Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
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.