The hot rodders knew right away that the 348 didn't have near the potential of the 283. Fortunately for Chevy, the 352 Ford introduced in '58 was also an anchor, grossly overrated at 300 hp.
Here's some times for a '59 Chevy 348/250 with Turboglide:
0-60 10.7 seconds 1/4 mile 18.5 @ 80 mph
Shipping weight was 3606 lbs. Axle ratio 3.08:1.
Just guessing but the Turboglide probably added another second or so to the 0-60 times and maybe that much to the 1/4 mile time, compared to the standard close ratio 3 speed.
Here's a '63 Impala SS 327/250 with Powerglide:
0-60 10.4 seconds 1/4 mile 17.8 @ 80 mph
Weight as tested 3829 lbs. Axle ratio 3.08:1.
Mph is the best indicator of horsepower. The '63 was about 200 lbs. heavier yet both did 80 through the traps so you'd have to say the 327/250's horses were a little stronger than the 348's.
The transmissions are different, although neither was known for enhancing performance. Axle ratios are identical although that would influence elapsed time more than mph. Note the '63's big advantage in ET, much greater than its .3 second advantage 0-60. Might be the transmission or just proof the 327 breathed a lot better.
Mopar also brought out its new big block, at 350 cubes, and it evolved into the 361,383,413,andfinally the screaming 426 Max Wedge and Hemi motors. Oh yeah-also the 440. I think that Mopar 350 must have been a lot stronger than either the Chev 348 or the Ford 352. Mopar woke up that big block pretty good over the next few years.
I drove a '58 DeSoto Firesweep with a 350-2bbl, about 7 years ago. A local guy was selling it cheap, and I was thinking about buying it for a daily driver. IIRC, the 2-bbl was rated at 280 hp and the 4-bbl was rated at 295. This particular one had the 2-speed Powerflite tranny, which I'm sure hurt performance somewhat, but it still had some kick to it!
The next engine up, the 361, had 295 hp in 2-bbl form, and 305 in 4-bbl.
Interestingly, Chrysler actually had two different 383's! The one used in Chrysler Windsors and Saratogas was based on the raised-deck engine, same as the 413, 426, and 440, while the 383 used in the other cars was based on the lower-deck 350/361/400 block.
There was one or two years that they also had a 326. I believe it was just a slightly bigger 318. Interesting though, as they also had the 325.
426 Hemis are fierce. You can barely drive them on the street. A Max Wedge with a 4 bbl isn't bad though.
But I find none of these high compression big blocks all that pleasant to use as everyday drivers, especially the stick shift ones. The problem is that when you are going along in traffic and you let up on the gas, the car just "sucks down" and your head bobs forward like you hit the brakes. Then you try to squeeze the gas to get going again and your head lurches back. It's really annoying, no matter how you try to smooth it out. Automatics are a bit better, easier to modulate all that power.
Still, for an everyday car, it wouldn't be my first choice, a big block like that with hi-comp and lumpy cam or 2 X 3 pots.
That's why the first GTO was a big hit. It weighed a good 500 lbs. less than the full sizers so it didn't need all the compression and camming. The standard 4-bbl. engine was relatively mild and very smooth and torquey, and the optional Tri-Power was a lot stronger but still idled well.
Speaking of the Mopar 350, there was a 2x4v version for the '58 Fury.
Just seeing this topic makes me wish my godfather's '77 VW Dasher was still running. Even though this particular model had a terrible reputation when new, I loved the car as a toddler, and it was my first real exposure to a European auto. Sure, it had its problems, like rust and electrical gremlins, but it had loads of character, something that was lacking in my parents' Ford sedans of the '80s. That's been a fantasy of mine; maybe I could find a '70s Dasher and try to use that thing every day without ever putting a dollar into it.
Or, if it were still around, I wonder what the first U.S. Volvos (444s) would be like to have on an everyday basis. I doubt it would be any torture, since those were built to last indefinitely, unlike Dashers.
