Classic Cars as daily drivers



  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    A friend of mine back in college had an '80 Accord. It was dead by '89, on its second engine and second tranny. When the second tranny failed, that's when he gave up on it...or rather his old man forced him to get a newer car. Maybe his wasn't a typical Honda, but I always find it ironic to hear what crap GM was back then, and how great Honda was. My old '80 Malibu was pretty reliable though. Who knows? Maybe I got a good Chevy, and he just got a bad Honda! I don't think Honda really licked the rust problem until the '86 Accord, the style with the hidden headlights. Most earlier examples make the typical '76 Aspen/Volare look good by comparison!
  • mrwhipple311mrwhipple311 Central OhioMember Posts: 28
    Bill: I have been told I have bad taste in cars but I am jealous of that 73, sounds sweet.
    Andre: Can you really say that Honda has cured the rust problems, for all their good points they tend to rust worse than almost anything else made currently. (That statement won't be popular to the Honda faithful!)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Doesn't matter. Honda and the Japanese kicked the stuffings out of American automakers in the 1970s.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    There's only one 1973 Japanese car worth owning...

    Survey sez....

    Datsun 510

    (well, maybe an RX3 with a straight pipe...I expect the Geneva Convention has something to say about that though...)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I love the Datsun 510---made an awesome Trans Am racer, too! I'd buy a clean two door coupe in a red hot minute.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Yeah, I'm jealous of the '73 too. I've got the buck-like seats and 8-track (pure 70's! Yeah Baby!). I really like the front end of the '73 better. They redid the front & rear for '74-78's and for some reason, the '73's look better. I've considered swapping a '73's front end onto mine. How bad is the 429 on the gas bill? How much power? Hang onto it. Shifty may be appaled because it has all the sporting aspirations of the Titanic, but on those days when you have a long trip, and just want to shut out the world and stretch out, an E-Type probably isn't the best car in the world. I'm a Jag nut myself, but sometimes you want a car for hair in the wind fun, and some times you just need to kick back and relax. The Marquis is great for the latter.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491 the 8-tracks in youse guys' cars still work? The '79 NY'er I recently picked up has an 8-track player, but it doesn't work. Unfortunately, even if it did work, it wouldn't do me any good because I don't have any 8-tracks! Guess I could always put some of Grandma's old Elvis 8-tracks in it!
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    can you drive home in your Japanese car after seeing the movie,'Pearl Harbor'.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    I've got an original paint '71 two door (510) in the garage right now. I honestly can't decide whether to take it on as a project or not. Having owned a slew of them, I'm kind of lacking the novelty factory, but they are cool.

    [to everyone else...]
    Not to turn this thread into the "Datsun 510 are the best cars in the world" thread...but due to wonderful parts interchange, light weight, and a reasonably good design, they really do kick butt as daily drivers which are fun to drive. With a reasonable set of fresh upgrades (all of this stuff is easy and tolerably cheap) you end up with a pretty, tossable, quick enough car. I think with a few suspension items (cut springs, sway bars, shocks, 7 inch wheels, larger tires) and a mild drivetrain upgrade (Datsun 2 liter and 5 speed with better exhaust, mild cam, and a dialed in Hitachi or Weber downdraft) you get a car which is as capable as a new GTI (top speed and comfort excepted).
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    While I'm sure the 510 is easy to modify and a nice car, I'm not sure what you gain by doing so over buying a newer car.

    No disrespect to anyone who likes them, but they are not overly stylish, and it seems to me the reason to own something older is due to it being different in some way to what is available today. Am I missing some facts to consider here?

    Now ease of repair, that argument I can buy.

    At the 78 Marquis is different in it's room, quiet, and comfort compared to more modern designs. Stylish, not so sure about that.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    On 510's...good point.

    Justifying any old car project is kind of a slippery slope. I guess for a car to get a constituency there must be *something* there worth doing. Air cooled VW's are one that you could argue about forever.

    I think what you get with a 510 is the following (some sort of list could be built for any make/model)...

