Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant
walterchan
Member Posts: 61
Hi, I heard a lot of good things about Dodge Dart and the sister, Plymouth Valiant. The Slant 6 engines are great and made me feel of buying one used. Right now I'm confused on which classic American make car I should get. I'm looking for a classic American car right now that is the most reliable, never let me down, can go on to Guiness Worlds of Records as a world's longest lasting car, and can last up to 1,000,000 miles. I don't really mind the brake change and paint rust. Is the Dodge Dart or Plymouth Valiant the best car reliabilty in history? If not, is Ford Falcon, Oldsmoblile Cutlass Supreme, Ford Fiesta, Ford Torino, Chevrolet Chevelle, Plymouth Duster, Plymouth Barracuda, Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Bel-Air, Chrysler Imperial, or others better than the Dodge Dart or Plymouth Valiant? Anybody reply to this message is greatly appreciated.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What you can gain by driving these old cars is a certain self-reliance, since you can fix them yourselves most of the time, which you cannot do with modern cars.
So the only advantage of old cars is their fix-ability, not their supposed reliability, which doesn't hold up to a real test.
Still, Darts and Valiants are probably among the best. I've had two of them, a '69 GT with a 225 slant six, and now a '68 270, with a V-8. I hate to admit it though, but I don't know if it's a 273 or 318! According to the VIN #, if I'm reading it correctly, it originally came with a 273. But it had a rebuild (or a rebuilt engine put in) around the 242,000 mile mark. The guy who sold it to me said it had a 318, but I honestly don't know.
Both of my Darts were 2-door hardtops, and the closest modern car you could really compare them to, in terms of size, would be a Grand Prix coupe or a Monte Carlo. In general, old cars aren't that space efficient, but Darts were among the best of their time. Believe it or not, the sedans actually had more legroom in them than the Impala of the time, and the Impala was a full-sized car!
Compared to something like a modern Monte or GP coupe, they're a little narrower, both inside and out, but have more legroom, better headroom, and more trunk space. At least going by my perceptions from sitting in them.
I only had my '69 GT for about 29,000 miles, until it was totaled when I got run off the road and hit a traffic light. The only real problems I had were brakes and a water pump. It only had about 48,000 miles on it when I bought it, and around 77K when it met its untimely death.
I bought the '68 with 253,000 miles on it, and it currently has around 338,000 miles. The only thing I've ever had to do with the engine was change the valve covers, and regular tuneup stuff. The tranny has only required regular fluid changes, although I somehow crimped one of the cooling lines to the radiator shut once, and it built up pressure and blew a seal. This car has required a lot of other work though, such as front suspension, exhaust, brakes, radiator, power steering, a/c, starter, alternator, etc. It's also been run into a couple times, although whatever hit me always fared much worse than the Dart!
Still, it's probably been more reliable than what most cars would be when they get to the 253,000 mile mark!
If you do get a Dart or Valiant, the first thing I'd advise is to change the tires. Some of the basic models actually came with 13" rims! I had 205/70/R14's on the '69, and the '68 has 205/70/R14 up front and 225/70/R14 in back. Going from whatever was the norm in the late '60's to a 70-series tire makes a world of difference in handling.
As for fuel economy, my '69 got around 15-18 mpg city, and maybe 22-23 on the highway. Running the a/c had no noticeable effect on gas mileage.
The '68 gets maybe 12-13 city, and 16-17 highway, and almost 18 if you're r-e-a-l-l-y gentle on the pedal.
As for brakes, I went through front shoes around every 10-15K miles, and rears around every 15-20. The V-8 didn't seem to wear 'em out any quicker, but then the V-8 also had larger 10" drums, whereas the slant six only had 9" drums.
I think ball joints were one of the known weak spots on Darts and Valiants. Also, you have to clean out the cowl drains regularly, or else water will accumulate up in there and get into the passenger cabin.
If you don't mind the old-fashioned slow steering and you like to fix cars yourself, an old Valiant might be fun. But don't expect to get any more use out of it than the cheapest Honda. No old car can outlast a new one in my opinion, given the same amount of care of course.
Really the only gain I see in driving an old car is that you can readily repair it and pretty cheaply, too. I am often tempted to buy something like an old Volvo 544 for this very reason, that I can keep it running forever because I can keep fixing it myself--not because it's better than a new Volvo. I just wouldn't be the captive of the Volvo dealership.
