Howdy, Stranger!

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





Bargain "Classics"--$12,000 or Less and 20 Years or Older

12324252729

Comments

  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    Hey Andre

    The 68 cutlass (which may or may not be a classic, but will easy fit under the $12K criteria) had a 350 with a 4 barrel. I took it to Fremont Raceway on a Wed night when anyone could run the 1/4, it ran a mid-16 at 85 mph, I guess the 2 speed transmission wasn't the best for drag racing...LOL. Later in life, I bought a 68 442. Sometime in that car's life the 400 must have gone kaput, and there was a 455 replacement block in it (no vin stamped on the plate). Shifty came out and gave me a market analysis on it when I was ready to sell it and he nailed the selling price within a couple of hundred dollars. I would have kept the car, as my then 2 year old son absolutely loved Daddy's race car, but it only got 7-8 mpg if you behaved yourself...ouch... I wouldn't mind getting a Hurst Olds, but I will have to sell my 1972 Datsun 240z first...and then get spousal approval for yet another car purchase... :shades: I know there is a way to posting pics of the 442 and 240Z, but I will have to research it as the jpeg files I have are BIG BIG BIG
  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    Andre, here it is...

    http://www.carspace.com/garv214/?50@@.5c8db9b4

    For what it is worth, I did pay $12K for the car, but had to put in another $6K to get it to this state...mostly interior and mechanical corrections....
  • gussguss Posts: 1,181
    I like the 442 , but I really wanted to see some pictures of the Z.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,695
    Very nice 442+. And thanks for the '8 mpg on a good day' comment, I'm tired of hearing from folks complaining about current cars, saying stuff like 'my friend had a '69 Charger with a 440, got 18 mpgs, no problem!' Right.... We had a '69 Cutlass with just the 350 2bbl, but it would scoot.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,148
    And thanks for the '8 mpg on a good day' comment, I'm tired of hearing from folks complaining about current cars, saying stuff like 'my friend had a '69 Charger with a 440, got 18 mpgs, no problem!'

    Heck, 8 mpg out of something like a 455 Cutlass actually sounds respectable! I've managed to achieve similar mpg with much less impressive vehicles. In fact, I just filled up my '79 New Yorker, with it's macho 150 hp 360-2bbl lean burn, and I think it came out to about 8 mpg. :blush:

    I'm curious to see what kind of fuel economy my '67 Catalina convertible gets, now that it's been all fixed up. It used to get around 9-10 mpg around town, but I swear it used to be able to get 17-18 on the highway, if I kept my foot out of it.
  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    Yeah, our 68 cutlass with the 350 + 4bbl achieved 20 mpg on a long trip up Hwy 5(on 78 series tires...LOL). It was typically more around 14-15 mpg on a more typical commute. The 442 was getting 8 mpg on a combination of freeway and idling around town, I do not have a heavy foot, so I shudder to think what I would have gotten if I opened up the secondaries on that spread bore more often....

    I will post some pics of the 240Z in about a week or so. It is over at my Father in law's house as my wife's hot rod kicked it out of the garage...(she inherited her grandfather's 68 mustang GT 390 coupe)...wish grandpa had checked the fastback box instead...heh heh heh..... I just posted a couple of pics of that one today...

    http://www.carspace.com/garv214/?50@@.5c8db9b4

    FWIW, I have been getting in the low 20's in the Datsun 240Z. The best I have done was 27mpg on a 100 mile round trip to Pescadero off of Hwy 1. I was being a very good boy that day ;)
  • ghuletghulet Posts: 2,628
    I could never figure out (when I was 16) why I didn't have any money--driving my '71 Buick Electra, 455 4-barrel, 315hp, 4900 lbs. to work 12 miles each way @ $3.35/hr. pay (minimum wage in IL in 1985) with gas around $1/gallon. 5 hour after-school shifts. Duh.
  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    I remember those days...although I did get a $0.15 raise at the pizza parlor after 3 months so between the extra pay and free pizza, I was living large! ;)
  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    Shifty