    Ease and cheapness of repair, easy access to wear parts.
    Some degree of racing success (not just the whole BRE/Bob Sharp thing, but years of success in SCCA sedan classes and rallying)
    Light weight.
    Disk brakes/IRS
    Smog immune in California (for now)
    Pretty and simple looks (YMMV)
    Really a super good platform for a pretty exotic hotrod. Being RWD, having super good interchange with larger Datsun cars (as sources for brakes, transmissions, engines, etc.) and reasonably cheap (you aren't chopping up a Bugatti, after all) lends itself to some darn outrageous iterations of these cars. Look around on the net a little bit ( for instance) and it's pretty amazing how much is going on out there.
    Really fun to drive if set up reasonably well. They have the kind of handling that matters the most to me, that kind of seat of the pants thing rather than the magazine road test knowledge that everyone tends to argue about.

    Really the 510 thing through the years is as much a religion as reality. People tend to either get it or not. The average person tends to wonder what all the fuss about an older s**tbox is all about. There's probably a regional bias thing at work here. I'll bet that 510's are darn unusual outside of the western U.S.

    If you think of older cars as platforms for modification rather than stock vehicles, I think you can cut the car universe down quite a lot (if money matters to you). You end up with a list like...

    '67-'69 Camaros
    '65-'70 Mustangs
    Porsche 914s
    Datsun 240z/510
    BMW 2002's (maybe)
    VW Beetles
    ... and probably some more stuff I can't remember.

    Start trying to build a road racer Studebaker, say, and the money and fabrication needs start mounting up pretty quick, I would think.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    If you're jaded, how about a Chevy in that 510?

    I just saw a swap on TV that I think qualifies for first prize in the "why?" category: a Jag V12 in the trunk of a '65 Corvair. In addition to all the quirks a Jag V12 normally has, I bet that one throws fan belts too.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    One great attribute of the Datsun 510 ( the early ones) is that is it one of the very few Japanese cars that is fun to drive (others on the short list include the original CRX, the 240Z and...and....I guess that's about it)

    Mercury Marquis--aside from being a poster child for bad car design, the thing is pretty frightening at speeds over 35 mph or so. Maybe YOU feel in control driving Mom's sofa down the highway but I don't feel so good in cars like that. Oh, you can get by, but one has to keep reminding oneself that one is not in a modern car as you fly off the freeway onto that hard right-bender.

    Basically you could point to cars like the Marquis as responsible for the near death of the American auto industry. Can't take ALL the blame of course.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    I've seen pictures of 350's in 510's, but I imagine that they are a tad on the nose heavy side. A commonish swap is Nissan V6, which in the case of the DOHC engine, results in luxury car idle and behaviour and low 13 second 1/4 miles.

    Problem with that kind of project, is that by the time you cobble up a rack and pinion steering system, deal with electronics issues, buy the drivetrain, etc., etc. you might as well go out and buy a Factory Five cobra kit (for example) and end up with 75 cents on the dollar rather than 25 cents.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,628
    Thanx guys, you brought back good memories of the first new car my parents owned after we (twin bro & I) were born (4/69), an ORANGE, two door, four speed, 1971 Datsun 510 (with the $400 optional AM/FM radio). My parents *LOVED* that car, and it was cheap (mom claims $1800 in 71, I think it was a bit more). My P's were kinda hippies, had a 64 Beetle w/sunroof when we were born, and replaced it with the 510. I don't know much technically about the mods on those cars, but I do know they were the first cheapo to have independent suspension, and their weight distribution was quite ideal. Also, they had cool styling and proportions for the era, and were quite space and fuel efficient. Lauded as the 'poor man's BMW.'

    Dad sold the 510 to an uncle (age 16) in 1977, he sold it to his girlfriend's sister, she ran it into a tow truck while 'hot-rodding' (her legacy also included several RX-7s, 280Zs and Porsches after, so you know what she's like!!). So that Datsun 510=DOA. Gotta love orange w/black interior, for 1971.

