. But the performance of that V-8 more than made up for the mileage loss! :shades:
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,599
    Back in the mid 70's I had a very nice 1954 Chevy Bel Air with a Powerglide.

    It used to get between 12-14 MPG when I bothered to check it.

    My 1965 Riviera was good for about 10 MPG if I didn't jump on it too much.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,408
    edited April 2011
    10 MPG was good for a 60s' Riviera. My '63 got about 8 MPH, and if I did steady highway driving, coasting when possible, I might get 12-14...maybe.

    I think the 64 Bonneville I had got about 10. I had a '65 Cadillac that I could stretch to about 14. I remember driving cross country in a friends '63 Chrysler New Yorker with 383 and we got 13 mpg all the way.

    MODERATOR

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    I remember driving cross country in a friends '63 Chrysler New Yorker with 383 and we got 13 mpg all the way.

    Not to get too nitpicky, but a '63 NYer should have a ~350 hp 413 standard. Unless it had blown and was replaced with a 383?

    I briefly had a '67 Newport with a 383-2bbl, a fairly wussy 270 hp unit, I believe. I never drove it enough to get a feel for fuel economy, though.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.