I changed mine pretty religiously every 2000-2500 miles. I had that ingrained into my head from my grnadfather. He worked on a farm about 2 miles from home for most of his life, and the roads around weren't even paved until the '60's or '70's, so with all that dirt and dust, it was probably a good idea back then.
If the standard steering is too slow, I think there's a quick-ratio steering box available. At least it was in the B-bodies, but I'm sure it would've been an option in stuff like the '67-69 Barracuda and the Dart GTS.
. In California, you are free of the smog guys. Most of the time, people sail through this (if throwing away an hour or two can be considered 'sailing')...but if you get caught up in their nets, you will be *very* sorry. The hassle factor can be pretty high.
. Cheapness of repairs. It just blows me away sometimes how much modern cars can cost to fix. Once again, I've got to draw the health care analogy...infrequent but expensive repairs...insurance (warranties) will become more and more important.
While I really can't draw conclusions from single cases...a friend of mine with a late model pickup has spent over 10k in repairs in the last couple of years. Things like transmissions (which seem to me to be the weak point in new cars) can easily cost 3k to fix...try spending that on a C6 or T-400. While I sort of expect ongoing smallish fixes in old cars (and lower times between overhauls, assuming you own the car that long), I would probably take a hostage the first time a real bill came due on a newish Volvo or Mitsubishi or something.
To be fair, in over 25 years of owning American high performance cars, I've only had a handful (a small one at that) of things that needed to be fixed. The main ongoing hassles, points/plugs and setting lash, can easily be fixed with a Pertronix unit and a hydraulic cam.
I expect that in the final analysis, the single most important thing is the amount of miles you put on every year. I only drive 5k or so, but if it were 25k, a new Honda would look pretty good.
Honestly, I'd love to know how bad a 1970 Chevelle (for instance) really is when hitting a barrier. Has 30 years of some sort of work hardening made the sheet metal brittle? Would improved seat belts make a huge difference? Should you replace old windshields? Damned if I know.
About a year or so ago, I went to one of the local junkyards, a place that specializes in Mopars. They had a '67 Dart 4-door in there that looked like it had gone through the offset impact crash test. I don't know what speed it had gotten hit at, but it looked pretty high. It actually did crumple up like how a well-designed car should. The front took most of the impact and folded up, without any intrusion into the passenger cabin. A newer car would still be safer, as there is more soft stuff to break, air bags, less hard material in the passenger cabin, etc. Still, I'd say this Dart was hardly a death trap!
Darts and Valiants were unitized, which gave them a bit of an advantage. Often with a body-on-frame car, the frame will buckle under the passenger compartment instead of up front, so what happens is the whole front-end clip of the car gets pushed back into the passenger cabin.
As for seat belts, I don't know if newer ones would make much difference in an old car or not. Both of my Darts had the separate shoulder belt that had no tension in it. If worn properly, there was no way in hell you were going to hit the dash or the steering wheel in an impact, unless the crash was so bad that it drove them back into you. In contrast, those "window shade" type seatbelts that started making their way into cars in the '70's wouldn't always tighten up when they were supposed to. As a result, it was easier to hit the dash when you stopped suddenly.
Oh yeah, on the '67 Darts, the name "DART" was spelled out on the rear quarter panel, each letter being a separate piece. I've heard that the "F" to a Ford Fairlane will fit there and blend in very well!
But definitely the occupants would suffer more in an old car. I would choose a new Honda to get smashed in rather than an old Chevelle, given I'd be hit by the same size car.
But you know, you never know--accidents have very unpredictable dynamics.
- To get a reasonable shoulder belt.
- To get rid of the now semi-useless lap belt. My understanding is that belts loose their ability to stretch properly through the years...I wouldn't be suprised if they were UV sensitive. In any case, I'll bet that modern belt materials are superior.
If nothing else, it would be interesting to see how aging effect collision behavior (if at all).
You want the car to "give". You don't want rigidity. Think of you in a tank hitting a wall. Tank no give, tree no give, YOU all give. (splat!)
My '82 was a piece of junk. However, I bought it when it was 11 years old and had 61,000 miles on it, which is more than enough time for the original owner to abuse it. I lost all oil pressure around the 72,000 mile mark. I was able to kind of salvage it by replacing the oil pump gears, which are actually pretty easy to do on that engine, as they're up front and easy to get to. Basically, something in the engine was self-destructing and spreading metal bits throughout the oil passages. These shavings tore up the pump gears, so they weren't pumping.
