Classic Musclecars

Mr_Shiftright

Dear Pony,

That's a pretty broad request...what kind of info do you need exactly? history? pricing? mechanical parts? //// ?????

Host

zl1

What can you tell me about the 70 buick gs 455?I have heard that this car is possibly the quickest of all the "muscle cars", in stock form. I also read an article in a muscle car magazine which stated this car would run 12.90's right off the showroom floor?

Mr_Shiftright

Well, I'm not inclined to believe everthing I read, but hey, could be, depending on driver, gearing, tuning, etc. Perhaps the article referred to the Stage 1 option of the GS, which offered a hi-lift cam and dual exhaust, so you've got 360HP there, but you are also pushing 3,600 pounds. Maybe one of our distinguished Stoplight Gang can speculate if these numbers are possible. I'd say, with no real proof, a tad optimistic, but the GS really was a true muscle car.

Value of this car is not particularly high right now, so if you want one, now's the time, as the muscle car market is lighting up quickly. Figure $8-10,000 should get you a nice hardtop GS, and add another few thousand for a Stage 1...double that for a Stage 1 convertible, as the rule applies that a convertible is, 99% of the time, quite a bit more valuable than a coupe of any given collectible car.

zl1

Thanks for the info.Yes it was a stage 1 455 in the article.
Here is another one for you, what can you tell me about a YENKO nova? In all of my research I have yet to see any performance figures on this car in the form of 1/4 mile time-speed,I have read where Don Yenko decribed the car after his modifications as being "lethal"The writing seemed to indicate that yenko had some second thoughts about even releasing this automobile to the general public.My cousin owns a 375 horse 396 69 and it is fast,so the yenko must be very nice.Also if you have any info,what kind of price would this piece bring,in excellent condition?Thanks again.

Mr_Shiftright

Do you mean by "this piece" the Yenko or your cousin's car?

zl1

Sorry about that,I mean the yenko.

Mr_Shiftright

Dear Zl1,

Well, in 1970 there was a Nova Yenko Duece, which I suspect in near show condition could bring $20,000, and if it were an all-out, over the top, way better than new restoration, probably even more. Yenko also made some very hairy Camaros in the late 1960s which are worth double that.

Hope that helps!

zl1

Thanks for all the info,do you have a library of automotive books on hand,or is this all from memory? Just wondering because I have seen many of your post's and you can hold a conversation on nearly any auto topic.You seem to enjoy older foreign auto's most,is that an accurate ponderance?

Mr_Shiftright

Well, I've been through lots of phases with cars, and have enjoyed all types. I'd say I have more favorites among older foreign cars, but certainly have a fondness for a number of older American cars and newer foreign ones. With a few exceptions, I haven't yet driven a number of the newer American models 1998 on up, so I don't comment upon what I haven't experienced...so maybe that's why it seems I'm leaning more toward the older cars.

I do have a honkin' big library, yes, and a lot of that info has sunk into the memory banks, but I try to be careful with stats and specs so I often look things up just to be sure; however, not everything you read in books is true, so I try to balance my info against other sources. It's not easy cutting throught the hype and marketing and withful thinking and getting to the truth...sometimes there really is no one truth about a car, it's just opinion all up for grabs. Quite a bit of automotive commentary is hardly objective science...there's always a lot of the commentator's bias in there, even at the top magazines.

But thanks for your interest and participation. Without all the users, this would be a dull and lonely place for me.

jpstax

I just left a comment about the new 2000 Impala LS in Edmunds' Town Hall new car site. I suggested that Chevy offer an Impala SS version, with the blown 3800 engine, for the 2001 model. How's that sound to all you fellow "baby boomers" out there?

Also, can anyone tell me how much a '68 Olds 442 convertable might be worth (good condition)?

My number one choice for a "muscle car" is the '65 Chevy II, with the 327-350 hp engine. I know a guy who had one, and it did wheel stands with ease. It snapped my head back, and pushed me into the seat, like no other car. I also rode in a '66 Biscayne, with the 427-425 hp engine, but the Chevy II seemed much quicker. The two never raced, because the Chevy II was sold before the Biscayne was bought. Anyway, it was a true muscle car.

Mr_Shiftright

Hi jpstax,

A 1968 Olds 4-4-2 convert could be a pretty valuable car...in "good" condition, which means a very clean daily driver, around $20,000, and more for top condition cars.

