I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

stickguy

there is a guy near me that has a collection of ratty stuff overflowing his shed/garage, driveway and most of the yard. Some often covered by cheap tarps. Needless to say, this is not pebble beach quality stuff!

there is a jelly bean Celica coupe and Foxstang for the newer stuff.

and a 74 or 75 Road Runner that doesn't look too bad, but some rust I think and a bit beat up.

This is the guy with a '60 t Bird, also with some rust and original "patina"

The other day I saw another one uncovered. Couldn't quite see the logos (was walking the dog, and didn't want him wandering up the driveway!), but it is a late 50s barge of some kind. Not a chevy or Ford, that I know.

Pretty sure there is one more stuffed into the back shed that I have never seen.

andre1969

As long as we're at it, why not put a modern V6, say from a FWD Mopar, in one your New Yorkers? That would draw attention at Carlisle!

Y'know, I've often wondered how something like that would work out. Even a Charger or 300 with the tiny 2.7 was good for 0-60 in around 11 seconds, whereas with the 150 hp 360 in the New Yorkers, it's probably around 11-12. And in this case, the 2.7 is powering a RWD car that probably weighs almost as much as my New Yorkers.

Something like a 3.5 would be a better bet though, with 250 hp and around 250 ft-lb of torque. For comparison, my 360's only have 150 hp, but torque is a lot greater. I've found one site that quoted 265 ft-lb @2400 rpm (http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/chrysler/full-size_chrysler_8gen/full-si- ze_8gen_newport_sedan/1979.html). I thought it would be greater than that though, as the 318-2bbl was usually good for around 245-250.

My guess is 0-60 would improve a lot, and local fuel economy would as well, but probably not too much improvement on the highway front. I've actually been able to break 20-21 with on the highway, in the right conditions.

hpmctorque

"...but probably not too much improvement on the highway front."

Five speeds vs. three would help highway performance some too, in addition to fuel economy.

The biggest benefit for all the trouble and expense might be the boost in recognition from Mopar fans at car show, don't you think? I mean, if you couldn't show it and talk about it, would you ever dream of doing it?

andre1969

The biggest benefit for all the trouble and expense might be the boost in recognition from Mopar fans at car show, don't you think? I mean, if you couldn't show it and talk about it, would you ever dream of doing it?

Yeah, that would be kind of a cool side benefit, having something oddball like that. I think the main reason I'd want to do it though, is just to take an old car that I like, and make it more useful for today's driving conditions (performance and fuel economy)

Just to see how far fuel economy has advanced, I tried looking up the old EPA estimates for my '79 NYer. For 1979, the only number they show is 14, which I think is the old raw city number (back then they only published raw numbers, and didn't round them down). However, for 1978, the Dodge Monaco with a 360-2bbl, which is about the same weight, same displacement, similar hp, was rated at 14 city, 22 highway, and 17 combined. So, that's why I'm thinking that "14" for 1979 is the city figure.

Anyway, nowadays the numbers they put on the window sticker are really rounded down, but the EPA's website does have text files you can download, and see the raw data.

For the Dodge Charger 3.5, the raw numbers are 21.5 city/34.2 highway, 25.8 combined.
For the 5.7 Hemi, they're 19.3 city/34.5 highway (I think the Hemi is geared taller to allow a more loafy highway cruise), and 24.1 combined.

Even the powerful SRT with the 6.1 Hemi comes in at 16.3 city/26 highway, 19.1 combined!

It's kinda disturbing to think I could buy a 6.1, and actually see an IMPROVEMENT in fuel economy! :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

A Falcon 6 cylinder automatic sedan doesn't have much value to ruin, so I'd say, if the body were nice, I'd certainly consider transplanting an efficient 4 or 6 cylinder in there. You'd sort of end up with a 2010 Toyota Corolla sedan with an old Ford body on it and scary brakes.

andre1969

You'd sort of end up with a 2010 Toyota Corolla sedan with an old Ford body on it and scary brakes.

Would it be hard to upgrade the brakes on a Falcon? Would V-8 Falcon, or Mustang brakes be an easy swap? Presuming they ARE larger, that is? I remember with my two Darts, the '69 225 had 9" brakes, while the '68 V-8 had 10" drums.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm sure you could find some kit for disk brakes, or maybe put Sprint parts on it.