I remember my dad bought one for my older brother to drive when he turned 16 - somehow I keep thinking it was a diesel dasher - was there ever such a thing, or am I imagining it? Anyway, big bro never drove it. Something or other went wrong with it the day after he brought it home, and the repair bill was more than the car was worth.
I actually feel guilty mentioning the car in this board. Gives me an idea for a new topic: CARS THAT MUST NEVER BE REFERRED TO AS CLASSICS Dasher would have to be near the top of the list.
As stated above,compared to a contempoary Ford(Grenada,Maverick)a '77 Dasher was a neat car. So sometimes guys here rag a car like a Dasher,but I was certainally dreaming of a '77 Audi Fox when I was toolin' around town in a hand-me-down '71 Torino sedan. And I'm glad that one of these old Euros is getting at least a little respect here. Now all we need is an active Peugeot 504 forum!
They are just old used cars and always will be. But sure, you wanna fix one up a bitand drive it, no harm in that.
A Volvo 444 is a collectible car however, and will increase in value, whereas a Dasher won't ever, until the sun burns out anyway, be collected or restored.
The reason has little to do with "merit" per se, but rather with supply and demand.
Both Volvo 444s and Dashers are in short supply, but in the case of the Dasher, nobody cares, so there is no demand. That's really the determining factor and it's not likely to change very much.
But if you care, then you care, and you should fix one up and not worry about value or other people's opinions. Just don't spend too much money because you'll never see it back.
Not yet they aren't, but getting closer all the time. The word isn't out yet that a 544 is more fun to drive than a P1800, but once everybody gets it, you'll see the 544 go up in price.
...to the Volvo-uninformed (i.e., me ;-), the 122 looks like it should be more fun than the 544. The 544 (if the one y'all are talking about is the same one I found on Google) looks like it's right out of the 40's. The 122 looks kinda like a mid-50's Mopar to me. I guess looks can be deceiving though!
The 122s feel very sluggish and heavy, but you can get them to go. A 122 GT with overdrive, better cylinder head and cam, etc., and some good shocks and tires would be fun enough I think.
Teh 544 is fun right out of the box for some reason.Runs faster (must be lighter), handles better, just about everything better except maybe sound-deadening.
The brakes were better on the 122. The 544 had drums whereas the 122 has front discs. The 544 feels more nimble because it's lighter. Also, the later 122s had better suspensions, at least in the rear. The 122 had the stronger B20 in the last two years of production. The B20B engine propelled the 122 from 0 to 60 in about 9.5 seconds, which was pretty good back then.
...on a '65 Corvair? My '68 Dart has 10" drums, which aren't bad for a car that size. I never had any complaints...well, not TOO many! Just for comparison, GM was putting 9.5" drums as standard equipment on cars they had no right to be doing that to, such as the '73 Grand Am and other fairly heavy cars.
The Corvair was a pretty light car too, with high-winding engines that didn't put out much torque. Maybe that's why the drum brakes worked out well with it?
They had the same 9.5" diameter drums that came standard on the GM intermediates, including a few that put out well over 300 hp. I can tell you that in a 3600 lb. GTO this meant instant and complete brake fade at speeds of around 85 mph or above.
The '65-up Corvair used a wider brake shoe that increased braking area from 126 to 169 square inches. Sintered metallic brake linings, the usual cure for small brakes in those days, were offered on '62 and '63 Corvairs. Unlike regular brake linings, metallic linings work better the hotter they get. Chevy metallic linings for the Chevy II and Chevelle will work on '65-up Corvairs.
The aftermarket, including CRAGAR, offered disc brake conversions for a while.
Yeah, the engine was a rev slug I'm afraid. This is why a 2.0 liter Porsche will blow it away.
Really, no kidding, Corvair drum brakes are unbelievably efficient. Yes, I think the light weight on the front end definitely helped. If you dig through old car magazines, you will this is noted time and time again in 1965 on up road tests especially.
