Howdy, Stranger!

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





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?

Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
Is there a car so uninteresting or repulsive, or so....so...frictionally irritating to every fiber of your being, or...so....so humiliating for you to drive that you couldn't bear it (I have car issues like that) that I couldn't give you a free, running one?

These can also be TYPES of cars, like rat rods, flatbed trucks, etc.

RULES: It's a car you'd have to promise to keep or return to me when you're done with it. You can't take it and sell it, no, you can't.
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • texasestexases Posts: 9,434
    I've never had any interest in old VWs. Cute? Sure, but slow, funky handling, and odd (to my Detroit ways) mechanics. No payback to me to want to learn how to keep it running.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,656
    edited April 2011
    Would really loud Harleys count?

    Some 70s style hot rods of classic cars - hacked up Packards, Cords, etc can irk me. But for the most part I am pretty accepting of most cars.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    yeah Harleys count. I couldn't possibly even ride one. A friend loaned me a fairly new one a few years ago 2008 I think---and, being used to British bikes and BMWs, I almost steered it right into a tree on a fast turn. The thing simply would not lean over and turn.

    You no like little VW bugs? I'd take one. At least I could fix it myself.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,656
    I've never been on a HD, but I know from the noise alone that it's not for me.

    I don't hate Beetles...one could make a decent town car, I'd prefer an oval with some period accessories, or maybe even a split, just to be unusual.
  • oldbearcatoldbearcat WVPosts: 197
    I can think of a number of them:
    Renault LeCar
    Simca
    Honda 600
    Pinto
    Vega
    Corvair
    Chevette
    Vega
    Saab 99
    Chevy II
    Yugo

    Regards:
    Oldbearcat
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    A fairly motley list you got there Bear, but I would still take the Honda 600 (fun little thing, albeit probably fatal in a wreck) and the Chevy II seems harmless enough as a grocery-getter. I can fix the Honda 600 since it has motorcycle internals, and the Chevy II, while bland, dowdy and boring, could be a very useful, economical car to operate.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,699
    edited April 2011
    I'll start with a TR-7 and a Maserati BiTurbo. A Jag XJS with a V12 too.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    What? You don't need large planter boxes? :P
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,376
    I can probably put up with anything, as long as I fit somewhat comfortably in it, so I dunno if there's anything I'd flat-out refuse to take. Although years ago, someone offered to give me a '75 or so Hornet wagon, and I politely declined.

    I'd probably rule out most small, old-school subcompacts like the Pinto, Vega, Chevette, 70's Civic and Accord, etc, because by todays' standards they're simply too small, too fragile, and too slow, and I'd just feel vulnerable.

    And if it's anything that's typecast as a chick car, like a Miata, VW Eros, Cabriolet, Mary Kay pink Cadillac, etc, I probably wouldn't go for it, either.

    Oh, and any of those horrible neoclassic revivals that were all the rage in the 70's...Packard, Stutz, and so on.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Remember, the deal is, if you take it, it's your baby, so you'll be responsible for towing it off the freeway, putting out fires, etc. It's given to you "running" but with some of these cars, that is but a fleeting moment.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    Ruling out obvious misfits like Pintos, Vegas, Gremlins, etc. I'd flat out reject any old Jaguar XJ or 1970s-80s Rolls-Royce. Those cars are the automotive equivalent of a "white elephant." I'd also flat out reject any Diesel or HT4100 Cadillac.
  • omarmanomarman Posts: 2,624
    Andre I'm not nit-picking about the VW Eos typo but you managed to use chick, Eros, and pink all in one sentence. Well done. :shades:
    Photobucket
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,376
    Ruling out obvious misfits like Pintos, Vegas, Gremlins, etc.

    I think the one little misfit from that era I might be willing to put up with is the Pacer, if it has a 304 at least, and not the 6-cyl. And, in later years, those little Spirits weren't bad looking cars...much nicer than the Gremlin, at least!

    I'd flat out reject any old Jaguar XJ or 1970s-80s Rolls-Royce. Those cars are the automotive equivalent of a "white elephant." I'd also flat out reject any Diesel or HT4100 Cadillac.

    I'd even be willing to put up with one of those, if it were in half-way decent condition, and free. Just make sure to junk it the second something major goes wrong with it.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,345
    I think if you drove a '65 Chevy II with a 300 horse 327 in it you might take that one off your list!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,656
    edited April 2011
    I think condition is a big part of it. If it was a beater, I really wouldn't want a Pinto, Pacer, etc. But if it was a pristine loaded car, yes, I would take one of those. A mint loaded Pacer or Pinto Cruisin Wagon etc would be cool in its own way, and they are showable today. And something like a spotless diesel Seville bustleback would be funny too, for the noise and looks.

    Some of those Euros would be financial suicide, but if someone else could eat any big bills, I'd take one too. Mint condition Rolls Silver Spur in blue like in Cannonball Run II? I've always loved that exact car, so yes.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,376
    Oh, I totally forgot about the Pinto Cruisin Wagon...now that's one Pinto I think would be kinda cool.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,656
    Back in the late 80s my dad twice wanted to buy a Cruisin Wagon as a hobby car, he found 2 mint examples for sale locally - I think they were around 1500-2K apiece. My mother loudly put her foot down. Can't be many left now, I think it would be welcomed at a Ford event.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    edited April 2011
    Nope, part of this "game" is that you have to accept the car and all its ills, including repair bills.

    All you get initially is an offer for a free, good-running, decent looking car.

    So do you want an old 70s era Rolls Royce or don't you.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,656
    How nice is it, what are its pressing needs, what color is it, and how long do I have to keep it? :shades:

    If it truly has been kept up and doesn't need a brake overhaul, interior, isn't rusty etc, and it is nice colors...I could risk it.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 20,345
    Ah, the last Cadilac Diesel went to the crusher in 1997.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,376
    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: 52,656
    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 Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    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: 2,699
    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: 20,345
    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: 20,345
    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: 20,345
    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: 2,699
    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: 21,738
    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.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • fintailfintail Posts: 52,656
    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: 13,045
    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 Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    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!!
  • oldbearcatoldbearcat WVPosts: 197
    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: 24,376
    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: 24,376
    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: 20,345
    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 Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,376
    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: 2,624
    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.
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,376
    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 Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    Ah, you jogged my memory. It was a NEWPORT, so that means a 361 cid.
  • oldbearcatoldbearcat WVPosts: 197
    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: 24,376
    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 Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 24,376
    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 Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    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.
  • 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 Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,482
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.