I ended up selling the car about 1-2,000 miles later, so I don't know what ultimately happened to it. I've heard plenty of horror stories about those 3.8's, but I don't want to scare you. If yours is still running well after this many years, it may very well run on forever. Just stay up-to-date on oil changes, tune ups, etc. I think the 3.8 also has a timing chain gear that's prone to early failure, but I don't know what the replacement interval is on them.
IIRC, a slant six weighs about 100 lb more than a Buick 3.8, so it's a pretty chunky motor. I want to say the slant six weighs around 475 lb, and the 3.8, around 375. Horsepower for the 3.8 2-bbl was always around 105-110, whereas the slant six varied from year to year. Up through 1971, the 225 was rated at 145 gross hp, and 110 net. In Canada there was a 2-bbl option that boosted that to 160 gross/120 net.
In 1972, there are two ratings for the 225: 100 and 110. I think 100 was for California cars and 110 was for the other 49 states. Around 1974-75 they hit a low of 85-90 hp. In '77, a 2-bbl was made available in the U.S., but the Dart/Valiant were gone by then. It put out 110 hp. I think the 1-bbl was back up to around 100 by then, too.
Comparing my '82 Cutlass to my '69 Dart GT, I'd say the Dart was a bit quicker from 0-60, but really started to shine above that. At higher speeds, I was surprised to find out that the V-8 Dart, which I got after the slant six got totaled, wasn't that much more responsive. That V-8 would blow the slant-six's doors off from 0-60, but if you started them both off at 60 and punched it, I don't think the V-8 would've pulled away that much quicker.
The Cutlass would get to higher speeds, eventually. It never seemed to be straining, just took its time getting there. I don't know what gearing the Cutlass had, either. Both Darts had 2.76:1 rear ends. The Cutlass might've been a 2.41, or it might've been something even worse. For instance, I think there was a 2.14:1 rear available back then!
Ironically, about a month after I got my Cutlass, I saw a nice '73 Dart Swinger at a used car lot. I stopped to look at it. The salesman actually asked me if he could do an even trade, would I take the Dart? Looking back, I wish I had. At the time though, I still had my '68 Dart (still have it to this day), and figured I didn't need another Dart. If I'd made that trade though, I'd probably still have the Dart, instead of having a Cutlass that blew up a year later!
Still, there are other things to consider. Take my accident, for instance, where my '69 Dart got totaled. I got run off the road and hit a traffic light pole sideways, probably at around 45 mph. Air bags, crumple zones, etc, are useless in that type of accident. What you need is size and bulk. I ended up ripping that pole off its base and launching it into the intersection. My passenger-side door was caved in about a foot. Overall passenger cabin intrusion was maybe 4". The doors on that car were about 8" thick, and that passenger door was smashed flat. Now a car with thinner doors would have had more passenger cabin intrusion. A lighter car would have been penetrated more. Worse, a car that would not have been able to uproot that pole would have instantly turned itself into one big giant "U".
Since most modern cars are designed to crumple up, it's actually safer to drive an older car now than it was back in the day. Look at it this way...back in the day, what was there to hit? A whole world full of cars just like yours. Big, lumbering dreadnaughts that wouldn't crumple up. Most of those cars are gone today though. When a car that's designed to crumple hits a car that's NOT designed to crumple, well, the weaker car just crumples more. And that reduces the shock to sturdier car. Basically, the new car becomes the old car's crumple zone, to an extent.
While I'm reasonably sure that practically any new car will crumple in a safer way than an old one, it's kind of a useless argument. Without experimental data, it's all opinions masquerading as facts.
The whole retrofitting deal is a way more interesting concept to me...not just handling stuff, better seat belts, etc, but less obvious things. Good quality aftermarket seats that are well mounted for one (I remember seeing a nice comparison between a Recaro and factory seat once...it blew me away how poorly made the EOM one was), decent gas tanks (substituting a fuel cell for that thing hanging under the bumper in a Camaro or behind the driver seat in a Chevy truck), hell...throw a cage in the thing.
One kind of safetyish thing I was musing about is the widespread use of aluminum wheels on later cars. You *do* get those purty shapes (at probably no weight savings at all), but I expect that they are a batch more brittle than a steel wheel...besides being fodder for tire machines.
One nasty side effect, of course, of cleverly made 'soft' cars, is the propagation of body damage in a collision. Pretty small taps can ruin quite a few things.