You're right, the only time I ever had a problem with Corvair brakes was when a cat ran in front of my car and I stood on the brakes at about 30 mph. I ended up facing the other direction right in front of my neighbors, who I'm sure appreciated this manuever.
But really it was hard to pedal fast enough to get a Corvair to fade its brakes.
that's a very optimistic point of view I think. For one thing, there isn't the aftermarket support for old Volvos as there is for old japanese cars. Probably you'll find labor flat rate times comparable to Japanese cars but shop rates per hour and parts prices higher. Also you'll have a hell of a time finding inexpensive trim pieces, which you will need periodically. The interiors and paint are rather substandard.
...you're going to have a time finding parts for old 80's Japanese cars as well. It might be hard to fathom this, considering that the Accord, Camry, and Civic have been top sellers for years now, but as recently as 1985, the only Japanese car in the top 10 selling nameplates was the Nissan Sentra.
Maybe down south or out west, it might still be easy to find these cars in junkyards, but up this way most of 'em rusted out years ago. I dunno, maybe a Volvo would still be harder to find parts and service for, though. Some neighbors of mine had an '89 740 or 760 wagon that, every time it broke, they had to take it 30 miles to the nearest Volvo dealer because nobody around here would work on it.
I'd say your best bet, if you want something cheap to maintain from the '80's, is a RWD GM, Ford, or Mopar product. Sure, they're not the most exicting things in the world but hey, it was the 80's! NOTHING on wheels was exiting back then!
Oh,no Andre, you can find parts even at Kragen Auto Parts and AutoZone, like tune up parts, gaskets, water pumps, brakes, alternators, etc. You won't find much of that for an old Volvo in discount stores. Also the dealers carry a lot of parts for older Japanese cars. About the only really tough parts to find for an old Japanese car would be body parts and of course trim pieces. But then, as you say, there's a lot of them in wrecking yards, many more than Volvo, which was a small time producer compared to the Japanese Big Three.
I think all Camaros and Firebirds are considered 'F-bodies', aren't they?
My uncles had Camaros when I was a kid (mid-late '70s), one had a '68 coupe, in that greeny gold with black interior, 327 automatic, that he basically drove into the ground, another had a really nice looking '73 Z28, 350 automatic (which he said was a 'dog'), no rear spoiler, burgandy with white vinyl interior and the cool graphite spoke wheels.
1st generation camaro, sorry. i just want some basic info on what are the best ways to set the car up for a daily use. i.e. performance, suspension, and security. does anyone know how check if the rear in has positraction if it does not have the posi dif. fluid tag? i know you jack it up and turn one wheel and the other is supposed to turn in a certain dirrection. but, what is it?
...when you jack it up, if both wheels spin in the same direction, you have limited slip (Posi). If one wheel spins in the opposite direction, you have an open rear.
...with limited slip (Posi, Surgrip, Traction-Lok, etc), is that if one wheel starts to lose traction and spin, then power will go to the other wheel. With a normal "open" rear end, once one wheel starts to spin, you're screwed, because all your power will then go to that wheel, and not the one that has a more sure footing.
I've never had a limited-slip car, so I can't personally attest to the benefits of it. If you have a high-power engine though, it should get the power to the ground better, where an open rear would just put too much power to one wheel, which would lose traction and just keep spinning, without really going anywhere until you let off the gas.
I've also heard that if you do a lot of turning, like say in a downtown city area, that limited-slip rear-ends will wear out quicker. This is one reason why city police cars often had open rears, while highway pursuit units had limited slip. (BTW, I'm a Chrysler guy, so I have trouble saying the word "posi" ;-)
thanx andre1969. that clears up a lot of confusion. what you wrote is pretty much what i thought. do you have any ideas on what is better for pro-touring? i think the previous owner had this car set up for street/strip. i ordered a g-machine suspension and have a super-t tranny. i've been a back yard mechanic for a while but i've never taken on a project like this one. i live in baltimore city so i will be doing a lot of turning but i want the best over all car. i had a 95 bmw m3 that has a tuned suspension. other than the occassional rough bumps it was great in the city.
great photo. You should post that in your carspace webpage as well.
