I'm not fond of this "highway miles" argument Andre. Miles are miles, wear is wear. You don't get a free ride in physics I don't think. Engineering counts for a lot more than most people give credit for I think. Some engines are just plain mediocre.
for my '82 Cutlass Supreme, the junkyard Cutlass I pulled it off of had a Chevy 267 under the hood. I remember thinking it was a bit odd, because I was under the impression that by that time Oldsmobiles (and Buicks) were using only Olds V-8's, and not Chevy units.
My '80 Malibu had a Chevy 229 V-6, and, for the time period I guess, it wasn't THAT bad. I'm sure if I had to drive something that slow nowadays though I'd hate it with a passion!
Lemko, I'm not positive (and all my car books are packed away until Christmas is over), but I think the Ford 255 V-8 had a bit more hp than that. Not much more though, but I'm thinking it was more like 112?
Ford used the standard V-8 power as a bragging point, when comparing the downsized LTD/Crown Vic to a Chevy Caprice or Dodge St. Regis, which only came with six-cylinders standard. Still, I doubt a tiny 255 V-8 in an LTD was much faster (if any) than a 250 inline 6 in a Caprice, or a 225 slant six (they slapped a 2-bbl and different intake on it in larger cars) in a St. Regis.
I think Ford did make a wise move a few years later though, when they just made the 302 standard in these cars. I think that was '83? It was really foolish to be putting 6-cyl and undersized V-8s in cars this size, because they'd strain so hard that they often got worse economy than a decent-sized V-8 in the 5 liter range!
A friend of mine has an 83 Monte Carlo with about 180K on it, the engine (305) has never been touched. It did puke up a transmission (Metric 200 or something like that?) a few years ago, and he had it replaced with a TH350. The car is in surprisingly fine condition and actually looks better than most period Montes still around. I wouldn't doubt if it is in the top percentage of mileage for those cars.
And then there's my W126, also at 180K, which is nothing unusual at all.
...had the 4.9 litre V-8 whose ancestor might've been the troublesome 4.1. There was no resemblance as the 4.9 was an excellent engine. That '94 could easily do 100 mph and would get away from you if you didn't watch it. The 4.1 was such a dog you could've left a cinder block on the accelerator pedal and '52 Crosleys would be passing you.
...was a decent engine for its time. My best friend had a 1978 Chevrolet Impala and that car hit 100K without a hiccup. I drove this car a lot as he often got too intoxicated to drive. The car was pleasant handling and had good acceleration and seemed to be very well built. Several years later, I bought a new black 1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic when I graduated from college.
one of the hardest things you can do to a car is start it up cold. Those first few miles you put on the car are always the hardest. And if you're doing a lot of driving in stop-and-go traffic, where the engine is constantly speeding up and slowing down, and the tranny is constantly shifting through the gears, and you're constantly using the brakes, things are just going to wear out quicker.
Here's an example. My commute to work is about 3 1/2 miles. Now that the weather's turned cold, my car's not even fully warmed up when I get to work! So basically, my whole ride to work and from work is fairly rough on the car. In comparison, I think my uncle goes about 65 miles each way to work. So, out of that 130 miles a day, only maybe the first 3 or 4 of each trip (6-8 total during the day, if that) are really rough on the car. The remaining 120 or so miles are a cake walk, compared to those warming-up miles.
His car just went into the Toyota dealer for a 70,000 mile checkup. He's still on the first set of brakes, and I think they said he's still got 40% up front and 60% in the back. In contrast, I just put on my 3rd set of front brakes (it's the 4th set when you count the OEM pads that the car first came with) on my '00 Intrepid at 99,000 miles. Now sure, maybe there are engineering differences beteen an Intrepid's brakes and a Corolla's brakes, and an Intrepid has a lot more weight and torque to have to haul down than a Corolla, but obviously the miles have a lot to do with it, as well.
In 130 miles, my uncle's Corolla has only been started twice. The driver's door has only been slammed 4 times. He's only hopped into the seat twice. The vast majority of that commute was highway, so there really isn't a whole lot of stopping and starting. In comparison, in 130 miles of commuting, my car has been started 37 times. That's almost 19 times more wear and tear on the starter. The driver's door has been slammed 19 times more often. I've hopped my butt into and out of it 19 more times, putting that much more wear and tear on the door, seat fabric, etc. And those 130 miles have included many, many more starts and stops than my uncle's 130 miles.
So no, miles aren't miles. Another good example is police cars. The rule of thumb for a police car is that whatever mileage is on the odometer, double that, and that's about the equivalent of an "average" civilian car. So a cop car with 75,000 miles is about the equivalent of an "average" civvy car with 150,000.
But then, more important than mileage, I believe proper maintenance is critical. Once you start letting a car run low on fluids, or run it with inadequate, worn-out fluids that should have been changed years ago, that's going to kill it no matter what kind of driving you do.
that my Mom bought new, had about 192,000 miles on its 305 when I got t-boned. It was still on the original tranny even, the 4-speed variant of the THM200C. I think it was called the THM200-R4 or something like that?
Now it was buring a bit of oil by that time, although I think it was actually leaking more of it out of the valve cover gaskets. It smoked some at start up, and when you really floored it, you could see smoke. It wasn't the bluish-black of burning oil, though. It was more of a grayish hue.
My Mom has a long commute to work, though. She and my stepdad ride in together, and I think they do around 120+ miles per day, mostly highway. Their '84 Tempo had 160,000 miles on it when they traded it on a '91 Stanza. Now if THAT's not a testament to the fact that highway miles are less stressful on a car than short trips, I don't know what is! ;-)
The Stanza started to crap its tranny around the 90,000 mark, and by that time they were using the Monte more to commute, because they just trusted it more. Now they have a '99 Altima that's pushing 150,000 miles. It dropped its tranny at 35,000 miles, under warranty, but tranny #2 has been just fine.