I've never met you but I don't think you'd look very good with "Electra 225" engraved on your forehead.
What I'd like to know is how bad an old car is rather than just guessing. Pick a model, any model. Obviously a 1950 Beetle is going to be worse than a '73 Monte Carlo. It wouldn't suprise me if there isn't more difference there than between the Chevy and something newer.
I'd guess that with really old cars one major difference would be that it was far more common for people to be thrown out of their cars in a wreck, which I am told increases your chances of dying by a factor of about 7.
Then with 60s cars, that only had lap belts, I'd expect more injuries than a new car but with 70s and 80s cars maybe not such a big difference except in the really violent high speed collisions, where air bags might really be helpful.
I'm sure if people wore their belts, even lap belts, back then, death rates would have looked much more favorable.
As for judging how a car looks after an accident, when I do that I look to see how well the passenger's space was maintained. Sure, that's not going to mean squat if they spattered themselves on the dashboard, but it is at least part of an indicator. Still, you can at least get a bit of a picture just from how the car crunched up.
For example, when I bought my Gran Fury, the guy had a couple of wrecked police cars around in back. I had actually gone to this place looking for a Caprice, but when I saw how poorly they did in comparison in the crashes, it was downright disturbing. Truthfully though, the fact that the cheapest Caprice he had had fewer options, a cheaper interior, and about 40,000 miles more than the most expensive M-body, not to mention a $500 higher price tag, that pretty much cinched it ;-)
Anyway, these cars were all involved in high speed crashes. The body-on-frame Caprices had some pretty severe passenger cabin intrusion. Their frames would buckle under the passenger cabin instead of further up front, resulting in basically the whole front-end-clip of the car pushing its way into the passenger cabin. The Diplomats and Gran Furys, on the other hand, seemed to crumple up in a much more controlled. The front-ends accordioned just like a more modern car, leaving the passenger cabin unscathed.
Sure, maybe the cop driving still could've been killed...anything can happen. Still, I'd say the chances were much greater in the Caprices, as they transmitted much more of the shock to the passenger cabin, and with the steering and dash pushed back, chances of the cop getting impaled on something were much greater.
As for '70's and 80's cars, I think one advantage some of them might have, especially the larger ones, is there's a larger buffer zone inside the car. Well, if you're tall and sit with the seat all the way back, at least. For instance, the dash of my Intrepid is only about 3-4 inches from my knee. The dead pedal is mounted on the firewall, and if my foot were on it in a crash and it buckled, that would probably be the end of my left leg. In contrast, the dash on my '79 New Yorker is more like 9-10" from my knee, and the only way I can even reach the firewall is if I fully extend my leg and point my foot out. In a bad accident, maybe I'd feel more of a shock since the car might not crumple up like a modern one. Still, I'd have less of a chance of getting impaled on something, since everything's further away.
I've also noticed that a lot of cars, especially starting around 1968, seem to have more crash padding inside them than modern cars! For instance, my '68 Dart has not only a padded dash, but also a thick pad running along the lower edge of the dash (a handy junk shelf), and a thick pad shrouding the air conditioner ducts. GM's '68-72 intermediates seem to be overly padded, as well. Come to think of it, so was my '69 Bonneville. Even the fake wood in that car was soft to the touch! Was their some kind of padding revolution around that time?
One interesting tidbit...for some reason, only the '68 Dart had that lower dashboard padded shelf. The '67 and '69 didn't. I wonder if there was some problem with it that they quit putting them on? I know one thing I'd have a bad habit of doing is putting cassette tapes on it. They'd start sliding around in spirited driving!
Shifty, help me out on this if this is wrong...but didnt seats belts start showing up on cars as standard equipment sometime in the mid/late 60's. So no available seatbelt might have contributed a little too!!
A few years ago I was a passenger in a restored '64 Malibu. It didn't have seatbelts. I had the most uneasy feeling and I couldn't wait to get out of that car!
Still, seatbelts only work if you use them. And I'm sure a good percentage of the population didn't use them until required by law. And even then, it took awhile!
I remember when the seatbelt laws went into effect in the '80's, that my grandmother decided to start riding in the back seat! I don't know how the laws are now, but when they first came out, only front seat occupants were required to be buckled.
were required to be buckled. "
I dont think that's changed... I think the laws concerning how one can be "busted" for not wearing a seat belt have, though.
