Classic Cars as daily drivers
chevytruck_fan
Member Posts: 432
in General
Just wondering how many of you guys drive pre 75 cars as daily drivers.
Reason I'm asking is a couple companies I might be working for are all based about 40-100 (would only drive this every 2-3 days) miles from where I want to live and was thinking about classic cars that could put up with this, without me feeling bad about putting gobs of miles on them, and would get semi decent milege. This is a couple years off (3-4) but I thought it would be an interesting topic.
I was looking at 1966-67 Chevelles, these are very clean looking cars that would not draw too much attention from regular folks (i.e-they wouldn't be inclined to key it because its not to flashy). I would love to have an SS 396, but that kind of car need to be drive once a week, not as more a daily driver. A 283 or 327 (heck even a 250 -6 wouldn't be bad, considering the reliability of these engines, but I would like some power).
Anyway tell me what you think etc
Reason I'm asking is a couple companies I might be working for are all based about 40-100 (would only drive this every 2-3 days) miles from where I want to live and was thinking about classic cars that could put up with this, without me feeling bad about putting gobs of miles on them, and would get semi decent milege. This is a couple years off (3-4) but I thought it would be an interesting topic.
I was looking at 1966-67 Chevelles, these are very clean looking cars that would not draw too much attention from regular folks (i.e-they wouldn't be inclined to key it because its not to flashy). I would love to have an SS 396, but that kind of car need to be drive once a week, not as more a daily driver. A 283 or 327 (heck even a 250 -6 wouldn't be bad, considering the reliability of these engines, but I would like some power).
Anyway tell me what you think etc
Tagged:
0
Comments
I don't have too much experience with older Chevies...just a 1980 Malibu and an '86 Monte Carlo, both which were in my family since new.
As long as you get one that's not a total piece of junk, and know how to do some basic repairs, you should be fine.
As for how my Darts lasted, well, the '69 was almost flawless, except for needing a water pump and brakework. The '68 had plenty of suspension problems, and a persistently leaking radiator, and also ate two starters and an alternator. I think alot of the suspension problems could be attributed to the car having a V-8, but the same suspension components as a slant six. I know this first-hand, as I swapped some stuff off of the wrecked '69!
As for the Chevelles, my favorite year is the '66, but any of them are nice (never cared as much for the boxier looking '64 and '65 though). One thing I've noticed about the '68-72 GM intermediates, is that they feel cramped inside to me. I seem to remember you saying you were like 6'4" or something like that. Well, I'm 6'3", and drove a friend's 1970 Cutlass coupe once, and it was just a bit too tight for me. I thought it was strange though, the Cutlass being a midsize and the Dart being a compact!
If you're out drving 40-100 miles each way, I would think the car would actually last longer, as short trips, stop and go driving, and just starting the car cold and never letting it fully warm up are usually what makes them wear out quicker.
-Andre
Well I figure its either pay 14,000 for a new Malibu, or pay 7-10,000 for a really good condition Chevelle thats a lot more fun to drive.
It turns out I will be getting a 1,000$ rebate for my truck (saddle bags) so I don't know.
My biggest problem with newer cars is if they're FWD, the front wheel well protrudes too far into the footwell area, and there's just no foot room. And I find those "dead pedals" just about useless. They put my size 13 foot at too awkward of an angle.
I'd say the biggest annoyance on the Dart, versus the Intrepid, was engine and wind noise. A Dart has the aerodynamics of an outhouse, and a Dart with nearly 300K miles will tend not to be very well-sealed. And a 318 with a dual exhaust is a bit noisier than a 2.7 with smog controls out the wazoo. All I can say is Thank God for loud stereos!
The Dart would wander around the road a bit more than the Intrepid, and need constant minor steering corrections. But it's hard to say how much of this is due to the car's age and mileage, and the fact that their used to be a hill on our street where you could go airborne, as well as a couple of railroad crossings!
As for gas bills, if you're driving a full-size Chevy pickup right now, you won't notice much of a change with a Chevelle, unless you get a big-block!