Now I think if a car has a defective, or under-engineered part, it's going to fail prematurely no matter what. But still, there's no doubt at all that the type of driver, and the type of miles put on a car do make a big difference.
That's true...care is the key. I drive a majority of city miles - probably a 70/30 split, so I have my car serviced even more than normal recommendations (I rarely make to 3K between oil changes, etc). The previous owners used the car as a commuter...20K a year for 5 years on an S class is rare, and they even had it changed at 3K max. Every now and then you'll see an uncared for 10 year old Civic or something blowing smoke...when at the same time a 20 year old Chevy with more miles is doing fine.
My friend's Monte doesn't burn oil or anything, it's really pretty strong and smooth. Some of the exterior trim hasn't aged well, and he had to replace the vinyl roof this year...but otherwise, it's nice.
My parents also had a Tempo, an 85, that was pressed into long haul commuting for a few years and then was used as a second car. It had 190K on it when my mother finally had no use for it. All those miles and a couple kids using it as a high school car, and it still ran well when sold...amazing.
about servicing the tranny on my Intrepid. I think the owner's manual calls for 100K miles on the "regular" (i.e., in-your-dreams, fantasy-land) schedule, or 50K miles for the "severe" (i.e., where most people probably fall into) schedule. No wonder the damn things are so notorious for failure!! I've just been getting it serviced every 30K miles. Last time I did it, at a transmission shop, it was a whopping $78.00. Even if every 30K miles is overkill, I think it's worth it for the piece of mind. And at just under 100,000 miles, the tranny still feels the same as it did the day I brought it home over 5 years ago.
Yep, the owner of that '90 Eldorado is a doctor who is in his mid-60s. As a matter of fact, he plans to drive that car all the way to Florida from southern Vermont next week! So add at least another 2000 miles to that 217k he's already got on it. The car is in extremely mint condition...when I took a look at it last night while visiting him there was absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I think 180K is mighty unusual for a Mercedes or any other car, statistically I mean. I'd wager a hamburger than not 10% of them get there.
Best way to tell is go to a Mercedes wrecking yard and read the speedometers of the non-wrecked cars. You can't bet better data than that. Of course, not all cars are junked because the engines go bad. A bad transmission can total most older luxury cars anyway.
I just go on ebay and look at the cars listed. There are lots of old MB at 200+.
My car is at 180K but it is pristine, it looks like it has 40K on it. Even if I lost a transmission or something else potentially fatal, I'd probably just replace it, as the car itself is so otherwise excellent.
My 71 firebird still has the original flip face stereo, with 8 track- that was "top dog" for 71!
2 speakers- one 6x9 in the rear and a 4x10 in the center of the dash. The tuner and 8 track are seperate units and both are unrefurbished and still work. I have recently had both speakers re-coned, and they sound pretty good!
FWIW- A cassette player was an option for the bird in 71.
First and second gen corvettes also had vertical radios, If I recall correctly.
As an old car buff- one of my pet peeves is seeing a nice old car...then seeing the dash cut so a modern stereo can fit. As lemko pointed out there are other ways to upgrade without destroying the dash.
eBay is not really good data. They don't tell you how many engines the car has had, or engine work, and that's only a data base of a few cars. Most any car is very tired at 180K. If yours is pristine then you are on the extreme end of the curve that I mentioned. Most cars are done and gone by 175K--you don't see the other 90% on eBay because they are already junked.
I've seen many heathy cars at mileages higher than mine, mainly Accord/Camry type cars, along with W123 diesels etc. I think there are more out there than one might think. As long as it is maintained, a lot of cars that are good when new will be fine at a high mileage. My car was cared for, so it is good now. A friend of mine had a 92 Accord that was well cared for, and it was strong at 200K. It's a combination of initial good design and maintenance. I think most cars are gone at 175K because they weren't the best design when new, and they had negligent owners.
I wonder if there is any way to find mileage when the average car is junked, and maybe break it down by make as well.
Most cars are junked at about 9-10 years I believe, so if you figure average mileage for cars in the USA, you'd have to say that 175K is not realistic for most cars.
There's no more basis for assuming a car will last 175K than assuming that because you saw an old man of 80 playing tennis yesterday that all people born 80 years ago are still alive.
If a human life expectancy is X years, then a car's is also X years, and that's how most will end up, regardless of the few that survive longer.
So an average car lasts 10 years...or at least it did...that means a fair amount last longer, if there is any normal distribution involved. I'd say even 10 years ago any decently cared for new car should be able to hit 150K, so that's a good average age at retirement. And a lot must exceed it...I can't imagine a 10 year old Honda or Toyota being dead at 150K unless they've been thrashed. I think since the early 90s, when cars seemed to get better, many mainstream cars are more able to eat up a big mileage. I remember going to junkyards as a kid and seeing cars with 100K on them already ruined. I think that's more rare now.
Aah OK, I thought I saw a hint of the Y-Job in that Caddy. GM really knew how to have a good glory years.
just like the average age of a human being, is as low as it is because of the number of them (both cars and humans) that get taken out prematurely.
In the case of humans, one of the main reasons that the average lifespan of a person is longer these days than years ago, believe it or not, doesn't have that much to do with medicinal advances. It's simply the fact that there's much less risk nowadays. The vast majority of the American workforce these days doesn't work the farm, coal mine, or around dangerous mechanical equipment. As a result, fewer people are getting mauled by the combine, trapped in mine collapses while breathing coal dust, getting minced up in heavy machinery, or getting smashed flat trying to couple up two railroad cars.
If you were lucky enough to avoid all those physical calamities, and stayed in good health, you had an excellent chance of living to be just as old back then as as you do today. It's just that a lot of the risk has been taken out of life today.