I switch cars a lot. Since I've been on the road more and more in my work, I bought a new car instead of pushing an old one as a daily driver. The day to day grind in a large metro area is tough on an old car, and even a couple of breakdowns costs too much in time and money for me.
So my old cars will just be toys now for occasional use.
That's kind of why I retired the fintail too - once I was out of school and had to go out every day, I wanted something more modern. And then when I moved to a more urban setting, I wanted something a little more modern and of lower mileage than the 126, and I didn't want to be too tough on it in the traffic here. It all worked out...the fintail is now a sunny day car, and the 126 went to a retiree who uses it for pleasure drives.
kind of retired itself. Looking back now, I can't remember exactly why I quit driving it primarily. I did find this 1979 Newport in the junkyard, just crying out to me, so I bought it for $250. Let's not talk about how much it cost to get it through inspection though! And then the tranny finally called it quits. About a mile from the tranny shop that told the previous owner the tranny wasn't long for this world. I thought that was kinda ironic when I found that out!
Nowadays though, I mainly drive my Intrepid or '85 Silverado for the daily grind, and in bad weather. The LeMans, and my NYer and Catalina convertible are strictly nice weather cars. I'll drive them to work, but I'm only 3 1/2 miles away, and work at a gated center with generous-sized parking spaces, so it's not like these cars have to experience the parts of America we wouldn't want to send our worst enemies!!
Anyway, I delivered pizzas in the evenings after work back then, which over time gave the Dart around 30,000 of its miles. Now that I think back on it, the heater in the Dart didn't work, and the power steering pump was non-functioning. So that may have been why I started driving the Newport more. The Dart's heater itself worked, but the fan had burnt out. So basically, hot air would filter into the cabin, and the faster you went, the faster it would trickle in.
In the fall of '97, I finally broke down and got the Dart's power steering fixed. Had to replace the steering box by then, too. But I still just didn't drive it that much.
It was considerably faster than the Newport, although not really that much more maneuverable. I found out later that the Newport had something called an "Open Road Handling Package" that firmed up its handling, so that may be one reason. The Dart also got a bit better fuel economy, and had a much better sound system. But if nothing else, the Newport was lower mileage, even if it "only" had 230,000 miles on it, versus the 338,000 the Dart now shows on its odometer.
Eventually my Mom gave me her '86 Monte, which accelerated almost as well as the Dart, but was much more maneuverable than the Dart or Newport, and got much better economy. Although it was high mileage too, 179,000, and was getting to the point that it really needed premium. Well, that car lasted 3 months, getting T-boned in the summer of '98, with about 192,000 miles on it. So I went back to driving the Newport, until its water pump went out on me. By that time I was getting fed up with it, and wanted something newer, so I found this 1989 Gran Fury police car with only 73,000 miles on it. And ultimately proved to be more troubleprone and expensive to fix than the Newport before it! Also guzzled like there was no tomorrow, but I LOVED its handling, and it accelerated pretty quickly too.
Anyway, that got replaced by my Intrepid in November 1999, and I held onto it for a few years as a spare car. The Dart just sat around, got run occasionally, and then one day I parked it at my Grandma's house near a mulberry tree. A few weeks later my uncle decided he wanted to take that tree down, so I had to move the Dart. Only thing is, the Dart refused to start! And I've just been too lazy to mess with it. When it would get in the way I'd just push it somewhere else in the yard, or chain it to something else and pull it.
I really should either sell it for parts or just have it hauled away, but I've just gotten too sentimental over the danged thing!
Oh well I wanted a small "urban car" with good fuel mileage (gas prices in California are punishing) so I bought a Scion xA. I am presently tweaking it, I couldn't resist. Soon to be a classic in 150 years!!
today when I went out to lunch. It was in that "black cherry" color or whatever they call it. I never realized how close that color actually is to my LeMans! At one point we were roughly bumper to bumper up front, but I swear where I was sitting was about level with the back of his car!