As for the new Malibu, versus an old Chevelle, I think the Chevelle might actually win out in comfort! I found the current Malibu's seats to be too firm and thinly padded, and just too small (not saying that I have a big butt!) Also, if I sit in the back seat, my head will hit the ceiling. Most new cars also have the gas tank right under the back seat, which is safer from a safety standpoint, but it also makes for a back seat that feels like...well, a gas tank with some thin cloth stretched over it! Now comparing a Chevelle to a current Impala, the Impala may have an advantage. Your experience may vary, depending on your build and what you're used to.
-Andre
Nothing like it. My '65 Riviera was the same way. Must have been those hugh compressors and the "good" R-12 freon.
One thing that did surprise me, though. In '99, a friend gave me a beat up old '67 Newport that used to be his grandmother's. It was literally rusting and rotting away, except for the sturdy 383/727/8.75 drivetrain. I was shocked to find the A/C was still functioning, and blowing cold!
The 60's Mopars I had heavy little V-2 compressors...maybe those things were just more reliable. The Newport had a more conventional looking modern type compressor, like my Gran Fury (which still works, too)
-Andre
I wouldn't mind an old Chevelle myself, or maybe a 69 Cutlass 442...now THERE's a highway car.
Looking at 66-67 or 71-72 Chevelle. think I would be most happy with these, with a 307 or 350 for ok milege with enough performance to be fun. Plus they are so many parts out there for these years to totally restore.
The matching numbers, in my experience, anytime anyone messes with cars, new engines etc, it usually ends up being a disaster. I dunno, I just want a original car?
lokki with a GM, holy toledo (g)
Was the Chevelle a unibody do you know?
My other Newport was a '67 hardtop coupe. It had kind of a fastback roofline, sort of like a Barracuda. It would've been a nice car if it had been taken care of, and mechanically it was sound. Unfortunately, the body was literally falling apart, and the interior was rotting. I was amazed, though, that the thing didn't have any water leaks. A friend gave it to me. It was his grandmother's car, and when she passed away, the family just wanted it gone. The final straw on that one was when the brakes went out. At this time, I had just gotten my Intrepid, so I figured I'd better get rid of something.
Unitized cars are good if they've been well-taken care of, but unfortunately, they will be more prone to rust damage than traditional body-on-frame cars. And they do have their advantages...if they're engineered properly, they protect you better in a crash than a similar-sized body-on-frame car would. They're normally quieter and less prone to squeaks and rattles. And, also if designed properly, they should have more interior room than a similar body-on-frame car.
The Chevelle and all the similar GM midsizes were still body-on-frame cars. I think the only unitized cars that GM had in the 60's would've been the Chevy II/Nova, the Corvair, and the Camaro/Firebird. I'm not sure about the first ('61-63) Tempest/Special/F-85). They were technically compacts, until the 1964 redesign which made them intermediates, and may have been unitized.
-Andre
The Slant 6 always started. I remember one time I got off 2nd shift at midnight and it was about 15 degrees below zero. Many of the (new) cars in the parking lot would not start, but the Slant 6 satrted with no problem.
MJC
You might want to consider finding one where somebody has dropped a 350 and trans out of a newer camaro in it.
Conversely, I had to get ball joints for my '67 Catalina, and they were only the same part for 1967-1968. And they were not compatible with an equivalent Chevy, Buick, or Olds! Seems that Mopar learned about interchangability long before GM did!
Dweezil, what is Layson's? I've been using Kanter Auto parts to get hard-to-find stuff, but it's always nice to find new sources!
-Andre
PS: You got any pics of that Valiant?
Pontiacs like yours were also hard on control arm bushings and center links.
I wonder why they'd make stuff like that SMALLER on a Pontiac, especially considering full-size Pontiacs usually ran a couple hundred pounds heavier than an equivalent Chevy!
Oh yeah, I looked up some info on my DeSoto in a shop manual a friend gave me. Turns out that thing only runs on 14"x6" rims! I knew about the 14" part, but didn't know how narrow the rim was. The Firesweeps were even worse...14"x5.5"!