The same holds true with cars. Just think of how many fairly new cars get totaled every year. And with skyrocketing repair costs and spiraling depreciation, cars today are much easier to total out than back in the day. Also, most cars, once they become used cars, often get neglected. Maybe they fall into the hands of owners who can't afford the maintenance on them, so they let things slide. Or, maybe as they age, they just get relegated to spare car status, don't get driven enough, and start to rot?
I'm sure that the majority of vehicles that get scrapped are more a result of human error (crashing them and neglecting them) than vehicle error (simply wearing out from old age, or being poorly engineered or simply defective to begin with...but then that can be attributed to the humans who designed/engineered/built them!)
Two comments. People might last longer as they are not getting killed at work but that is largely offset by the lack of activity that leads to obesity and higher rates of diabetes and heart disease.
As for vehicles, I think that cars do not last as long as they could due to affluenza. That is, people can afford to buy a new vehicle every few years and are not as interested in maintaining the car as they would if they absolutely had to. Jus look at Cuba to see how long a car can be kept if properly maintained although that is a bizarre example.
...a page, that Cutlass with the 267 that Andre mentioned was probably Canadian production. I had an '84 Supreme with a 305, where all of the US documentation only specs the 307 Olds as being available.
Joined on the 3rd day by a nice guy who pulled up in his new, excuse me if I get it wrong, 575 Maranello in a great silver blue color. He indicated that it was one of a couple he owned, Ferrari's that is! But to make it all ok, he doesn't drive them in the rain.
*potentially* a modern engine or transmission should be able to reach 175K with the modern technology we have, but that presumes very careful maintenance and non-abusive driving habits----too very optimistic assumptions that dont' see to pan out in "real life".
I've read through the SAE that about 175K is the normal life expectancy of a gas engine and about 225K the life expectancy of a diesel. By "normal" I presume they mean the really fat part of the bell curve.
Anyone who sells you an old car and says "oh, these babies can go 300K easy"--well, scientifically speaking they are blowing smoke.
I am thinking of a VERY obscure truck marketed by Dodge in the 80s (not the "L'il Red Pickup"). It's got some sinister name but I can't think of it, driving me crazy....
The "normal" life of an engine is going to depend a good deal on what sort of rpm's it's turning to make those miles. An engine that racks up 175k in overdrive is going to be in better shape than the engine with 175k city miles.
As far as 300k goes, I bought an 88 Sentra in 1995 with 195k on the clock. I mistreated that car terribly, wrecked it a few times, never washed it, never changed the oil or filters. On the other hand, I drove it very gently and got 100k on the same clutch, brake pads, and timing belt (plus whatever miles those had before I bought it). The head gasket finally popped seven years later at 296k. I wouldn't expect that kind of life from an 88 Cavalier, or even an 88 Corolla, but you could get it from an 88 Civic with an older owner.
My '93 Volvo 850 has 112k miles on it. All of those miles are highway and I never drive it during the winter. You can be assured that I will definitely be going for 300k miles on it, as I know that'll be the expected lifespan for that engine. Other '93 cars, such as Tauruses or Intrepids, I wouldn't be so sure about.
I saw an oddball today...a 67 (I think) Plymouth Fury 2 door post...not a hardtop or a fastback or anything, but a very sedate looking 2 door post, kind of like an old fashioned 2 door sedan...a grandma's coupe maybe. Big, bronze, and not in bad shape.
Ah but you see, 300K is not the expected lifespan. This is just an urban myth created out of too small a database. Ask the engineer who designed your engine (I mean this---write them a letter) and he'll tell you the expected lifespan. Who should know better than he?
. What he'll say is (with some equivocation perhaps) is 175K-225K.
I don't really think "highway miles" makes any difference all by itself. It's about metallurgy and design as well. Once you've busted up a number of different engines, it's easier to see that not all engines are created equal.
One could argue that overdrive miles are WORSE, as you would tend to lug an engine in overdrive, and lugging is the worst thing you can do to an engine, much worse than high revs.
You can rev a Ferrari engine at redline for a week straight. 24/7, and it doesn't care. That's what it's built for. But drive it in 6th gear at 1800 rpms and you've got a problem.
with the 302-V8... bought it new when I was 18 years old.. It was totally, thoroughly shot by the time it had 48K miles on it.... It ran, but that was about it... Every major system needed work on it by then... Could you make it run till 150K miles? Sure, but it really wouldn't be the same car by then.... You'd have to rebuild the engine, replace the manual transmission, steering, brakes, etc, etc, etc....
You can make any car last till 200K, if you keep replacing parts.... but, I don't consider that the same as a car that makes it without major work..
I had an '82 Accord that I put 130K miles on in 12 years.... Other than a rebuilt carbuerator.. no repairs at all... But, would that car have made 200K without major repairs? Probably not..
suddenly started running up a whole grocery list of problems, with about 89,600 miles on the clock. It needs a new exhaust system, which in checking around, would run me about $400 for a single, $700 for a dual. They told me up-front though what I suspected about the dual, that it would be pretty-much wasted on a 360-2bbl that puts out all of 150 hp.
Then to add to the fun, the windshield wipers quit working last week. I don't know if it's the motor or something more, but you can actually take the wipers and move them freely with your hands. In fact, you can actually make them swing so far that the left one will leave the windshield! I didn't think they had that much reach!
Then, on Saturday for some reason gasoline bubbled up through the fuel inlet, got all over the rear Endura-like flexible panel that covers the gap between the rear of the car and the bumper. I've never seen anything like that happen before. Anyway, it warped and wrinkled that panel very thoroughly, so now the car looks like it's been rear-ended at low speed, and the bumper just popped back out.
