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

  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,294
    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: 7,525
    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: 45,939
    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 --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • oldbearcatoldbearcat Posts: 181
    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: 22,138
    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: 22,138
    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: 17,915
    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: 45,939
    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 --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    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.
  • omarmanomarman Posts: 723
    I never had a chance to drive a 413 Mopar anything, but I do remember the racing coverage for the Max Wedge 413. Huge exhaust manifolds, cross ram dual 4 bbl, etc. Wild thing. Mopar was dominating the race tracks back then.

    But over time it got kind of tricky to follow the Chrysler/Imperial car line. My uncle Allen drove a Chrysler Imperial in the early 70s with the standard 440/4bbl engine. I've read that it's not proper to call it, "Chrysler" Imperial -- just Imperial. But it was advertised as a Chrysler Imperial back then.

    By the early 80s my dad was driving a Chrysler LeBaron which used to be the name of an Imperial trim line. I remember it had the Imperial eagle emblem somewhere on it -- maybe hood ornament. Oh yes and a 225 slant six engine under the hood!

    After my uncle passed away, my older brother bought the Imperial battleship and drove it every day to work. While at the same time my retired dad, raised during the depression era, drove his downsized Imperial-badged LeBaron. That always looked funny to me.

    Between those two cars, if I had to decide which one would I could NOT accept, keep forever, tow it, repair it, etc...I'd probably turn away the Imperial battleship. It was just too much everything but I suppose that was the intent back then.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    But over time it got kind of tricky to follow the Chrysler/Imperial car line. My uncle Allen drove a Chrysler Imperial in the early 70s with the standard 440/4bbl engine. I've read that it's not proper to call it, "Chrysler" Imperial -- just Imperial. But it was advertised as a Chrysler Imperial back then.

    Yeah, technically they were simply "Imperials" from 1955-75. But, often the badge would read "Imperial" with "by Chrysler" underneath in a smaller script, or something like that.

    I think one sore spot for the Imperial is that it always had the same engine as the New Yorker, yet was supposed to be a more prestigious car. Over the years, the Imperial and New Yorker became closer in size and price. For 1976-78, what had been the Imperial was now the New Yorker Brougham. In some of those earlier years though, an Imperial could be an easy 600-800+ heavier than a New Yorker, and using the same engine, that HAD to hurt performance.

    Now that I think about it, a slant six anything made after 1979 would probably be a hard sell for me. In 1979, the 1-bbl had 100 hp, and there was a 2-bbl version that put out 110. But for '80 it was cut to 85 hp, with only a 1-bbl carb. It had to struggle so hard to move those heavy cars that most of the time, if you bought the 318 instead, you actually got BETTER fuel economy!

    It bounced back slightly, to 90 hp for 1981, and I think that's where it stood until 1987 or whenever it was finally replaced by the 3.9 V-6. And by then it was a truck-only engine.

    Still, if it was in decent shape and the carb wasn't too finicky, I could put up with a slant six Diplomat or LeBaron, if it was free! I'd hate to think of that over-worked '85-90 hp engine in something like an '80-81 Newport, St. Regis, or Gran Fury though.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,939
    Ah, you jogged my memory. It was a NEWPORT, so that means a 361 cid.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • oldbearcatoldbearcat Posts: 181
    I agree. My dad once owned a Valiant wagon with the small slant 6 with a 3 speed stick. The thing was pretty gutless.

    Regards:
    Oldbearcat
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    Ah, you jogged my memory. It was a NEWPORT, so that means a 361 cid.

    Wow, so if a Newport was guzzling like that, I hate to think of how much a New Yorker with a 413 would have swallowed down!

    The few times I had taken my '57 DeSoto on a highway run, it would get around 16 mpg. Which, I guess, is fairly reasonable. At around two tons, it weighs about as much as my '76 LeMans, '67 Catalina, and '79 New Yorker (base weight of all three is within around 60 lb of each other). Yet with a 341 Hemi, it actually has less displacement than the others (400 for the Catalina, 360 for the NYer, and while they called it a 350, the LeMans has 353 cubes if you do the math).

    The Catalina has done as well as 17, while the LeMans has come close to 18, and the New Yorker gotten around 21. None of them would do that consistently though, and to get those kind of figures, it almost has to be a pure highway run (i.e., fill up, get on the highway, and don't stop again until the next fill-up)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,939
    That's the way 60s cars were---on the highway, MPG was sometimes tolerable but the minute you got into stop and go driving, the mileage would almost halve.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    That's the way 60s cars were---on the highway, MPG was sometimes tolerable but the minute you got into stop and go driving, the mileage would almost halve.

    I always thought it a bit odd that my '67 Catalina and '68 Dart would both get around 17 mpg on the highway. Despite the fact that the Catalina had about 800 lb, and 82 cubes, and an extra pair of carb jets compared to the Dart.

    But, in local driving, the Catalina could easily drop to 9-10, while the Dart was more like 12-13.

    My LeMans and New Yorker can easily drop to 9-10 mpg, too!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,939
    laws of physics apply despite those $49 "hydrogen generators" you see on eBay. :P

    To get a 2-ton square brick moving takes energy! Once it's moving, not so much, unless you go fast enough to hit the aero wall. Then things get ugly quickly.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • martianmartian Posts: 220
    I wouldn't take any Audi with >60,000 miles on it. These things are money pits, and the dealers love to do a lot of "extra" stuff.
    Come to think of it , a BMW 740 would be the same-huge repair costs when something goes wrong.
    AS for SAAB (the newest of the automotive world's walking dead)-will sed SAABs be worth anything? I heard that the Chinese willrescue them, but I cannot see the brand surviving long.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,939
    The older Saabs are worth something---the cars from the 50s and 60s, and the Sonett sports car is a minor collectible. Some people like to mechanically restore the 80s Saab 5-door hatchback Turbos, because they have good utility and are fun to drive.

    Very few Audis are worth saving---the Quattro 5000 wagons do catch people's eye, and the Audi 5000 GT Turbo coupe is a minor collectible.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,294
    Audi UR Quattro, that's about it for me, but very few were sold here.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.