Drum brakes, if done well on a light car, can be excellent---e.g., the 65 on up Corvair has outstanding drum braking.

andre1969

Drum brakes, if done well on a light car, can be excellent---e.g., the 65 on up Corvair has outstanding drum braking.

yeah, that's because GM did the smart thing there, and simply used 9.5" intermediate car drum brakes on the Corvair! They're awsome on a 2500 lb Corvair. Unfortunately, I've heard that GM was still making them techincally standard on cars like the 1973 GTO. NOT so great, on a 4000 lb torque monster! I think most intermediates by then, at least the more powerful ones, were optioned up with disc up front and 10 or 11" drums in back.

texases

There are a number of good modern disc brake packages for Mustangs, so they should fit on a Falcon no problem. Course, they're not cheap! But I'd want them upgraded if a more-powerful engine is put under the hood.

hpmctorque

As for fuel economy, you'd still have the wind drag factor of an old car.

Mr_Shiftright

Pigs *can* fly, given sufficient velocity !

ecotrklvr

So true. I had a 1966 Corvair, and loved nearly everything about it, in a way only a 16 year-old can. The steering and brakes were pretty darn good. Unlike the 1970 Malibu I got that had the SAME brakes, and was kinda scary to drive.

Ever since I truly understood drum brake adjustment, I've preferred 4-wheel discs. So many front-only disc brake vehicles never get their auto-adjusters to kick in. Result - those cars have very little of the designed-in rear-brake bias. Which makes the tail want to come around in a panic stop with the slightest of steering angle. I pay more for 4-wheel disc brakes, and I've got no issue in making the payments for 'em. My first: a 1991 Nissan NX-2000. Wish I could find one of those in mint condition now. I do see them from time to time here in So Cal, but not in very good shape I'm afraid.

ecotrklvr

Seems to me that the recent VVT-i technology lets the valve timing optimize for torque at the low end, and power at the high end. I just sold my 2003 Nissan Frontier with the 2.4L engine with a stick, and I could could take left hand turns in 3rd, and the occasional right hander as well - with no lugging, as low as 1100 RPM. I think it was 143 Hp, and 160 lb-ft of Torque. My 2.4L in my new 2011 Hyundai's got nothing on it, except an all-aluminum block.

andys120

I was driving in local traffic when I happened to go by a '66 Impala 4dr/ht. At first I didn't take much notice of it since it was in fairly poor shape with a gray primer paint job and lots of dents and dings as well as a cracked windshield. Then I spotted a small badge on the trunk which read 427SS. As I went by I noted the badges on the front fender also indicated 427 power. :surprise:

A 50-ish woman was driving. I doubt you'd get more than 10MPG with 7 liters under the hood. :sick:

IIRC big Chevies w 427 power were pretty rare and are now worth some money.

fintail

Is there such a thing as a factory built 66 4 door HT SS with a 427? Sounds like an odd mix.

jwilliams2

Was it doing this?

Mr_Shiftright

Fake.

andys120

Is there such a thing as a factory built 66 4 door HT SS with a 427? Sounds like an odd mix.

I think there was but as I said I don't think many were made. I have a pretty comprehensive book on the Chevy Super Sports but it's about 2500 miles away from me right now. Perhaps Shifty or Andre could tell us for sure.

andys120

No but it looked a lot like that car, except for the four doors and the dents.

Mr_Shiftright

You might have been able to order a 427 in a 4-door HT, it looks like, but the reference material pretty much says, without exactly saying it, that you couldn't get the SS option in a 4 door car. My SS book shows no 4Ds in the listings of SS cars built in 1966.

Besides all that, this car, if it had a 427 in it, would have sounded like the hammers of hell if you were right next to it. It's a solid-lifter engine and the exhaust note was not subtle either.

omarman

Well for 1966 the Impala SS was its own separate line so a 4 dr hardtop with SS trim would not have the correct data plate. The '66 Impala SS was a Series 67 (6 cylinder) or Series 68 (V-8) and they were only built as 2 dr hardtops or convertibles.

The 427/425 hp L-72 was available along with the tamer 427/390 hp. Strange that both versions could be ordered with 3-speed manual, 4-speed manual or turbo auto. Wonder why Chevy kept offering 3-speed manuals for so long?

andre1969

I just checked in my old car books, and it backed up my initial thought. The SS was only offered as a 2-door hardtop or convertible. Also, the SS was just an appearance package, totally independent of the engine. The SS package gave you the show, but if you wanted the go, you had to pay extra for the right engine.

The '66 427 was only offered in a 390 or 425 hp setups, so I'm sure it was a really rare beast. It really wouldn't become a mass-market engine until 1969, when hp ranged from from 335-425. And then it was stroked for 1970,and became the 454.

Now it's possible that '66 4-door hardtop was originally ordered with a 427. But I have a feeling that those "SS427" badges where thrown on, after the fact.

Back in those days, it was common to put on different badges, to either downplay your car, or make people think it was something it wasn't. My Dad used to have a '63 Impala SS409, and he put 6-cyl badges on it!

andys120

Back in those days, it was common to put on different badges, to either downplay your car, or make people think it was something it wasn't.