Lessee, what else is wrong with it? The power antenna doesn't work, but thankfully is stuck in the up position. About a year and a half ago, a friendly passerby thought it would improve the looks of my car if he bent back the antenna so it matched the rake of the A-pillar. I wish I could find him to thank him personally. I have an aluminum baseball bat with his name on it! And I wouldn't dare bend it back upright, because with my luck, it'll snap off.
The a/c doesn't work. Probably just needs a recharge, but with the way R12 costs nowadays, I'll probably be better off just converting it to R134a. The headliner came loose before I ever owned the car, and the previous owner just took some thin wood strips and shoved them up in the trim to hold it in place.
Oh yeah, it also needs new tires. The Firestone Firehawks that are on it now, which came off my '89 Gran Fury, complete with the copcar wheels, are awesome in dry weather. But with 35-40,000 miles on them, they can get a little "exciting" in wet weather. And not exciting in a good way!
On the plus side, the driveline is rock solid, except sometimes it shudders a bit around 50-55, like the torque convertor is having trouble deciding whether it wants to lock up or not. And for a Mopar of this vintage, or heck, ANY car of this vintage, the rust has been kept to a tasteful minimum. It's rusting some along the rear lip of the trunklid, and a spot is coming through on the rear quarter panel, on the little strip between the wheel opening and the back door.
Now if this was a car that I hated with a passion, I'd probably dump it. But in a twisted sort of way, these big beasts have always endeared themselves to me. And if I had to drive it on a daily basis, I would've put more money into it. But with as little driving as I do, heck, I can get away with just putting Rain-X on the windshield! And with the exhaust the way it is, it puts the kids with their little fart-canned Civics in awe, because they think I have some real muscle under the hood. Plus, I'm louder than they are! ;-)
Will this particular car make it to 200,000 miles? I seriously doubt it, but I believe that's more because of my driving habits than any fault of the car itself. I've only put about 4600 miles on it in the 3 years and 2 months that I've owned it. At the rate I'm driving it, it'll take me about 73 years to hit 200K miles, and chances are I'd be dead by then! If it were my daily transportation, however, I'd have complete faith in it. As it is, I have no qualms about hopping in it and driving up to Carlisle, which is about 125 miles or so. And it's never left me stranded, although on Monday the locks froze me out while I was Christmas shopping, and it took me a few minutes to get in!
A high school buddy of mine claimed his uncle had a 1970s Suburban with 500K miles with absolutely no engine work ever done. General Motors offered to give him a new Suburban because they so desperately wanted to know why that particular engine was such a gem. He, of course, turned them down.
My friend is about the most honest guy I know. The story is absolutely ridiculous.
I think of this whenever someone relays anecdotal information to me.
just "fix" your wipers like the rally car drivers do when they break after a roll or something. Run a cable from each side back into the cabin through the windows. Pull on one to wipe and pull on the other cable to return. Works like a champ! ;-)
*keep the windows up as far as you can!
Oh, and I bear no leagal responsibility if you crash into a snow plow listening to my stupid ideas!
but I know Mopar used to have special truck/industrial engines that were more beefed-up than their passenger car engines. They were usually cammed differently as well, which cut the hp but I imagine either raised the torque, or made it available across a wider rpm.
So while there was a 440 passenger car engine, for example, there were also 3 different 440 truck/industrial blocks, designated 440-1, 440-2, and 440-3, in increasing strength/durability.
Chevy smallblocks by the 70's, in general, weren't so hot. They tended to have weak crankshafts, and later models had EGR valves that were prone to early failure. My Granddad had a '72 Impala with a 350-2bbl that needed a valve job by 70,000 miles. He also had a '76 GMC crew cab with a 350, which I don't think ever needed any major engine work. The fenders rusted out pretty badly, but that was about it. He sold it in '86, with about 100,000 miles on it, because he just didn't need a truck that big and thirsty anymore.
It's quite possible that GM might have built their truck engines to be beefier than their car engines, just as Mopar used to. But then again, even though the smallblock wasn't so hot by that time, there were enough of them built that chances are at least a few of them would hit high mileage.
I've had two '80's Chevy smallblocks. First, the '86 Monte that my Mom gave me. 305-4bbl. Still running strong at 192,000 miles when it got totaled. And now I have an '85 Silverado, which my Mom gave me. It was originally my Granddads, and what replaced his '76 GMC. It has it's problems, but the 305 under the hood isn't one of them! It still runs strong and doesn't make any evil-sounding noises, although it's a bit overmatched in a 4200 lb truck! It has about 112,000 miles on it. But it's also in kind of the same league as my '79 NYer: more of a spare vehicle than daily transportation, so it's not going to hit 200,000 miles anytime soon, either!
I'm not RIP'ing my NYer just yet! My copcar was an '89 Gran Fury. It was a Richmond, VA sheriff's car, so it didn't see much in the way of high-speed pursuit. More like serving summonses, making runs to Dunkin Donuts, stuff like that. And it was equipped really nice for a copcar...tilt wheel, a/c, a pretty nice AM/FM stereo cassette, power windows, door locks, mirrors, carpeting (instead of the ugly rubber mats) and cloth seats. And it was silver too, which was quite common on those M-body 5th Avenues of that time, but must've been pretty rare for a copcar!
You'd know this better than I do: When the 440 was last offered in the full-size trucks in '78, was it, as well as the other V-8s, saddled with the same emissions garbage that burdened regular cars?
I recall my neighbor owning a '77 D100 with a 440 and TorqueFlite...with Positraction that thing could smoke the rear tires! (Wonder if that had to do with emissions)
but I think the 440's in trucks might have had less emissions junk on them, and more power. At least, I know the Dodge Warlock used a copcar 440, and would dust just about any car on the road at that time. I dunno how much hp a copcar 440 had, but I think the civvy models were down to about 205 hp, and just about any car in '78 that had a 440 in it would've weighed well over 4000 lb, so it wasn't going to be much of a performer. However, another thing that hurt performance around that time was the long-legged differentials they were putting in them. The typical '78 passenger car 440 probably had a tall 2.45:1 rear end. I think copcars usually had a 2.94:1 or even a 3.23:1, and I dunno what a Warlock would've had.