The problem with older cars is that in high speed collisions the engine ends up in your lap, regardless of how far away you were...and the steering post is like a spear aimed at your heart.
If you had an older car that was designed to deflect the engine and the steering post, and you had good shoulder belts, you'd probably only die at maybe a 5-10% higher rate. Which seems about right, since the death rate has gone down about that much since the 1980s.
As for seatbelts, I do remember that Electra (71) having separate, ceiling mounted shoulder belts (which were held to the ceiling by clips, and were not retractable) for the outer two front seat occupants. It was very easy to just use the lap belt and forget all about the shoulder belts. Of course, no shoulder belts in the back seat at all.
I'd love to know where the real problems are...sheet metal that has gone brittle? poor seat mounting (I hate harping on that one, but I've seen several crashes, albeit rear-end hits, where the seat has broken loose)? poor belts? poor design or construction? Even though there are (obviously) a batch of crash scenarios (roll over/side,rear,front impact/1 vs 2 car/...) I'd be satisified with a plain old car smacking the immovable object test.
It seems to me one weak point in older designs is protecting the passenger compartment from the drivetrain. My hunch is that (comparing oranges to oranges) a modern, front engine mid-size is more likely to put the engine/trans under the cabin instead of through (which reminds me of a friend's SS396 Chevelle which managed to put the motor sort of between the front seats).
For the most part, Darts and Valiants were just basic transportation, and not considered cool cars to be seen in. There were a few high performance hardtops and convertibles, and the Duster/Demon/Sport 340/360 models in the '70's, but most of them were just plain stripper models. School teachers and secretaries and my grandparents drove them.
The GM G-bodies though, were very strong image cars for awhile. They had broad appeal and were a bit of a status symbol, something to show off, much like SUVs today. So basically, take a popular, good looking car, make it easy to steal, and then start placing bets on how soon it makes the top of the most stolen lists.
Sorry to hijack the thread. I do like Darts/Valiants, my favorite Mopars. Often wouldn't mind owning a '63-65 Valiant Signet or '62 Lancer.
Ed
Note that like all other safety & emissions laws- none are retro-active. That is; vehicles built before 01-01-66 are exempt from ALL state & local seat belt usage laws. I'm willing to bet that ANY 1966 vehicle would be exempt, as I cannot image local courts getting involved in dechipering time-built codes for a '66. Just an FYI.
This does not mean that you cannot ACCEPT a ticket for non-usage in a pre-'66... as I did when given the choice by a state trooper between non-usage (no points) and the 52-in-a 35 zone speeding offense (2 points) he pulled me over for in my '64 Catalina.
I once hit one at 105MPH in a '64 Catalina with no seat belts. Care to predict the outcome?
IMO- 'modern' cars NEEDED to create 'crumple zones' and deflection areas because as the metal got thinnner & thinner, the frames became "barely-engineered" rather than over-engineered, more & more plastic came into use --not to mention radical downsizing-- all under the guise of increasing fuel economy... the cars became weaker & FAR less able to protect the occupants WITHOUT numerous safety measures. A frame holding up/together a 2800 lb car is not NEARLY as strong as one doing the same for a 4200 lb car.
Of course, I'm not about to volunteer, but as much as I love old cars, I think they are pretty much death traps in serious collision at high speed. Without belts, its' double-death.
As for your collision, you were lucky in your choice of animals. If you had hit a pig, you'd be dead probably, as no doubt the deer went over the car after being clipped at the legs. With the low mass of a 300 lb porker, and with that sudden deceleration you'd be on the hood of the car if the dashboard spared you anything.
True if you hit a pig with a tank, you'd wouldn't even notice, but the point is when you hit something serious an old car cannot protect you or decelerate you as easily as a new car.
The incredible drop in death rates seems to prove all this.
Studebaker introduced front seat belt anchors across the board in 1962: http://www-cchs.ccsd.k12.wy.us/cchs_web/jiliff/Decades/cars/cars.html
Another site claims the 1964 Thunderbirds were the firstUS cars to have front seat belts standard:
http://www.tbirdregistry.com/viewdatasheet.asp?RegistryNumber=328
And finally, AACA states that Studebaker was the first US manufacturer to make them standard, but not until 1964:
http://www.aaca.org/history/cars_90.htm
So my apologies for the misinformation. Nonetheless my '63 did come with front belts only - the mounts are there so they must have been ordered as an option.