Your buddy might have tweaked that 327, because my books show only a 300 HP 327 available in a Chevy II...it would be a wild ride, nonetheless, assuming you didn't rely too much on the steering and brakes but kept it in a straight line with all that power. I like cars that look harmless but aren't.

seeburg100

Mr.Shiftright,
Shopping for a new car today and my wife insists I sell the '68 GTO. Numbers matching 400 auto w/89,000 mi. but the interior's pretty trashed and it has all the usual rust(inc.vinyl top-trunk). Runs great and everything but the A/C works. Can I-should I-sell it for $4000. or should I keep and restore it over time?

Mr_Shiftright

Well, seeburg, you're looking at a potential value of a nicely restored streetable car of $8-10K, (show cars can go $15k or more, but it would take $20K to get to that extreme level of perfection) so really, $4,000 for a "fair" condition car seems fair enough for both parties. If it had Ram Air you might try to get a bit more. Otherwise, bodywork, paint and interior, even done on the cheap, is going to run you $4-5K and it won't be even near to a show car for that type of resto, so if you were lucky you *might" break even by bringing the car up to street standard (good amateur resto.) But you know, rust is scary, like an iceberg, it's the rust you don't see that you have to worry about coming back in 6 months.

jpstax

Hello Mr. Shiftright,

I'm sorry, but the engine was indeed the 350 hp one. It had the Holley double pumper quad for sure, and even had an engine plate that said 327, 350 hp Turbo-Fire. Besides, how could the 300 hp version do wheel stands like I said in could? Also, I'm sure it was a Chevy II, and not a Nova, because the Nova SS also offered the 327-350 hp.
I suggest re-check your book on engine options.

Mr_Shiftright

Hi jp,

Then it must have been a 1966 Nova Super Sport...there's no 350 listed in any reference book I can find for a 1965 Chevy II...the engine option we're talking about is the L79. So if it was a '65 car, it was probably a conversion I would guess...and no base Chevy II would have that engine in any year to the best of my knowledge, only as an SS option.

This kind of thing is common with old Chevy, lots of swapping and all kinds of mysteries.

Anyway, my references are Terry Boyce's Chevy Super Sports, 1961-76, and the Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Could be wrong, I'm only going by the books here....

Please let me know if you find some contrary evidence, that would be interesting to know.

spokane

My limited reference data agrees with Shiftright's reply. In '65, a 327 CID with 350 HP was offered by Chevrolet, but only in the Chevelle.

In '66, such an engine was indeed offered in the Chevy II chassis but I'm unable to see if it was available in the "Chevy II" and "Chevy II Nova" models as well as the "Chevy II Nova SS" model.

Like you guys, I particularly admired the "minimum trim" cars with the "maximum capability" powertrains.

jpstax

Hello again Mr. Shiftright,

The car might have been a '65-1/2 Chevy II. I wonder if the guy may have removed any badging, filled in the holes, and re-painted. This was commonly done to help prevent theft, or to disguise hot cars back then. In know that the guy with the 427-425 hp engine did this. Anyway, I'm through with talking about this.

JPSTAX

carnut4

Shiftright-saw a '65 Chevelle SS with that 350/327 for sale. White with red interior, and 64,000 documented miles. The engine has never even been detailed. Original carpet, etc, etc. Car has an interesting history. Anyway, I was taken with the car since I remember looking at them brand new when I couldn't afford one-but the guy wants 20,000 bucks. I know thats high, but you just don't see many Chevelles like this. What do you think?

Mr_Shiftright

Well, carnut, the muscle car market is really hot right now, but really, that's even higher than normal SS 396 (375HP) money, so he's way high on the price. On the other hand, depends what the history is, that could add value, and originality can never be replaced.

Sounds like he doesn't really want to sell but is "fishing" for the sky high price, but I don't think he's realistic, since he's competing with show car 396 automobiles. Fair price would be more like $12K if it's an outstanding car.

carnut4

Shiftright-thats what I thought-even though I like the balance of the small block Chevelles compared to the 396s. Thanks for the input. Actually, when the 66 Chevelle came out, I hated the styling-especially that "tunnel" backlight roof styling, which was all to make the car look longer. And I remember a rich friend who bought one, and it was not all that fast compared to some other hot cars around at the time. At least not what we expected after all the hype about that "porcupine" head big block.