I'm in the market for insurance for a restored '66 Mustang which will NOT be a trailer queen. While it won't be driven on a daily basis, it'll definitely be driven.
Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about insurance for older cars. How does Classic car insurance differ from 'regular' car insurance (limitations, etc.) and can I use my regular agent to get coverage or should I get coverage through one of the outfits which specialize in Classic car insurance?
Classic car insurance is WAYYY cheaper but they will restrict use to 2,500 miles a year and you can't use it for work, commuting, etc. Also it has to be garaged. You can sometimes work around the "use" aspect if you are careful but you have to garage it and you have to keep the miles down. Also classic insurance will issue you an "agreed upon" value policy, which means they pay you what you both agreed to. Your regular insurance company will NOT issue an "agreed upon" value, only a "stated value", which means they will pay you "UP TO" the stated value---which means they may not offer you anywhere near what you think it is worth. Then you have to go to arbitration to get your full value.
So classic car insurance is the best deal if you can restrict use to club drives, meets, and occasional "exercise" of the car. If they catch you in a wreck at the beach, you might be screwed.
At first blush, the 2500 mile limitation seemed a bit confining but after thinking about it, that shouldn't be too bad.
I like the "agreed upon" value aspect. It doesn't help that much if the value appreciates (although I'm under no illusions I'm sitting on a Barret-quality car by any stretch), but it keeps me from having to screw with the "up to stated value" aspect of standard automobile insurance.
'Wreck at the beach': well, if there was a local club drive event which included a little sun/surf time, I would think there'd be no problem.
Comments
Here's some times for a '59 Chevy 348/250 with Turboglide:
0-60 10.7 seconds
1/4 mile 18.5 @ 80 mph
Shipping weight was 3606 lbs. Axle ratio 3.08:1.
Just guessing but the Turboglide probably added another second or so to the 0-60 times and maybe that much to the 1/4 mile time, compared to the standard close ratio 3 speed.
Here's a '63 Impala SS 327/250 with Powerglide:
0-60 10.4 seconds
1/4 mile 17.8 @ 80 mph
Weight as tested 3829 lbs. Axle ratio 3.08:1.
Mph is the best indicator of horsepower. The '63 was about 200 lbs. heavier yet both did 80 through the traps so you'd have to say the 327/250's horses were a little stronger than the 348's.
The transmissions are different, although neither was known for enhancing performance. Axle ratios are identical although that would influence elapsed time more than mph. Note the '63's big advantage in ET, much greater than its .3 second advantage 0-60. Might be the transmission or just proof the 327 breathed a lot better.
The next engine up, the 361, had 295 hp in 2-bbl form, and 305 in 4-bbl.
Interestingly, Chrysler actually had two different 383's! The one used in Chrysler Windsors and Saratogas was based on the raised-deck engine, same as the 413, 426, and 440, while the 383 used in the other cars was based on the lower-deck 350/361/400 block.
There was one or two years that they also had a 326. I believe it was just a slightly bigger 318. Interesting though, as they also had the 325.
But I find none of these high compression big blocks all that pleasant to use as everyday drivers, especially the stick shift ones. The problem is that when you are going along in traffic and you let up on the gas, the car just "sucks down" and your head bobs forward like you hit the brakes. Then you try to squeeze the gas to get going again and your head lurches back. It's really annoying, no matter how you try to smooth it out. Automatics are a bit better, easier to modulate all that power.
Still, for an everyday car, it wouldn't be my first choice, a big block like that with hi-comp and lumpy cam or 2 X 3 pots.
Speaking of the Mopar 350, there was a 2x4v version for the '58 Fury.
But in the quest for more and more speed, sometimes very nice driving cars are turned into brutes, which is unfortunate in my eyes.