Ed
Now, I think this could be a practical daily driver for years to come. I'd probably upgrade the exhaust to dual glasspacks and just drive it. It has the original tires, so I'd want to replace those as well.
The guy has it priced at $6400, which is way over any book for this car. OCPG lists a #2 car at $4270, A #1 AT $6100. CPI lists an Excellent car at $5250. Obviously, the guy has already turned down some offers or the car would be sold by now. So, what do you think would be a reasonable offer for this car? Andre? Anyone?
Any other issues I should consider with this car?
A virtually new car with a good drivetrain that would last indefinitely.
Whadya think?
I guess it'd be really hard to put a price on something like that, just because it is so low-mileage and original. I've heard that 1974 was the last really good year for the Dart/Valiant, though. The next year, 1975, they had no end of trouble with the emissions controls, and I believe Lean Burn started popping up in the smaller cars that year.
The 318/Torqueflite is about as bulletproof as it gets. It put out something like 150 hp, and around 260-265 ft-lb of torque. I'm not sure about gearing...I think by the '70's most V-8's were running 2.45:1 rear-ends.
As for tires, I ran 205/70/R-14's all around on my '69 Dart slant six, and 205/70/14 front and 225/70/14 rear on the '68, which has a V-8. My '68 came that way, but the '69 came with 195/75/R-14's. Swapping tires definitely made a big improvement in handling.
As for trouble spots, well, A-bodies in general tend to leak water under the dash, when the fresh-air intake fills up with leaves and other debris. If this one's been garaged, that shouldn't be a problem. I think ball joints were also a trouble spot, but not hard to replace. A buddy of mine bought a '71 Duster a few years ago, and we figured out how to replace them ourselves. Then there's the usual rust around the rear quarters and such, that all old cars do eventually!
As for fuel economy, my '68 was never anything to brag about...around 12-13 in the city and maybe 16-17 on the highway. The guy I bought it from said it had a 318 in it, but according to the VIN it should only have a 273. So I don't know what it has in it, although when it was rebuilt they put some kind of cam in it that makes it faster than you'd think. That might be part of the reason it guzzles. Kinda sad too, because my DeSoto actually gets better mileage around town, and my Catalina does better on the highway, and both of those are giants compared to the Dart!
One: the Accord has a MUCH lower & laid-back nose, just the thing to get under & scoop that deer up. Since most modern day cars have but 2-ply tin foil & plastic for body panels- there is no resistance there either; that deer is through your windshield and you're dead, crumple zones and all. This is an obvious problem in modern day vehicles, one that science has no solution for yet. It's a shame the detriment of safety is due to something so relatively inconsequential as the fashion of aerodynamics.
Just about any '60s car has a much higher and more vertical front fascia, and that alone is going to really help keep that deer (or whatever) off your hood & out of your chest & face.
Two: The lesser weight of the Accord will help it deaccelerate faster, tramsitting more of the shock to the occupants. I unfortunately don't have the proper physics terms handy... is it kinetic energy that's involved here? The greater mass of the '60s car times the velocity equals a forward force that no greatly-lesser mobile mass can oppose.
In my case the deer was caught & held by the front fascia (why would you think the vintage car would more readily launch the deer?) before dropping DOWN under the vehicle. I was not wearing a seat belt and the mass & velocity of my vehicle simply ripped the deer off it's own shadow. I did not hit the dash (padded) nor the steering wheel either, I was merely jostled a bit and never lost control. Only sheetmetal & core support damage occured- nothing structural. Except for the punctured battery, the car remained drivable, and was so again soon after minor sheetmetal straightening repairs in order to bring the headlights back into spec. No Honda would ever fair as well under the same circumstances- in all likelihood it would be "totalled".
Where I would lean towards your viewpoint (as posted above- we have no direct data to prove this specific arguement either way) is in instances of hitting an IMMOBILE object. Then the rigid steering column & usual lack of passenger restrains become a definite liabilty.
But in the (IMO) much more common occurance of hitting a MOBILE object, give me stronger steel, a boxed perimeter frame, greater powertrain distance, and greater mass anyday.
I also hate to get into the gory details, because I'm an animal lover, but chances are that deer will be alive and kicking (literally) when it comes through the windshield. I think this is one of those cases where a big, sturdy old car would be more merciful, both to the deer (better chance of killing it instantly) and to the driver!