    I have been watching a number of EBay auctions and reviewing a number of ads for 1983-84 Hurst Olds. It strikes me that the 83's seem to be commanding a bit of a premium over the 84's. Does your little "black book" support that? If so, any thoughts why (other than people like black better than silver)?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,980
    No the books do not differentiate them. The only substantive differences I can think of that might affect price a bit would be that '83 was the 15th anniversary edition and also that they made about 500 more of the '84 models. Neither of those seems significant, but who knows....could be a "mini-trend" that you've spotted.

    Certainly there are other little niches of preference in the collector car world between what might seem identical cars. Usually a first year model has the edge...but again, not always....sometimes if the car was vastly improved over its model run, the LAST one has the edge.

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

  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    Maybe a mini-trend, but I am skeptical of many of the E-Bay auctions I have seen. The last 83 hurst olds I saw "sold" for $13.5K, but the same bidder outbid himself around 6 times to "win" the auction AND the car is still listed on the seller's website still (for about $6K more than the sale price). maybe his is just behind in updating his webpage...or something....

    Any insights on the "lightning rod" transmission 200-4R (is it durable?). I seem to recall that someone had posted that certain GM transmissions were a bit more fragile than others.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,695
    "but the same bidder outbid himself around 6 times to "win" the auction"

    You're right to be skeptical, but I think that kind of bidding history results from automated bidding, when you specify a maximum amount. Not necessarily bogus.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,980
    I don't know much about that transmission.

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

  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    I remember when you literally couldn't GIVE those things away. They were slow miserable things with enough smog equipment to choke a horse. Bad suspension, bad interior, and worthless transmission.

    But if someone wants to pay you that much for one... laugh all the way to the bank I guess. :P

    The smart money is on a early to mid 70s GM muscle car.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,980
    Every dog has its day...

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

  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    Yes, but wow it's amazing. I even saw someone trying to sell a 1981 Buick Regal the other day(normal sedan with the 3.8 and 3 speed auto and about 110HP) for an astounding 4K. :confuse:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,980
    Wonder what this proud owner wants for his "classic"?

    image

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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,980
    $12,000 or less, isn't it?

    Have Mercy!

    I'm beginning to feel a song coming on:

    "Get Me To the Crusher on Time"

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

  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,333
    Probably some unobtanium in there, good parts car.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,333
    If I had one of those I would send it to that guy who does the whole Back to the Future conversion, with the flux capacitor and Mr. Fusion etc. I'd also want a better powertrain, and maybe make it sound like the BTTF car.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,980
    Well by all means strip the small bits off...

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

  • dave8697dave8697 Posts: 1,498
    looked like a '72 auto 4-4-2 in it. Gold with white convertable. Brings back memories. In '78 my friend bought that exact car from his friends parents for $1100. About 120k miles on it in S. Fl. We cruised around Lake Park until he got so many tickets he had to sell it. He wanted to show me what the 455 could do once, so we started at a stop sign. He floored it. rubber all through first, all through second, and at least 50 feet of third gear as we went through the third stop sign at somewhere over 70mph in a 25 zone. We blew through 2-3 more stop signs before he got it slowed down. I would have bought it from him if I could afford the gas or the car. I had a '70 Delta 88 with a Rocket 350 at the time. There was no comparison. I did manage 20mpg on a trip to NY in the Delta 88 with the radial tires that came on it and a 2.56 rear axle ratio.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,148
    Any insights on the "lightning rod" transmission 200-4R (is it durable?). I seem to recall that someone had posted that certain GM transmissions were a bit more fragile than others.

    When that transmission first came out in 1981, it was troublesome. It was improved over the years, but I don't think it was until around 1984-85 that they really got it right, more or less. There was a beefed-up version of it that was used for the Grand National. I'd presume that it would've also been used in the Monte SS and the Hurst/442, but you never know, with GM!