You may have heard that Muscle Cars are getting outrageous money these days. I'm not sure I trust the "little old lady drove it only on Sundays" description of this beauty.
Andre, you mentioned an old Monte Carlo? I just went to look at my step mom's '88 SS the other day. She parked it about 4 years ago, and it's just been sitting since in her sister's field - no tarp, no nothing. She ran that thing from new to 229k miles, replacing only 3 water pumps and 2 fuel pumps. Original engine and trans. Engine needs a rebuild but still runs.
It's one of those cars that's tempting to try and rescue, but the value of a really nice one is so low that it's not really worthwhile. My step-mom's sister actually has quite a boneyard out there, with the Monte, a couple of old '70s Caprice wagons, a '75ish Catalina, a couple old trucks, and a 50s Buick, portholes and all. All pretty much complete but rotting to the ground.
yeah, my Mom bought a new '86 Monte Carlo, just a base sport coupe with the 305. Not an SS, or even an LS, just a plain, ordinary, crank-window coupe! She got it at the end of the model year, and mainly bought it because she planned on giving me her 1980 Malibu once I got my driver's license.
Things came full-circle when she gave me that Monte in the spring of '98. At that time, it had 179,000 miles on it. I took it to 192,000 miles in 3 short months, then it got t-boned one night when I was on a pizza run. Three deliveries in the car, and it was looking to be a great night...I remember I made like 60 bucks in just 4 hours, then BAM!! I didn't even make it out of the parking lot at the mall. Some kid in a '92 Tempo didn't understand the concept of a stop sign, and popped me good on the passenger side. It probably would've been salvageable if I wanted to bad enough, but it bent the A-pillar just enough to break the windshield. Smashed the fender and the door, and left a nice big smash in the quarter panel under the opera window. The front wheel was also cocked at a funny angle. I don't know if it bent anything, or just knocked it out of alignment.
I was pissed too, because I really liked that car! It was a 2-tone gray-over silver, with a burgundy cloth interior.
BTW, what kind of condition, and body style, is that '75-ish Catalina in? In a twisted sort of way I kinda like those, although I think my favorite GM big 'uns are a '75-76 LeSabre, Delta, 98, or Electra, or maybe a '72 Impala.
Oh yeah, on Sunday I saw a '73 Buick LeSabre hardtop coupe along Route 50 in Annapolis, MD. Looked a bit rough, but salvageable. Kind of a nasty cantaloupe color with a white non-vinyl roof. Considering that it was along the road though, I'm sure it needed some work. I think when we saw it I said "Ooh, me want" or something stupid like that, and my buddy just looked at me funny, as if to say "You're hopeless"!
ain't that the truth! At one of the Carlisle shows that I go to with Grbeck, I remember spotting a '75 LeSabre convertible, a car that I would love to have some day. Well this one was pretty low-priced, at something like $3000-3500. I think it had a brand-new top, too. And I don't remember for sure, but I don't think it was rusty. But the interior looked like they raised and trained pit bulls in it. I'm drawing a blank on the color, but I think it was a grayish silver with a red interior. And it just had a 350 under the hood. It was also pretty basic: solid bench seat, crank windows, etc. It would've needed a lot of work to get it looking nice, and then it still would've been just a base car in a color I really didn't like.
But then, a few years ago, I remember seeing a '75 in baby blue with white vinyl, a combo that IMO, is to die for! 455 V-8, split bench seat, power seat, windows, locks, etc. About the only flaw I remember seeing on it was that the trunk was horribly mis-aligned, but hey, that's the 70's for ya! (or '97-04, if you happen to be looking at a Regal or Century!) It could have left the factory that way. Anyway, this one was something like $7995.
But the way I figure, even if I overpaid on the nice one, I'd still be ahead than if I bought the beat-up one and sunk a bunch of money into it.
Our local Porsche dealer has a new Carerra GT. I went to see it, and it is nice. It made the other new Porsches around it almost look upright and dorky.
20 feet away from the Carerra GT, in the service parking lot, was an Isetta that needed a full restoration. It almost looked too far gone to me. A few places over from that was an old Triumph in decent condition, maybe a TR3. I have no idea what those cars were doing there, but they were interesting.
and from the highway noticed that they have what looks like a mid-60's Suburban that's been lengthened, along the lines of a limo or those old Checker airport buses. I was going by too fast to really look at it, but it looked like it might have had about 2 or 3 extra rows of seats added.
Oh yeah, they also had about 7 or 8 of those new Relay thingies cluttering up the lot.
Comments
My '80 Malibu had a Chevy 229 V-6, and, for the time period I guess, it wasn't THAT bad. I'm sure if I had to drive something that slow nowadays though I'd hate it with a passion!
Lemko, I'm not positive (and all my car books are packed away until Christmas is over), but I think the Ford 255 V-8 had a bit more hp than that. Not much more though, but I'm thinking it was more like 112?
Ford used the standard V-8 power as a bragging point, when comparing the downsized LTD/Crown Vic to a Chevy Caprice or Dodge St. Regis, which only came with six-cylinders standard. Still, I doubt a tiny 255 V-8 in an LTD was much faster (if any) than a 250 inline 6 in a Caprice, or a 225 slant six (they slapped a 2-bbl and different intake on it in larger cars) in a St. Regis.
I think Ford did make a wise move a few years later though, when they just made the 302 standard in these cars. I think that was '83? It was really foolish to be putting 6-cyl and undersized V-8s in cars this size, because they'd strain so hard that they often got worse economy than a decent-sized V-8 in the 5 liter range!