Now there were some pictures on the web not too long ago, that showed a deer that got into a tangle with a Durango. The Durango got torn to hell, but there's one catch. Turns out that deer jumped off an overpass and landed on the Durango!
RE: Plymouth Duster -- I really don't see the point in paying a premium price for a car like this, which will never have any value except as a nice old used car.
You should pay exactly what you would pay for any old American transportation car in very nice condition, which sounds like about $3,500 these days. That's plenty for a Duster with a 318 and even exceeds any loan value.
Of course, if you want the world's best 1974 Duster and whatever bragging rights that gives you (?), by all means indulge yourself, but rationally speaking this car has no real intrinsic value beyond its ability to drive you around.
Were this a big block Mopar hardtop from a slightly earlier time, I might think differently, or if it were a 360 it might pull a bit more, but a 1974 Duster with a 318 is very much in the twilight of collectibility IMO.
I'm sure you could find a very clean '74 Duster to drive around in without having to pay a premium price. You shouldn't have to pay more than $2,500 for a clean slant six and you'll get much better fuel mileage and not much less performance. It's only 30 less HP.
If indeed the owner got offers in the $5,000 range and turned them down, he's a fool.
If I had to pick the world's fairest price for buyer and seller, it would be about $4,250 maximum. It would be worth $6,400 maybe in the year 3003.
I'm using some old Consumer Reports tests as references here. They tested:
a '68 Dart 270, with a 225 slant six/torqueflite and 2.76:1 gearing, 0-60 in 14 seconds,
a '67 or '68 Valiant Signet, 225/torqueflite/2.94:1 gearing, 0-60 in 13 seconds (it was also about 100 lb lighter)
a '68 Coronet with a 318/torqueflite/2.76:1 gearing, 0-60 in 10 seconds (several hundred lb heavier than a Dart or Valiant)
I'm sure they tested a 273 or 318 A-body in the '60's, I just can't recall at this time.
In the '70's, the cars did put on weight and get choked down, but a 318 would still do 0-60 in about 10-11 seconds, whereas the slant six was pushing more like 15+. In 1974, the 318 still had 150 hp, while the 225 slant six had 105. So we're talking more like 45 hp here, not 30. And when you're dealing with numbers this bad, that's almost a 50% increase! I forget how much torque the 225 had at that time...maybe 175-180 ft-lb? Versus 260 or so for the 318. Again, that's a pretty big difference.
Also, the slant six didn't take to emissions controls nearly as well as the 318 did (that's not saying much), so by the mid 70's, don't expect too much of an increase in fuel economy. Supposedly, the Dart Lites and Feather Dusters could hit 36 mpg on the highway, but I'm sure you'd have to drive v-e-r-y gently to get that! With bigger cars in the '70's and early '80's, the slant six would sometimes get WORSE fuel economy than the 318, because it had to strain harder, thereby guzzling more, to lug around a car better suited to a big engine.
About the slant six versus 318-my 66 Dart with the 225/Torqueflite was not all that good on gas-only 15 or so around town, maybe 20 on the road. On the other hand, a buddy had a 72 Swinger with the 318, and he got 16 around town, sometimes 22 on the road. Plus, as Andre says, there really is a power advantage with the 318. So, I guess I'd prefer the 318 over the slant six, having owned both. Heck, my '90 Dodge conversion van with 318 gets nearly ths same mileage [14-18] I got with my 66 Dart slant six. But of course it has the advantage of fuel injection and a lock-up torque converter.
Anyway, thanks for the input.
Trouble is, if the seller likes the number he hears, then it becomes gospel.
If he thinks the number is too low, then he thinks the guy doing the appraisal is wrong.
If the owner has all the time in the world, he may eventually get more than the $3,500-4,000 fair market value, since in any business there are those fractional people on the edge of the bell curve who pay too much or too little for something.
But Fair Market VAlue, as defined by an appraiser and as its legal meaning implies, does not deal with extreme and rare transactions plus or minus.
My point about the 318 isn't so much about performance, since I'd expect both the 318 and 225 to be choked down substantially by 1974, but rather that the 318 engine doesn't boost the value substantially over a 225 in a 1974 car. The market does not seem to perceive the 318 as any great advantage worth paying much extra for.
For 6000.00, a nice, 12,000 mile original car can be had. Something out of the ordinary that will turn heads and put a smile on the face of the owner.
And, yeah...maybe it's really only "worth" 4500.00 but if it takes another grand to be a happy owner, why not?