No wonder those old cars handled so poorly! I have a set of 15x7" road wheels that came off my '79 Newport (same 4.5" bolt pattern). I wonder what it would do to the handling if I put those on it, with some 70-series tires? Of course, I'd never do it, because cars like this just look naked without the wide whitewalls, and I don't know how much clearance something like that would have in the rear wheel well. Always wondered how it would affect handling, though!
-Andre
That's because the tires used on cars of that era actually had very narrow tread widths.
Take my Vauxhall. (You did see the new pics I hope). Originally it used a 6.40X13. The original spare is still an old "Goodyear all-weather rib" bias-play 6.40X13. However, now I run on a set of 185-80SR13s. While the overall diameter is about the same, the tread with alone has to be 50% wider than the old bias-ply tire.
Your car probaby used something like a 7.75X14 or 8.00X14 originally. To keep the overall diameter the same, you'll have to use either a reproduction bias-ply tire (Check http://www.coker.com for ideas) which will wear and handle like crap and cost at least $600 a set, or you'd use either a 215-75-14 or 205-75-14. I'd say that a 8.00X14 is probably the equivalent, sizewise, of something like a 185-90-14 (Non-existant size) if it had to be converted to a modern size.
Also, the narrower the rim, the better the ride quality and poorer the handling as a rule. The wider the rim, vice-versa.
I'd get a set of BFGoodrich Silvertown Radials which are modern all-season tires that come in sizes that will work on classics with the wide whitewalls, or you may be able to find something called a "Broadway Classic" (Private label similar to the BFG Silvertown) or Coker makes something called a Coker Classic. However, like everything else they carry, they are pretty expensive.
Bill
My DeSoto actually ran on 8.50x14 rims, and I think 8.55x14 was optional. Why .05 would make that much of a difference is beyond me. Funny you'd mention Coker tire...that's where I bought the new bias ply's for it back in 1993! It was long overdue, too. One of the tires on the car was a re-tread with an inner tube, and for all I know could've been one of the original tires on the car!
My '67 Catalina has 215/75-14's on it (not sure what it would've had originally, but that's what was on it when I bought it), and it handles pretty well...for something that big and that old!
But yeah, for the most part, the DeSoto handles handles horribly with those original-style tires!
As far as the kind of mileage I'm putting on the DeSoto, I probably haven't even gone 2,000 miles since I bought the new tires, so I'm sure those tires will dry-rot before they wear out!
-Andre
PS: I knew you lived in Florida, but didn't realize U were in Orlando! I shoulda looked you up when I was down there, except that all we did was work...no fun time, except for a trip to Islands Of Adventure our last day there.
I've been thinking about converting my '68 Dart from points to electronic ignition for years, but have been too lazy to put forth the effort.
I know Mopar Performance used to put out a kit, but I can't find anything now about it.
I'm wondering though...would it be worth the effort on a car like this? I've heard that it will improve performance and fuel economy a bit. Right now, the car's 318 gets about 13 mpg city/17 highway, so anything would be an improvment. If nothing else, I hate changing the points and condenser with a passion, so I figured it might be worth it just to reduce that hassle.
Anybody got any insight/opinions/advice? Oh yeah, the car has about 338,000 miles on it, but only about 97,000 on the rebuilt engine.
-Andre
I don't know if this is a classic' or not but have a '78 Ford F-100 I bought from my Dad in 1986 that now has 203,000 miles and still running great. Drove it in high school, college and every day to work now, put about 10,000 miles on it per year. Has original engine, tranny (300 c.. six I/ a three on the tree manual), and alternator, who knows how long it will last but its been a great truck. Change the oil every 3,000 miles (Castrol, Quaker State or Valvoline)and make sure it doesn't get low. Burns a quart of 20W50 every 1,000, 10W30 maybe every 800-900 miles. Starting to get a little rust here in the city (moved to St. Louis area 6 years ago), but I'll drive it till it drops.
As for gas mileage, that's really a weight and aerodynamics issue more than anything with the car. I don't think a little fatter spark is going to save you.
When I converted a '71 LeMans there wasn't any noticable improvement in performance or mpg. The only advantage was one less thing to do during a tune-up. GM points are extremely easy to adjust, and whatever minimal-to-nonexistant gain in mpg I picked up was more than offset by the towing bill when the electronic ignition packed up.