And then there's my W126, also at 180K, which is nothing unusual at all.
Here's an example. My commute to work is about 3 1/2 miles. Now that the weather's turned cold, my car's not even fully warmed up when I get to work! So basically, my whole ride to work and from work is fairly rough on the car. In comparison, I think my uncle goes about 65 miles each way to work. So, out of that 130 miles a day, only maybe the first 3 or 4 of each trip (6-8 total during the day, if that) are really rough on the car. The remaining 120 or so miles are a cake walk, compared to those warming-up miles.
His car just went into the Toyota dealer for a 70,000 mile checkup. He's still on the first set of brakes, and I think they said he's still got 40% up front and 60% in the back. In contrast, I just put on my 3rd set of front brakes (it's the 4th set when you count the OEM pads that the car first came with) on my '00 Intrepid at 99,000 miles. Now sure, maybe there are engineering differences beteen an Intrepid's brakes and a Corolla's brakes, and an Intrepid has a lot more weight and torque to have to haul down than a Corolla, but obviously the miles have a lot to do with it, as well.
In 130 miles, my uncle's Corolla has only been started twice. The driver's door has only been slammed 4 times. He's only hopped into the seat twice. The vast majority of that commute was highway, so there really isn't a whole lot of stopping and starting. In comparison, in 130 miles of commuting, my car has been started 37 times. That's almost 19 times more wear and tear on the starter. The driver's door has been slammed 19 times more often. I've hopped my butt into and out of it 19 more times, putting that much more wear and tear on the door, seat fabric, etc. And those 130 miles have included many, many more starts and stops than my uncle's 130 miles.
So no, miles aren't miles. Another good example is police cars. The rule of thumb for a police car is that whatever mileage is on the odometer, double that, and that's about the equivalent of an "average" civilian car. So a cop car with 75,000 miles is about the equivalent of an "average" civvy car with 150,000.
But then, more important than mileage, I believe proper maintenance is critical. Once you start letting a car run low on fluids, or run it with inadequate, worn-out fluids that should have been changed years ago, that's going to kill it no matter what kind of driving you do.
Now it was buring a bit of oil by that time, although I think it was actually leaking more of it out of the valve cover gaskets. It smoked some at start up, and when you really floored it, you could see smoke. It wasn't the bluish-black of burning oil, though. It was more of a grayish hue.
My Mom has a long commute to work, though. She and my stepdad ride in together, and I think they do around 120+ miles per day, mostly highway. Their '84 Tempo had 160,000 miles on it when they traded it on a '91 Stanza. Now if THAT's not a testament to the fact that highway miles are less stressful on a car than short trips, I don't know what is! ;-)
The Stanza started to crap its tranny around the 90,000 mark, and by that time they were using the Monte more to commute, because they just trusted it more. Now they have a '99 Altima that's pushing 150,000 miles. It dropped its tranny at 35,000 miles, under warranty, but tranny #2 has been just fine.
Now I think if a car has a defective, or under-engineered part, it's going to fail prematurely no matter what. But still, there's no doubt at all that the type of driver, and the type of miles put on a car do make a big difference.
My friend's Monte doesn't burn oil or anything, it's really pretty strong and smooth. Some of the exterior trim hasn't aged well, and he had to replace the vinyl roof this year...but otherwise, it's nice.
My parents also had a Tempo, an 85, that was pressed into long haul commuting for a few years and then was used as a second car. It had 190K on it when my mother finally had no use for it. All those miles and a couple kids using it as a high school car, and it still ran well when sold...amazing.
Best way to tell is go to a Mercedes wrecking yard and read the speedometers of the non-wrecked cars. You can't bet better data than that. Of course, not all cars are junked because the engines go bad. A bad transmission can total most older luxury cars anyway.
My car is at 180K but it is pristine, it looks like it has 40K on it. Even if I lost a transmission or something else potentially fatal, I'd probably just replace it, as the car itself is so otherwise excellent.
My 71 firebird still has the original flip face stereo, with 8 track- that was "top dog" for 71!
2 speakers- one 6x9 in the rear and a 4x10 in the center of the dash. The tuner and 8 track are seperate units and both are unrefurbished and still work. I have recently had both speakers re-coned, and they sound pretty good!
FWIW- A cassette player was an option for the bird in 71.
First and second gen corvettes also had vertical radios, If I recall correctly.
As an old car buff- one of my pet peeves is seeing a nice old car...then seeing the dash cut so a modern stereo can fit. As lemko pointed out there are other ways to upgrade without destroying the dash.
This is a nicer than average example
Not many of these left roadworthy
Nice Marlin...the Crossfire of the 60s, the butt anyway
Shifty-mobile with an opening bid 4x too high
This style Caddy had a timeless elegance to it. One of Harley Earl's earlier jobs, right?
It's like a new tank
I never liked these much...but I suppose it's a nice example
I recall some talk about the Lincoln Premier a while back...this isn't one of the pretty hardtops, but it is still a very nice car
I would have looked at this if it was in my town...I'm one of the 6 people on Earth who kind of like them
Probably the biggest freakshow I've seen lately. Should be saved though...by someone with more money than anything.
This has all the makings of fraud. Where do I begin...photo out of a car book, huge price, vague (and incorrect) description
Pretty Lancia
Nice late DeSoto
Speaking of Galaxie fastbacks, here's the original. I think this was a very pretty design. Worth finishing
100 year old supercar
Another Andre-mobile...I like those wheels, they really suit the car
Euro 126 with goofy wheels (Germans seem to love those) and the very rare 4-place seating option. I'd love to find one of those here (in leather). My old sales lit says it was available, but I've never seen one
No ebay time next weekend, I'll be away for the holidays.
I wonder if there is any way to find mileage when the average car is junked, and maybe break it down by make as well.