Or, if it were still around, I wonder what the first U.S. Volvos (444s) would be like to have on an everyday basis. I doubt it would be any torture, since those were built to last indefinitely, unlike Dashers.
I actually feel guilty mentioning the car in this board. Gives me an idea for a new topic:
CARS THAT MUST NEVER BE REFERRED TO AS CLASSICS
Dasher would have to be near the top of the list.
-Jason
And I'm glad that one of these old Euros is getting at least a little respect here.
Now all we need is an active Peugeot 504 forum!
A Volvo 444 is a collectible car however, and will increase in value, whereas a Dasher won't ever, until the sun burns out anyway, be collected or restored.
The reason has little to do with "merit" per se, but rather with supply and demand.
Both Volvo 444s and Dashers are in short supply, but in the case of the Dasher, nobody cares, so there is no demand. That's really the determining factor and it's not likely to change very much.
But if you care, then you care, and you should fix one up and not worry about value or other people's opinions. Just don't spend too much money because you'll never see it back.
Sadly, most have rusted into the ground, even here on the west coast.
I dunno..the 122's were good cars but they always seemed a bit frumpy if you know what I mean.
Just a car without the personality of the 544.
Teh 544 is fun right out of the box for some reason.Runs faster (must be lighter), handles better, just about everything better except maybe sound-deadening.
I don't know how the Swedes designed the fun out of a 122, but they did. Must have realized their mistake with the 544
Drum brakes are not always inferior, strangely enough. Drive a '65 Corvair sometime. The drum brakes are fantastic.
The Corvair was a pretty light car too, with high-winding engines that didn't put out much torque. Maybe that's why the drum brakes worked out well with it?
They had the same 9.5" diameter drums that came standard on the GM intermediates, including a few that put out well over 300 hp. I can tell you that in a 3600 lb. GTO this meant instant and complete brake fade at speeds of around 85 mph or above.
The '65-up Corvair used a wider brake shoe that increased braking area from 126 to 169 square inches. Sintered metallic brake linings, the usual cure for small brakes in those days, were offered on '62 and '63 Corvairs. Unlike regular brake linings, metallic linings work better the hotter they get. Chevy metallic linings for the Chevy II and Chevelle will work on '65-up Corvairs.
The aftermarket, including CRAGAR, offered disc brake conversions for a while.
Really, no kidding, Corvair drum brakes are unbelievably efficient. Yes, I think the light weight on the front end definitely helped. If you dig through old car magazines, you will this is noted time and time again in 1965 on up road tests especially.
But really it was hard to pedal fast enough to get a Corvair to fade its brakes.
Maybe down south or out west, it might still be easy to find these cars in junkyards, but up this way most of 'em rusted out years ago. I dunno, maybe a Volvo would still be harder to find parts and service for, though. Some neighbors of mine had an '89 740 or 760 wagon that, every time it broke, they had to take it 30 miles to the nearest Volvo dealer because nobody around here would work on it.
I'd say your best bet, if you want something cheap to maintain from the '80's, is a RWD GM, Ford, or Mopar product. Sure, they're not the most exicting things in the world but hey, it was the 80's! NOTHING on wheels was exiting back then!
My uncles had Camaros when I was a kid (mid-late '70s), one had a '68 coupe, in that greeny gold with black interior, 327 automatic, that he basically drove into the ground, another had a really nice looking '73 Z28, 350 automatic (which he said was a 'dog'), no rear spoiler, burgandy with white vinyl interior and the cool graphite spoke wheels.
does anyone know how check if the rear in has positraction if it does not have the posi dif. fluid tag? i know you jack it up and turn one wheel and the other is supposed to turn in a certain dirrection. but, what is it?
Okay, okay, so it's not the best way. It is the most fun, however!
I've never had a limited-slip car, so I can't personally attest to the benefits of it. If you have a high-power engine though, it should get the power to the ground better, where an open rear would just put too much power to one wheel, which would lose traction and just keep spinning, without really going anywhere until you let off the gas.