I'm starting to have second thoughts as to whether it would really be worth it to switch the Dart. As it stands, I've had the car since April '92, and the points have only been changed 3 times...June '94, October '96, and April '97. If I was putting 30,000 miles a year on it like I do my Intrepid, it might be worth it though. Still, even if it's not worth it, I'm tempted to do it just to see what happens.
I also posted this question on a Mopar mailing list I belong to, and 3 people responded back. Two said they got better performance, startups, and mileage, while the other who said to just get a distributor off of a 1970 or newer Mopar, said that there was no real improvement, just less maintenance.
Kinley, thanks for the Pertronix info. I went to their website, and it looks like the igniter is some kind of retrofit for your existing distributor? I'm going to give them a call later (they're on the west coast, I'm on the east, so it's like 5:46 am out there as I write this ;-) Do they specialize in mainly Ford applications? Just wondering, because of the Mustangs on their web page. Do they make Mopar stuff as well, or is the igniter some kind of one-size fits all type of fit?
If I went to a different distributor, I was going to go with the one put out by Mopar performance. Now, if it's made my Mopar it can't be bad, can it? Ok, that one's wide open for comebacks! ;-)
-Andre
Replacing a set of points every 10,000 miles isn't a big deal. You'll never notice a performance increase nor will an increase in gas mileage ever amount to much.
Just my take on it.
It's my "baby"
As far as electronic ignition conversions go...
I'd say to pass. You won't get much of a noticeable improvement, and the possibility of total breakdown is greater. I'd also not use one in my boat... too much possibility of damp gettingin there and causing chaos.... not worth it on the ignition system IMHO, but then my boat also does a lot of long-distance open-water crusing (Bahamas runs from West Palm area).
Next time youre down here lemme know! I live just west of Universal!
Bill
My esteemed $.02 worth!
Enjoy,
Hal
Lucas distributors are a problem (big surprise) you have to specify the model, CW or CCW rotation, pos or neg ground.
They work great.
I was in on some testing of the variable dwell model before it was released. My cousin is a dealer check out the track test at www.vintageperformance.com/retrorockets
get yourself a late 60s - early 70s Buick GS. I picked up a GS350 for $500 that ran like a scalded dog and was velvety smooth. That was in Michigan. Bought a '72 Skylark 350 years later
in California for $850 -- same thing.
These are the sister cars to the Cutlass and Chevelle, and they give you awesome performance with a Buick ride. They also don't command the prices of the Chevelles. If you want to go whole-hog, you can get a 455 Stage III that'll put you in the low 13s -- but that'll set you back close to a year's salary. The 350 version with cold-air induction will give you 315 honest hp and won't eat you out of house and home.
As a result, I've never paid much attention to GM's '68-72 A-bodies. Stylewise, I like 'em all except the Chevies, and I think that's probably because the Chevies are the most common. The Buicks have kind of a classy look to 'em, and the '71-72 Cutlasses are nice. I like the '68-69 LeMans as well...they have a certain ugliness to them that's kind of cool!
Common sense tells me I should just get rid of the Dart. After all, it has well over 300K miles on it. But I've had it for so long it's just become too much a part of the family. Plus, in the past, it seems like every time I wanted to get rid of it, whatever I was relying on for daily transportation at the time would die on me! I'm not superstitious, but I think I'll hang on to it for awhile ;-)
I think for the time being, I'm just going to stick it out with the points and condenser. Considering I've only had to change them 3 times in the 9 years I've owned the car, it's not like it's that big of a hassle!
Thanks though, for the info and advice. I'll let y'all know if I end up doing anything with it!
-Andre
Actually, the ignition light on this old Jaguar I'm playing with flickers beautifully every time you start it up, then goes out (phew!) .
The switch in the picture must be an updated model, notice it has settings for dim and flicker. Off is usually redundant on Lucas electricals, they are usually in that state 50% of the time due to a failure of some component.
I always loved the theory that all Lucas components contained smoke. So the reason your Lucas component failed was that the smoke leaked out. So you go to the dealer, and he gives you back a component that has had the smoke re-installed. Makes sense, don't you think?