    Those cars were kinda the grandfather of all the [non-permissible content removed]/Mod cars of today. I would love to have that car back (without the rust!!).
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Datsun 510s are STILL racing!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    But WOW, were they ever tinny!

    I forgot obout that until I sat in one a couple of years ago. The doors were thin and the car was built like a tin can. I remember the seats sat bolt upright and were very thinly padded.

    Sure would hate to get hit in one compared to today's cars!

    Still...they were near bulletproof transportation and handled well too.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    You mean as opposed to the massively thick sheet metal of modern Nissans? Hah! It's probably thicker than a 2002 car (but alas, not safer).

    Also keep in mind they sold for around $1,600. It was a lot of car for the money. Same price as a VW but faster, cuter, warmer, with better brakes and handling and modern drivetrain.

    It would be an interesting exercise to drive around a '72 510 and then hop in a '72 VW.

    The only thing the VW can do better than the 510 is outlast it.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Isn't the 510 rear suspension just a simple swing axle set up? That's about the only knock on the car that I can remember.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    are IRS, same as 240Z's. Actually, the center section is interchangeable, so it's pretty common to replace the 510's 'R160' rear end with a stronger, 'R180' from the 240/60/80z. Oddly enough, Subaru used the same rear in some models, so the 510 guys use the limited slip versions from those cars sometimes. If there's any weakness in drivetrain (the L series engines are super hardy) it's the second gear synchro.

    Just to show another car with some bucks invested...

    really not too bad for 10k.

    Off topic... I saw a good argument for buying older cars (or at least used cars) yesterday parked near here. A 1997 Audi S8, 50 some odd thousand miles, $28k. The car had the window sticker up which showed the new price as over $68,000 (!!!!!). Holy moley. The original owner not only got that smidge of depreciation (fourty thousand dollars in four years) but I'll bet the new owner gets the joy of an ultra complex car just coming off warranty. Oh man, who's buying this stuff? I understand the concept of buying new for reliabilities sake, so, ok, buy a new Ford Focus or Toyota truck or something for 15-25 thousand, spend the other 40 thousand on something cool.

  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    and of course, I'm not implying that new, expensive German cars aren't cool.

    (There, hopefully with that caveat, some fool whose entire automotive history consists of:
    Corolla Wagon
    AMC Concord
    2001 BMW M3 Coupe
    won't weigh in to hassle me).
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I think the A8 might be one of the more spectacular examples of accelerated depreciation, and I guess the big Infiniti is too. If he really paid $68k I feel sorry but I'll bet a subsidized lease and a generous markdown got him into the car--the appearance, if perhaps not the reality, of a good deal.

    When I was at a Saab dealership in August I saw a fleet of new unregistered 2000s--9-3s, 9-5s, even a very nice Aero. Obviously the entire line-up is uncompetitive throughout its price range and you wonder why they don't just lower prices, but then they'd loose some cachet. GM would rather have the 9-3 viewed as an alternative to the 3 series, not the Accord. Must be the same thing with the A8.

    But paradoxically this makes a case for buying one used if you have champagne tastes on a beer budget, and if you plan to drive it into the ground, and if you don't mind throwing expensive parts and labor at a car with marginal value. That's a lot of "ifs"...
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    I wasn't talking about the thickness of the sheet metal. I was talking more about the construction and weight of the doors. Of course modern safety standards mandate side beams in the doors, etc.

    Crash tests in 1972? Yeah...

    And, do you really think a 72 VW would outlast a 510? As I remember it, the VW engines if well maintained would usually push close to 100K before an overhaul was needed. It seems that 510 engine was longer lasting than that?

    Going back even farther, I think the late fifties early sixties PV 544 Volvos were a much better value than a VW beetle. They were well built and had a strong powertrain that would leave a "bug" in the dust! I've owned a couple of these and would love to find another.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    The VW had fantastic build quality. They really were a well-made little car. The proof is in the head count. Old VWs are still seen everywhere, and the spare parts market for them is second to none (maybe Model A Fords and MGBs are as good for spares).