There's no more basis for assuming a car will last 175K than assuming that because you saw an old man of 80 playing tennis yesterday that all people born 80 years ago are still alive.
If a human life expectancy is X years, then a car's is also X years, and that's how most will end up, regardless of the few that survive longer.
Aah OK, I thought I saw a hint of the Y-Job in that Caddy. GM really knew how to have a good glory years.
As for the "fraud" car, the buyer has just changed their user name... real suspicious.
In the case of humans, one of the main reasons that the average lifespan of a person is longer these days than years ago, believe it or not, doesn't have that much to do with medicinal advances. It's simply the fact that there's much less risk nowadays. The vast majority of the American workforce these days doesn't work the farm, coal mine, or around dangerous mechanical equipment. As a result, fewer people are getting mauled by the combine, trapped in mine collapses while breathing coal dust, getting minced up in heavy machinery, or getting smashed flat trying to couple up two railroad cars.
If you were lucky enough to avoid all those physical calamities, and stayed in good health, you had an excellent chance of living to be just as old back then as as you do today. It's just that a lot of the risk has been taken out of life today.
The same holds true with cars. Just think of how many fairly new cars get totaled every year. And with skyrocketing repair costs and spiraling depreciation, cars today are much easier to total out than back in the day. Also, most cars, once they become used cars, often get neglected. Maybe they fall into the hands of owners who can't afford the maintenance on them, so they let things slide. Or, maybe as they age, they just get relegated to spare car status, don't get driven enough, and start to rot?
I'm sure that the majority of vehicles that get scrapped are more a result of human error (crashing them and neglecting them) than vehicle error (simply wearing out from old age, or being poorly engineered or simply defective to begin with...but then that can be attributed to the humans who designed/engineered/built them!)
As for vehicles, I think that cars do not last as long as they could due to affluenza. That is, people can afford to buy a new vehicle every few years and are not as interested in maintaining the car as they would if they absolutely had to. Jus look at Cuba to see how long a car can be kept if properly maintained although that is a bizarre example.
I've read through the SAE that about 175K is the normal life expectancy of a gas engine and about 225K the life expectancy of a diesel. By "normal" I presume they mean the really fat part of the bell curve.
Anyone who sells you an old car and says "oh, these babies can go 300K easy"--well, scientifically speaking they are blowing smoke.
I am thinking of a VERY obscure truck marketed by Dodge in the 80s (not the "L'il Red Pickup"). It's got some sinister name but I can't think of it, driving me crazy....
Gold Star!!
As far as 300k goes, I bought an 88 Sentra in 1995 with 195k on the clock. I mistreated that car terribly, wrecked it a few times, never washed it, never changed the oil or filters. On the other hand, I drove it very gently and got 100k on the same clutch, brake pads, and timing belt (plus whatever miles those had before I bought it). The head gasket finally popped seven years later at 296k. I wouldn't expect that kind of life from an 88 Cavalier, or even an 88 Corolla, but you could get it from an 88 Civic with an older owner.
. What he'll say is (with some equivocation perhaps) is 175K-225K.
I don't really think "highway miles" makes any difference all by itself. It's about metallurgy and design as well. Once you've busted up a number of different engines, it's easier to see that not all engines are created equal.
One could argue that overdrive miles are WORSE, as you would tend to lug an engine in overdrive, and lugging is the worst thing you can do to an engine, much worse than high revs.
You can rev a Ferrari engine at redline for a week straight. 24/7, and it doesn't care. That's what it's built for. But drive it in 6th gear at 1800 rpms and you've got a problem.
You can make any car last till 200K, if you keep replacing parts.... but, I don't consider that the same as a car that makes it without major work..
I had an '82 Accord that I put 130K miles on in 12 years.... Other than a rebuilt carbuerator.. no repairs at all... But, would that car have made 200K without major repairs? Probably not..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Then to add to the fun, the windshield wipers quit working last week. I don't know if it's the motor or something more, but you can actually take the wipers and move them freely with your hands. In fact, you can actually make them swing so far that the left one will leave the windshield! I didn't think they had that much reach!
Then, on Saturday for some reason gasoline bubbled up through the fuel inlet, got all over the rear Endura-like flexible panel that covers the gap between the rear of the car and the bumper. I've never seen anything like that happen before. Anyway, it warped and wrinkled that panel very thoroughly, so now the car looks like it's been rear-ended at low speed, and the bumper just popped back out.
Lessee, what else is wrong with it? The power antenna doesn't work, but thankfully is stuck in the up position. About a year and a half ago, a friendly passerby thought it would improve the looks of my car if he bent back the antenna so it matched the rake of the A-pillar. I wish I could find him to thank him personally. I have an aluminum baseball bat with his name on it! And I wouldn't dare bend it back upright, because with my luck, it'll snap off.
The a/c doesn't work. Probably just needs a recharge, but with the way R12 costs nowadays, I'll probably be better off just converting it to R134a. The headliner came loose before I ever owned the car, and the previous owner just took some thin wood strips and shoved them up in the trim to hold it in place.
Oh yeah, it also needs new tires. The Firestone Firehawks that are on it now, which came off my '89 Gran Fury, complete with the copcar wheels, are awesome in dry weather. But with 35-40,000 miles on them, they can get a little "exciting" in wet weather. And not exciting in a good way!
On the plus side, the driveline is rock solid, except sometimes it shudders a bit around 50-55, like the torque convertor is having trouble deciding whether it wants to lock up or not. And for a Mopar of this vintage, or heck, ANY car of this vintage, the rust has been kept to a tasteful minimum. It's rusting some along the rear lip of the trunklid, and a spot is coming through on the rear quarter panel, on the little strip between the wheel opening and the back door.