    I had an '85 LeSabre 307 and '86 Monte Carlo 305 with the 200R4 tranny. The LeSabre had 157,000 miles on it when we finally got rid of it, and the Monte had 192,000 on it when I got t-boned while delivering pizzas, and neither ever had any tranny trouble.

    Now that I think about it, there was a guy at work who had one of those Hursts. AT least I think it was the Hurst and not the 442, as it had the lightning rod shifter and not the normal one. I forget how many miles he ultimately got out of it, but I know it was well over 200,000. I forget the year, but it was a grayish-silver, if that helps. It was pretty worn out when he finally got rid of it. I remember asking him if he'd ever be interested in selling it, and he told me that I wouldn't want the thing, as it was high-mileage and getting tired. Nevermind the fact I was driving a '68 Dart with over 300,000 miles on it at the time. :P

    The 200R4 transmission was also used in full-sized station wagons and in the big RWD C-body coupes and sedans in the 80's. Many of those easily topped 4,000 lb. I wonder what would stress out a transmission more...an engine with a lot of torque, or a lot of weight to lug around?

    I've also heard that the beefed-up version of the transmission was used in Impala and Caprice copcars in the 1980's, even with the 350 V-8, but I think that was actually a truck transmission, like the 700R4 or something?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,148
    Your post possessed me to do an eBay search for "1981 Buick", and I found this gem.

    Sounds like a great car, but the only thing I'm having trouble deciding, is whether there's only one too many zeroes to the left of the decimal point, or two! :blush:

    I'd really like to see a Riv Diesel get 41 mpg, and suuuuure, the thing has anti-lock brakes. :P

    I actually like these cars, but gimme an '84-85 model with the 307/4-speed automatic...none of this Diesel crap. And for some reason, I actually prefer the Toronado, although most people find it to be uglier.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,333
    It might even be three too many zeroes.

    I noticed the "diesel" emblem is the same as used on the period Monte Carlo diesel.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,980
    81 Buick -- looks like around $700 bucks to me, on a good day, if you can pawn it off on someone. They are hard enough to sell when they are in GOOD condition, much less this.....thing. Some people are mad, totally mad.....

    Book says $1200 bucks in "fair" condition....okay, I was a little off....

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

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,148
    but I really like this old beast. Kinda makes me wish I had a spare $2695 laying around! :shades:

    I really love that shade of green. The bucket seats are cool, too, but I hate when they give a car bucket seats, but then stick in a column shift! What's the point in that?! My old '69 Dart GT was like that.

    Overall, it looks like it's in decent shape, just with the interior being a bit rattier than my '76. Has the rust spots in the same place as my '76, and even has a tear in the driver's seat, as does my '76!

    I know I'd be better served taking that $2695 and putting it into the LeMans I already have...especially since it quit running. :sick: Or one of my other cars. But still, I feel the siren song of Nebraska calling out to me....

    Oh well, it'll pass, I'm sure.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Posts: 1,653
    Nice color, although I really don't care for the pinstripes or the side moldings. Are those stock? :confuse:
  • garv214garv214 Posts: 162
    Andre, Sheriff Buford T Justice would be proud of you!

    Thanks for the follow up on my transmission question. I wouldn't mind getting serious over a hurst olds, but I would definitely have to thin out the herd a bit.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,148
    I think the side molding might be stock...probably an option. My '76 has that molding too, and I hate it. I think the problem is that on the LeMans, the fenders bulge out a bit, both front and rear, compared to the doors, giving the car a somewhat wasp-waisted stance. As a result, that side molding has sort of a wavy look, depending on the angle you view it from.

    As for the pinstripes, I believe they were an option, but I think the stock ones would be narrower than what's on this car. Personally I don't mind them...but the thing that bugs me is the mirrors on the car. They should be body color and not white. But I guess that's not too hard of a fix.
This discussion has been closed.