    The VW engine sucked big time but you know you could nurse them along.

    I LOVE PV544 Volvos. Actually I think the 122 is even a better car. The 122 was one of the best cars ever made. Solid, great engine, easy to work on, reliable as you could ever want. All you had to do was listen for worn timing gears and keep replacing u-joints and that was about it.

    Some 544s have the earlier B16 engine, not the B18. You don't want a B16.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    In terms of mechanical longevity, I'd have to give serious weighting to the Datsun. Those L16's last a super long time and wear out in a non disasterous fashion (usually the first sign of really old motors is a rattling timing chain). I do like Type I's (and have gone down that alley too) but their longevity (I think) is based on the willingness of the owners to rebuild the engine now and again.

    If nothing else, it's pretty hard to get high mileage (150k+) on an engine with no oil filter and serious heat expansion/contraction. (and yes, I have seen a number of 150,000 mile, original engine 510s...burning oil, starter turns them too easily...but still running).
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    One example of that is in the convertible tops. For under 2k (for the whole car), you got a top with a glass rear window, well made attachment points in the front, insulation, nice headliner, etc. etc. Just beautiful.

    The guy I want to track down (and thrash) is whoever designed battery containment 'systems' on practically any old Porsche/VW product. If there's a problem in a Beetle/356/914 etc. it's because of a leaky battery spewing its venom in a critical (structural) section of the car. How hard would it have been to add some sort of hardy battery container to all of those cars?
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    When you mentioned convertible tops it reminded me of a car I've been thinking about during this discussion, a '68 Karman Ghia convertible I drove for about an hour when it was only a few years old. That was a car with not much performance but a lot of personality, even with the top up.

    As for the 510, I spent a couple of hours in the back seat of one on a trip so all I know about the car first hand is that it's an okay place to be a passenger. Oh yeah, and that it could be short shifted like a '39 Ford.
  • im_brentwoodim_brentwood Member Posts: 4,883
    It isnt that bad really. Although it is due for some severe upgrades for safety's sake.

    All suspension bushings are being replaced with Polyurethane, And I have found bilsteins to fit it.

    A set of 235-70VR15 Reinforced whitewall Goodyear Eagle RSAs will rplace the 225-75SR15 sloppy donuts it now has.

    That should firm things up a touch!

    But I like it for what it is (And yes Andre, the 8-track works! =D). Its not bad on the highway, and is VERY VERY comfortable.

    THis may be my new road trip car!

  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,628
    .....are you talkin Beetle, Karmann Ghia or the beloved 510?

    As for the 510, it was a really indestructable (engine, trans, clutch) car from what I remember. Of course, most of what I remember was as a three year old brat in the back seat! The car did rust kinda badly, but probably not any worse than most cars built in 1971 and run in Chicago.......and it cost $1800, remember.

    Oh yeah, the neighbors had a 510 also, there's was a 68 FOUR DOOR with an automatic on the column, not quite the same animal.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Bill was talking about the 73 Marquis that I was beating with a big stick a few posts back.

    I got to drive a '76 Cadillac Eldorado Convertible about 100 miles the other day, and that was a very scary car. The chassis flex was incredible. And this was a low mileage, mint original, too, not an abused automobile.

    Certainly some sway bars and some sort of chassis bracing would be absolute minimum on an old boat from the 70s. The Cad has disc brakes so that wasn't too bad at all. The front hood (the world's largest) just "oilcanned" down the road as the chassis flexed over bumps. Oh, and 10 mpg, too.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    ...I've ever seen was the '79-current Panther-bodied Ford products. Seems like the newest ones have it under control much better, but it used to be that every bump you hit, you could see the shockwave starting at the front of the car and rippling down the hood at you, finishing as the whole dashboard would give a quick shake.

    Now not every single one I've ever been in has done this, but more than enough to make me think it's a common problem.