I've also heard that if you do a lot of turning, like say in a downtown city area, that limited-slip rear-ends will wear out quicker. This is one reason why city police cars often had open rears, while highway pursuit units had limited slip. (BTW, I'm a Chrysler guy, so I have trouble saying the word "posi" ;-)
I switch cars a lot. Since I've been on the road more and more in my work, I bought a new car instead of pushing an old one as a daily driver. The day to day grind in a large metro area is tough on an old car, and even a couple of breakdowns costs too much in time and money for me.
So my old cars will just be toys now for occasional use.
Nowadays though, I mainly drive my Intrepid or '85 Silverado for the daily grind, and in bad weather. The LeMans, and my NYer and Catalina convertible are strictly nice weather cars. I'll drive them to work, but I'm only 3 1/2 miles away, and work at a gated center with generous-sized parking spaces, so it's not like these cars have to experience the parts of America we wouldn't want to send our worst enemies!!
Anyway, I delivered pizzas in the evenings after work back then, which over time gave the Dart around 30,000 of its miles. Now that I think back on it, the heater in the Dart didn't work, and the power steering pump was non-functioning. So that may have been why I started driving the Newport more. The Dart's heater itself worked, but the fan had burnt out. So basically, hot air would filter into the cabin, and the faster you went, the faster it would trickle in.
In the fall of '97, I finally broke down and got the Dart's power steering fixed. Had to replace the steering box by then, too. But I still just didn't drive it that much.
It was considerably faster than the Newport, although not really that much more maneuverable. I found out later that the Newport had something called an "Open Road Handling Package" that firmed up its handling, so that may be one reason. The Dart also got a bit better fuel economy, and had a much better sound system. But if nothing else, the Newport was lower mileage, even if it "only" had 230,000 miles on it, versus the 338,000 the Dart now shows on its odometer.
Eventually my Mom gave me her '86 Monte, which accelerated almost as well as the Dart, but was much more maneuverable than the Dart or Newport, and got much better economy. Although it was high mileage too, 179,000, and was getting to the point that it really needed premium. Well, that car lasted 3 months, getting T-boned in the summer of '98, with about 192,000 miles on it. So I went back to driving the Newport, until its water pump went out on me. By that time I was getting fed up with it, and wanted something newer, so I found this 1989 Gran Fury police car with only 73,000 miles on it. And ultimately proved to be more troubleprone and expensive to fix than the Newport before it! Also guzzled like there was no tomorrow, but I LOVED its handling, and it accelerated pretty quickly too.
Anyway, that got replaced by my Intrepid in November 1999, and I held onto it for a few years as a spare car. The Dart just sat around, got run occasionally, and then one day I parked it at my Grandma's house near a mulberry tree. A few weeks later my uncle decided he wanted to take that tree down, so I had to move the Dart. Only thing is, the Dart refused to start! And I've just been too lazy to mess with it. When it would get in the way I'd just push it somewhere else in the yard, or chain it to something else and pull it.
I really should either sell it for parts or just have it hauled away, but I've just gotten too sentimental over the danged thing!
Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about insurance for older cars. How does Classic car insurance differ from 'regular' car insurance (limitations, etc.) and can I use my regular agent to get coverage or should I get coverage through one of the outfits which specialize in Classic car insurance?
Opinions?
So classic car insurance is the best deal if you can restrict use to club drives, meets, and occasional "exercise" of the car. If they catch you in a wreck at the beach, you might be screwed.
At first blush, the 2500 mile limitation seemed a bit confining but after thinking about it, that shouldn't be too bad.
I like the "agreed upon" value aspect. It doesn't help that much if the value appreciates (although I'm under no illusions I'm sitting on a Barret-quality car by any stretch), but it keeps me from having to screw with the "up to stated value" aspect of standard automobile insurance.
'Wreck at the beach': well, if there was a local club drive event which included a little sun/surf time, I would think there'd be no problem.