Mr_Shiftright

I think in that era the Chrysler cars were the real crushers.

carnut4

I was gonna say that my 65 Belvedere 383/330 would stay with that 396 Chevelle-much to my surprise.

zl1

That chevy II nova may have been built very late in the 65 model year, and made it out the door with the 350 horse 327 that was optional for the 66 model year,there were cases of that quite often.
As far as the chrysler and dodge cars go,the 426 hemi gave them the rep of being the quickest cars,when in fact the hemi in stock form was often a bit slower in the 1/4 than the same car with the 440 6-pack.

Mr_Shiftright

Thanks for that info......as far as the books go, a '65 Chevy II 350 doesn't exist, but as you say, who knows who did what when why and how! Seems to me if it were a "real" car, it would be extremely rare and valuable....you probably have to have the build sheet to be sure, since even ID plates are now remanufactured and stamped. There are specialists who keep these records and will look them up for you for a fee.

jpstax

Mr. Shiftright,

Do you know what kind of Mustang that Steve Mc Queen drove in Bullet? That car was HOT!! However, I'm not so sure any Mustang could keep up with that black Charger, which allegedly had 426 Hemi, but that's the movies for you.

Speaking of hot cars in movies, has anyone seen the John Wayne detective film, Mc Q? He appeared to be driving some sort of very fast Trans Am. Is it the same kind Burt Reynolds drove in Smokey and the Bandit? Just curious.

One more thing, could I have an Eaton supercharger installed in my '98 Lumina LTZ (3800 engine), after the warranty runs out? Also, will the trans take the additional 40 hp and 55 ft/lbs of torque, or will I have to upgrade that too?

carnut4

I have to tell a story here. Back in the summer of '67, there was a race [many like that in those days] staged on the long straight stretch of Highway 17 between Campbell and Los Gatos, CA. A guy in a brand new Dodge RT with 440 raced a new Mustang GT 350.[A REAL one}. The Mustang left the Dodge like it was standing still. Quite a surprise to those of us watching. Obviously, there was much more real horsepower lurking in the 'stang than any of us realized. Never forget that.

Mr_Shiftright

You have to be careful about those movie cars...when you see the car hopping the hills of San Francisco, what you don't see is the car's suspension being utterly demolished and the car replaced with an identical one for the next scene.

jp, I think your supercharger question would get a better response in the Sportscars conference. Here's that link for you:



I think who wins in a real road race depends a great deal on the driver...a superior driver can defeat a superior car--this very fact made the reputation of some of the famous drivers of old. They could race using inferior cars and win. Another factor is that some old cars look good on paper and are terrible to drive and while others don't put up good stats but are a real pleasure to own. So the whole process of judging a car's merit is pretty complicated I think.

zl1

carnut4 I think the weight difference between the rt and the gt350 played a huge role in the race,I would think that a cuda with that motor would not have any trouble with the stang,assuming that it was the 440 6 pack motor.

jpstax

Mr. Shiftright,

Can you give me that link to again? It didn't come through. Thanks.

Incidentally, I posted my question at the "accessories & add-ons" town hall, under sub-topic "turbochargers, superchargers, and blowers".

Mr_Shiftright

Oh, darn, let's try again....but actually, you're posting in Accessories is a good choice, too. If you don't get much action on it, then try Sportscars, where you might have to open your own topic, okay?

>

left out the "s" last time, that's why it didn't work...I should know better!

kg2

Hi guys! First time posting to this site, and I hope you can help me! Ever since I was a very little gal, I have always wanted an old Mustang coupe. Could be the fact that my mom used to drive a 65 soft-top that did it! Anyways, I finally have enough money to purchase something reasonably decent...and I was hoping someone would have some opinions about the best choice of engine size, model year, options etc. I'm not a mechanic - just a starving artist (well, not starving ALL the time, hee hee). This car is my lifelong dream, and I would greatly appreciate any assistance! Thanks!

stickguy

If you just want the style and the memories, 6 cylinder cars are decidedly cheaper (because they are less desireable by collectors). Also very cheap to maintain (good do-it-yourself cars). Of course V8s are more fun to drive, and can get pretty pricey depending on equipment, since most of the rarer cars (GTs, etc.) were V8s, and that's what most people want, which drives up the price.