    As for the title of "longest hood", would a Pontiac Grand Prix of '69-72 vintage possibly have a longer hood than an Eldorado? Even though the Grand Prix was a midsize back then, the thing just seemed to be all hood. In fact, looking under the hood, it looked like there was enough room ahead of the engine to put another engine, and make a V-16!

    I've sat behind the wheel of some Lincoln Mark V's, too, and they seemed like they were all hood, too, with not a whole lot of legroom inside for a car that big.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I dunno....the engine/trans combo onthe Eldo is supposed to weigh out at 2,000 lbs. or so, and that needs a lot of coverage.

    Anyway, a Mustang convertible felt like a Mercedes in comparison.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,628
    on the 69-72 GP having the longest hood, I know I've read that somewhere. Of course, I may have read it in one of their ads, at which point the Eldo hadn't been introduced, so I can't be sure. If I find it, I'll post.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    I am new to this message board, but I am interested in what advice you have to offer. Per the 1976 Eldorado ragtop that you drove the other day, what do you mean by the hood "oilcanning" down the road? And why was it a very scary car to drive? Was it because it does not compare to the Cadillacs of today?
    My daily drivers are an '87 Chevy Nova and a '93 Volvo 850, so I have no experience with vintage Cadillacs.

    p.s. A friend of mine has a '76 Eldorado convertible that's just sitting in his driveway; it's been parked since 1995. It has 58k original miles, has rust holes along the trunk and has a big hole in the top. He's asking $3000 for the car, and it does not run. What do you think?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    ...I think that might be when you see the hood ripple and bulge as you're driving down the road and hit bumps and potholes and other rough spots.

    I've tended to notice it mainly on cars with large expanses of hood that aren't braced up too well. My '57 DeSoto does it a bit.

    I think some of those old cars can be kind of scary because they tended to be over powered and under-braked. They could be safe as long as you didn't get too stupid with them. For the most part too, cars didn't have the road feel that they do today, and tire technology has come a long, long way.

    As for that '76 Eldorado, I think they can be nice cars, but $3000 is a bit steep for one that hasn't been run in 7 years. If it has a big hole in the roof, I'd be worried about the interior and the floorboards by now. There used to be a '73 or so in my neighborhood for sale for around $3000, and considering I've seen it in several places, it either still ran or was still push-able! The '73 is the same basic car, but I think they stretched out the rear for '75-76, because those later models just look more massive.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Prices may be higher due to they were the last convertible built in the U.S. until the 80's. Supposidely a lot were put away as a collectors item.

    Never driven one myself, but if Mr. Shiftright's opinion is any indication on how badly they drive, maybe there is a good reason for them being the last. I guess you can say driving one is definitely an acquired taste.

    Driving my 67 Galaxie Convertible and they hopping in my Intrepid R/T, the R/T feels cramped, and the steering feels very heavy. The steering on the Galaxie has absolutely no feel to it. Times change, eh?

    Compared to the Eldorado, I'm smoking at 14 mpg in the Galaxie.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491 would a '70's Eldorado compare to, say, an Impala/Caprice/Catalina/etc of the time? I've always wondered how similar the Riviera/Eldorado/Toronado platform was to the General Motors "B" body. With the exception of the Eldo/Toro's FWD drivetrain, were they still similar?

    I came close to buying a '72 Impala 'vert back in 1991, when I was in college. When I drove it it seemed pretty solid, but then again I only had 1991-vintage cars as a frame of reference and, well, for the most part, that Impala made most '91 era cars look kinda crappy themselves. I'm sure with all the improvements we've seen since then, that '72 today wouldn't look as good as I remember it in 1991!

    But then again, my '67 Catalina 'vert seems pretty solid. When you hit a bump, you can see that the back half of the car shakes independently of the front half, but it's not worse than the several modern Sebring convertibles I've driven! A lot more quiet too! Well, except for those not-quite-legal mufflers ;-) And if I don't push it too bad, I can actually get 17-18 out on the highway!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I think your friend needs a Major reality check with car values. The Eldo I drove sold for $8.000 (all the money) and this is a pristine 76,000 mile car. So deduct accordingly...he's probably got a $500 parts car there.