Now if this was a car that I hated with a passion, I'd probably dump it. But in a twisted sort of way, these big beasts have always endeared themselves to me. And if I had to drive it on a daily basis, I would've put more money into it. But with as little driving as I do, heck, I can get away with just putting Rain-X on the windshield! And with the exhaust the way it is, it puts the kids with their little fart-canned Civics in awe, because they think I have some real muscle under the hood. Plus, I'm louder than they are! ;-)
Will this particular car make it to 200,000 miles? I seriously doubt it, but I believe that's more because of my driving habits than any fault of the car itself. I've only put about 4600 miles on it in the 3 years and 2 months that I've owned it. At the rate I'm driving it, it'll take me about 73 years to hit 200K miles, and chances are I'd be dead by then! If it were my daily transportation, however, I'd have complete faith in it. As it is, I have no qualms about hopping in it and driving up to Carlisle, which is about 125 miles or so. And it's never left me stranded, although on Monday the locks froze me out while I was Christmas shopping, and it took me a few minutes to get in!
My friend is about the most honest guy I know. The story is absolutely ridiculous.
I think of this whenever someone relays anecdotal information to me.
*keep the windows up as far as you can!
Oh, and I bear no leagal responsibility if you crash into a snow plow listening to my stupid ideas!
So while there was a 440 passenger car engine, for example, there were also 3 different 440 truck/industrial blocks, designated 440-1, 440-2, and 440-3, in increasing strength/durability.
Chevy smallblocks by the 70's, in general, weren't so hot. They tended to have weak crankshafts, and later models had EGR valves that were prone to early failure. My Granddad had a '72 Impala with a 350-2bbl that needed a valve job by 70,000 miles. He also had a '76 GMC crew cab with a 350, which I don't think ever needed any major engine work. The fenders rusted out pretty badly, but that was about it. He sold it in '86, with about 100,000 miles on it, because he just didn't need a truck that big and thirsty anymore.
It's quite possible that GM might have built their truck engines to be beefier than their car engines, just as Mopar used to. But then again, even though the smallblock wasn't so hot by that time, there were enough of them built that chances are at least a few of them would hit high mileage.
I've had two '80's Chevy smallblocks. First, the '86 Monte that my Mom gave me. 305-4bbl. Still running strong at 192,000 miles when it got totaled. And now I have an '85 Silverado, which my Mom gave me. It was originally my Granddads, and what replaced his '76 GMC. It has it's problems, but the 305 under the hood isn't one of them! It still runs strong and doesn't make any evil-sounding noises, although it's a bit overmatched in a 4200 lb truck! It has about 112,000 miles on it. But it's also in kind of the same league as my '79 NYer: more of a spare vehicle than daily transportation, so it's not going to hit 200,000 miles anytime soon, either!
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I recall my neighbor owning a '77 D100 with a 440 and TorqueFlite...with Positraction that thing could smoke the rear tires! (Wonder if that had to do with emissions)
http://hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/dealers.detail/hmn_vehic- - le_id/215570
There's no doubt that 1970 454 Malibu SS sits at the tippy top of the muscle car market but fans will note that this one isn't an LS6.
Trust me, they'd've mentioned it if it was.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
It's one of those cars that's tempting to try and rescue, but the value of a really nice one is so low that it's not really worthwhile. My step-mom's sister actually has quite a boneyard out there, with the Monte, a couple of old '70s Caprice wagons, a '75ish Catalina, a couple old trucks, and a 50s Buick, portholes and all. All pretty much complete but rotting to the ground.
-Jason
Things came full-circle when she gave me that Monte in the spring of '98. At that time, it had 179,000 miles on it. I took it to 192,000 miles in 3 short months, then it got t-boned one night when I was on a pizza run. Three deliveries in the car, and it was looking to be a great night...I remember I made like 60 bucks in just 4 hours, then BAM!! I didn't even make it out of the parking lot at the mall. Some kid in a '92 Tempo didn't understand the concept of a stop sign, and popped me good on the passenger side. It probably would've been salvageable if I wanted to bad enough, but it bent the A-pillar just enough to break the windshield. Smashed the fender and the door, and left a nice big smash in the quarter panel under the opera window. The front wheel was also cocked at a funny angle. I don't know if it bent anything, or just knocked it out of alignment.
I was pissed too, because I really liked that car! It was a 2-tone gray-over silver, with a burgundy cloth interior.
BTW, what kind of condition, and body style, is that '75-ish Catalina in? In a twisted sort of way I kinda like those, although I think my favorite GM big 'uns are a '75-76 LeSabre, Delta, 98, or Electra, or maybe a '72 Impala.
Oh yeah, on Sunday I saw a '73 Buick LeSabre hardtop coupe along Route 50 in Annapolis, MD. Looked a bit rough, but salvageable. Kind of a nasty cantaloupe color with a white non-vinyl roof. Considering that it was along the road though, I'm sure it needed some work. I think when we saw it I said "Ooh, me want" or something stupid like that, and my buddy just looked at me funny, as if to say "You're hopeless"!
But then, a few years ago, I remember seeing a '75 in baby blue with white vinyl, a combo that IMO, is to die for! 455 V-8, split bench seat, power seat, windows, locks, etc. About the only flaw I remember seeing on it was that the trunk was horribly mis-aligned, but hey, that's the 70's for ya! (or '97-04, if you happen to be looking at a Regal or Century!) It could have left the factory that way. Anyway, this one was something like $7995.
But the way I figure, even if I overpaid on the nice one, I'd still be ahead than if I bought the beat-up one and sunk a bunch of money into it.
20 feet away from the Carerra GT, in the service parking lot, was an Isetta that needed a full restoration. It almost looked too far gone to me. A few places over from that was an old Triumph in decent condition, maybe a TR3. I have no idea what those cars were doing there, but they were interesting.
Oh yeah, they also had about 7 or 8 of those new Relay thingies cluttering up the lot.