More important probably is to make sure the structure is sound and not all rusted out underneath.

I personally like the style of the fastback more than the coupe, but thats just my opinion.

Mr_Shiftright

The cheapest Mustang coupe would be a 6-cylinder with 3-speed standard trans...you can get these for 25% less (at least) than an auto V-8 or 4-spd. You should be able to find a decent one for $5000...a pretty if not perfect car.

spokane

The six-cylinder car will indeed be less expensive. Generally, the 200-CID six-cylinder engines were OK. However, the six-cylinder models had very weak transmissions, standard and automatics. They also had smaller clutches, smaller drive axles, and smaller brakes. The wheels were 13" with four lugs as opposed to 14" with 5 lugs on the V8 cars. These light-duty components were far less durable than their V8 counterparts. While the V8 drivetrains were durable, the transmissions (std and auto) on every 6-cyl Mustang I knew of failed within about three years. Ironically, the 1965 original price difference between the 200-I6 and the the 289-2V V8, including the above drivetrain differences, was about $125.

At this point in time, I would not rule out the I6, but suggest that you be wary.

Mr_Shiftright

I think that's good advice....on the positive side, though, a 3-speed Mustang transmission is about as simple as a woodstove and can be removed in a wink and fixed quickly and inexpensively, so there's that consolation. Any mechanic having trouble with one of those really needs to go into hairdressing...actually, that takes some good skill, too...maybe politics then.

tjw

I owned a 428 cobra-jet ford torino back in 69. it had a holley 780 dual-pumper and a c-6 transmission.In those days i was young and dumb and would run anything that got up next to me at a light. with at least 50 drag races under my belt i was only outrun twice. Once by a 69 camaro ss 396/375 and once by a 440 six-pack challenger ( modified ). But all in all i never saw anything back in 69 that would outrun my ford. this includes gtx,chevelle 396/375, road runners, corvettes and the list goes on. Man i wish i had that car today. Of course i also got 12 speeding tickets in the short year that i had this car. But it was alot of fun.

carnut4

Oh my god I'd forgotten about those. I've had my share-but not like those I got in 1967, in the same municipal court-with first my "55 Chev with the Corvette 327 w/30-30 cam [exploded 2 clutches with that one] and then in my '65 Belvedere 383/330. Had to go to "Driver improvement school, every Tues pm for 7 weeks. Final class showed a film, "Wheels of Tragedy" by the Ohio State highway patrol, which had graphic, horrible color footage of actual accident scenes, with actors in simlar cars showing the "pre-accident" driver mistakes, etc. It was so bad that a couple women got sick and had to leave the room.

tjw

Yeah - they made us watch that movie down here in Georgia too. it was a gross out. One of the odd things to me is that even though there are so many more safety devices on cars today, it seems like there are many more teenagers getting killed today than there were in the sixties. We did some pretty stupid things in those days like running full speed down Peachtree Street but even so it seemed like a rarity to hear of some kid getting wasted in an accident. Here in Atlanta and i'm sure probably everywhere else the kids are getting wiped out wholesale. Cars nowadays definitely handle alot better than musclecars did in the 60's and 70's and they are engineered with safety in mind- but i am constantly hearing and reading about teenagers wrecking and rolling cars. I have a teenager who has totaled out two of our cars within the last year. the first accident was her fault ( trying to take a posted 15 mph curve at 60 mph--did'nt work). After that she became a much more cautious driver but she still was involved in another accident in which a HOUSEWIFE IN A SUV pulled out in front of her and she t-boned her. The housewife was alright but my daughter had her neck broken in three places and is just now 8 months ,surgery, and several stays in the hospital later is just beginning to recover. I just bought her a new car< an explorer, because it seemed to be the biggest and safest thing that i could afford. She is absolutely paranoid about driving now and perhaps that is a good thing. She learned the hard way and was fortunate enough to live to tell about it. Alot of the kids will not get a second chance.

jpstax

I live in a suburb of Chicago, and every night I see at least 3-5 drag races off a traffic light near my home. Someday there's going to be a bad accident because of this situation. The cops are encouraging kids to go to the local dragstrips to run their races legally. "Route 66 Dragway", near Joliet, runs just such an event every Wednesday night (June-September). I don't know how much it costs to enter, but I hear it is very popular. I don't know if other dragstrips in the Chicago area have similar events, but it would be a good idea if they did.