    I drove an old Bonnie convertible (can't remember the year---389 4-speed) a few weeks ago and it was a lot better, felt a lot more solid than this Eldo. I think it's just the sheer bulk and weight of the Eldo that makes it feel so out of control. This is an enormous car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,491
    you might be right on the weight thing. I think those Eldo 'verts had a base weight of around 5200 lb or so (although I can't imagine they had much of an option list as most of the junk was standard by then). I think that's about 800-1000 lb more than an equivalent '70's Impala or Caprice, so that could make a big difference, especially if the frame, suspension, and other components weren't beefed up accordingly.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Lots of overhang, lots of unsprung weight. Everything antithetical to rational chassis design.

    This is not to say the car didn't have a few neat features. The top mechanism is fun to watch go up and down, and I like the way the trunk just press it and some claw grabs it and pulls it shut. I hate to think about children's fingers, but........
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    For you fans, there is an article in this month's "Automobile" on racin the 510. Who knew?

    I think I had an electric race car set from the Sear's catalogue in the early 70's that had the 510 as a police car. (Sear's catalogue was the coolest way to look at the newest toys in the pre-internet days).

    Also think I saw Godzilla crush a few in "Godzilla and the Smog Monster."
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350'll like this one...

    In high school a buddy had a black '64 PV 544.

    One night we decided to throw an M-80 over the back fence of a guy we knew...Oh, I know...we were kids!

    The resultant explosion rattled the neighborhood causing many porch lights to come on, dogs to bark etc. I guess a neighbor spotted us and called the cops.

    Anyway, an hour later, in another part of town, we were pulled over by the cops.

    Of course, they seperated us but our stories were the same....we knew nothing about anything.

    After the cops left, my buddy started laughing.

    The neighbor had described the car as a dark colored '48 Ford!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Very close resemblance, that's true! Well, I'm glad the "Band of Brothers" didn't crack under capture and interrogation!

    I'd seriously consider owning another 544. They are really fun to drive, and with just a few modifications their weaknesses can be overcome and performance can be upgraded enough for modern roads. I bet you could keep a car like that running forever, as long as parts hold out.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    And I agree with you on the B-18 engines. The B-16's were OK but the 18's ran better.

    At the time, they were a few bucks...not much more money than a beetle.

    Someday, I'll find one worth buying.
  • chevytruck_fanchevytruck_fan Member Posts: 432
    Well I think I'm going to try to get the 66 Pontiac Catalina from my aunt, I kind of gave up because she really is having a hard time giving anything up that was my grandpas after his death. My grandpa did want me to have the car though as a lot of my memories involved it.

    Hopefully I can get it spring-summer, I will tell you how it goes.

    It needs some work, some kids ripped a mirror off, and stuff like front end work etc, hopefully the paint isn't too shot it resides under a carport. When he stopped driving it it was in really good shape, she only drives it once in a while. The engine is really strong, think it has over 200,000 with no rebuild.

    It will be my highway cruiser as my trucks don't serve that purpose too well lol
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Teh B-16s are actually pretty bad. You can snap a crankshaft on those without too much trouble.
  • amazonamazon Member Posts: 293
    The B16 engine had only 3 main bearings vs the 5 in the B18. Also, the B18 is pretty much the same engine as the B20, which can easily be bored to a B22. Throw one of them puppies in a 544, and you'll have a really fun car.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Oh, yeah, that would be good. And of course a better camshaft than stock ones, which are short-lived.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    Gotta love the concept of a 3 main 4. I suppose that you do get a more efficient engine having less bearing surface and all. Might as well go for the gusto and just have a bearing at each end.
  • dpwestlakedpwestlake Member Posts: 207
    The Triumph TR3 had 3 main bearings also. But the crank was pretty massive for a 4 and the mains were about an inch and a half wide. It was a souped up farm tractor engine.
Sign In or Register to comment.