Mr_Shiftright

Isn't, in fact, the car the leading cause of death among teenagers?

bjohnson

Glad to finally see the word "Torino" in this room! I miss my '68 Torino GT Fastback 390 -- got it new as my mom's car and was passed to me in 76. Kept it until 82 and sold with only 68k miles on it. *SIGH* Only one car in town could beat me on the 1/4 mile. Wish I still had it today. Maybe someday I'll find one I can restore... I'll never forget seeing my car driven by the new owner, a teenager who jacked it up and destroyed the sleek profile.

Straight from the factory it was a killer. Of course, I also remember the frozen door locks, tempermental carbs, and the science of gapping the spark plug gaps to precision! Never forget the day the acclerator stuck -- YIKES!

banks2

I am looking to buy a first generation Camaro Convertible. Just wondering if any one had any advice. What to look for, prices, which models,if any are better than others, etc...

banks2

I would prefer a 4 speed, but have question. Is a 4 speed much harder on the engine for highway driving? Not that I would be doing a lot of that type of driving, but would it need to be a concern if you were driving 70-80 mph for a couple of hours. Also, I think I would want at least a 350 motor, does any one year have any advantages over the other two, aside from the engine. Thanks Again

Mr_Shiftright

well, I think the 1969 model has a number of improvements in styling, also mechanical, like variable-assist power steering for instance.

And no, a transmission can't be hard on an engine, only a driver can by how high he revs. Anyway, it would be the differential that would determine engine RPMs in top gear (4th for a stickshift, or drive for an automatic). I'd presume in the case of the Camaro that the differential that came with the automatic car would allow the engine to run at lower RPMs, so there is some argument, sort of, for saying that a diff coupled to an automatic would be easier on the engine over a long period of time.

I hope I finally got to the point of your question!

jpstax

Mr. Shiftright:

You were right about the 327-350hp (L-79) engine being available only in a '66 Chevy II. My wife's car needed some repair work. The body shop owner, who happens to own a '71 Buick GS, told me that a '66 Chevy II Nova and Nova SS could have been equipped with the L-79 engine, but not a '65. He said, as you did, that this engine in a '65-1/2 would be a very valuable car. So, I was wrong about the year. That's what happens when us "baby boomers" get old. We start missing a year or two from our memory banks.

Anyway, this guys' Buick GS (Stage 1) is a masterpiece! He couldn't remember how much hp and torque it has, but said it can really haul **s.
Do you have a book on this particular car, which would have specs on the engine ? It has two hood (functional) air intakes, and huge dual exhausts.

Mr_Shiftright

The books are a bit unclear on actual horsepower,but it looks to be a 455 V-8 with 315 hp...not sure, though, on the HP. All the little particulars on muscle car specs can drive you nuts--it's sometimes like medieval monks debating issues of theology...pretty funny.

spokane

I found a listing for the '71 Buick which lists both 315 HP and 345 HP engines as options for the "Skylark" line. The 345 HP option would seem to apply to the GS-X option.

This text explains that for 1970 Buick produced only 2094 of the GS Stage 1 cars and that some (or all) of these had 350/360 HP. It then says that for '71, the corresponding car was marketed as a "GS-X". The implication is that they didn't use the "Stage 1" designation in 1971.

Jpstax, could it be your 1965-1966 dilemma has been replaced by a 1970-1971 quandary? More likely, the medieval-monk-debate situation applies.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm sure there's a "right" answer, but god knows how long it would take to dig it out. There does seem to be some discrepancy as to whether Stage I is a proper term for a 1971 car. I really don't know at this point, but I'm not sure it makes so much difference regarding value whether it's Stage I or GS-X. Both are special cars to the line so would command the highest value for that particular year...those Stage 1 converts are bringing pretty good money---looks like around $30,000 for a very very nice car (#2 condition).

jpstax

To Spokane:

The body shop owner told me his GS (Stage 1) was a '71, so I believed him. I would think it has the 350/360 HP engine, since he told me it was very, very fast. Also, is it possible he bought it in '71, but it's actually a '70 Oh, I get it, his mind is slipping too. Thanks for the info.

Mr_Shiftright

No, he could be right...some good books list a Stage 1 in 1971...I haven't seen any reference to the 360HP though, but I did see a listing of 350 HP for a Grand Sport 455 V-8.