Well that occurred to me but it seems odd that someone would bother on such an old clunk but then, who knows how many owners the old boat has been thru.

fintail

Saw a few oddities today - SVX, 1st generation Lexus GS, 2x W140 - one nice,one filthy, 2x C140 - both nice, several year old Aston, W220 S65, late 80s Eldo.

The one W140 and the GS were filthy, really sadly so - why do some people let old highline cars look like junk hauler pickups? No self-respect? Or just laziness?

lemko

...heavily customized red 1950 Ford coupe with frenched headlights and a 1954 Chevrolet grille on Rising Sun Avenue near Comly in NE Philly.

lemko

It's most likely due to poverty. A lot of people of modest means try to look rich for cheap by buying older upscale cars. A lot of marginal neighborhoods are full of these vehicles sold by shady BHPH lots to unsuspecting victims. There is no bigger white elephant for a low-income person than an out-of-warranty German luxury car. They can't afford to properly maintain or repair them, so they begin to look really shabby really quick.

fintail

I can see the economic impact on mechanical issues, but does one have to be affluent to wash the poor thing now and then? It's bad when you feel sorry for cars.

omarman

I agree that it would be nice to keep the old stuff polished and maintained, but I also agree with everyone that the maintenance cost is high. As far as neglecting the wash and polish part, I suspect there's more sad news than just money problems. I'm serious about that.

People living in unfortunate circumstances may show signs of depression or despair in the lack of grooming or tending to their life situation. Even if they have the means they may not have the interest or focus to maintain themselves or their property.

I grew up in the later, crazy old Howard Hughes era - not the exciting, innovative youthful Howard from back in the day. He became the poster boy for a reclusive, 90 pound ruin of a man who used to really be something. Subtract a billion dollars here and another billion there, and Howard would have passed for a lot of folks today who may have lost a bundle of money but suffered a bigger loss to self.

I'm not making excuses or apologizing for people who just "don't care" but trying to empathize with something I see more of everyday. It's not the "stuff" going to seed which worries me. Let the old unloved luxo bombs get recycled into "teapots from China!" :lemon: I don't know where Shifty came up with that teapot phrase but it's a goodie.

tjc78

but does one have to be affluent to wash the poor thing now and then?

I don't think it has to do with money. There are some nice cars out in my office parking lot that only get washed when it rains. I peek inside them sometimes and can't believe the filth.

My GFs mother has a new Altima with about 5K on the clock, it looks like its five years old already. Yet, her house is clean and neat. I'll never understand dropping the amount of money these cars cost and not cleaning them.

Even when I drove a beater to work, I vacuumed and washed it when I did my nice car.

/rant.

fintail

Yeah, I have known people like that...general laziness. One of them has grown up, but I remember not being able to sit in her car for all of the clutter.

That being said, I know my mother has her car washed before I visit, as I will complain if it is looking neglected.

Even back when I was a kid and drove the old Tempo, it was spotless. Different priorities, I guess...I'd rather keep the car in good shape than keep up with a TV show.

ab348

Funny that you mention this because i just had an unusual discovery on this subject this week. My assistant is the most organized person I know - desk neat and tidy, never anything left on it at the end of the day, all tasks itemized in to-do lists... she's wonderful, but she makes me sick because I'm just the opposite. My desk is buried under a pile of papers, things get done but not in any particularly organized way -- total opposites.

This week she had picked up a box for me and had it in her car. We went out at lunch in my car -- totally spotless inside, nothing on the seats, nothing on the floor, even the floormats were cleaned. I stopped by her car in the parking lot on the way back and she had the box in the back seat. Holy cow. Stuff _everywhere_. Unbelievably messy in there. Clean desk, dirty car? Who knew?

ecotrklvr

The engines are expensive and rare, but you can buy fake insignia pretty cheap. I have a neighbor that bought Ford "V6" badges for his crappy 4-cylinder Tempo. He was realllly proud of it too.

andys120

Yeah badges are easy enough to find. I've started a small collection of my own. I don't put them on cars but they're a nice reminder of the days of yore when you kept a sharp eye for those because even a standard issue Bisscayne, Dart or Fairlane could be packing a big-inch motor.

If you know a good source let me know.

fintail

Hadn't sold when I bookmarked it, seems like a fair deal...the 2 door angular things weren't too bad

Like new

Pickup

Interesting value claims

"Le Cabriolet"

Cool wagon, nice bids

I can't imagine how these sold when new

First year is the best

Listed for the thousandth time...I like it

Inflict pain on yourself

Not many left like this

Another ragtop, malaise style

Old style

New style (and still new)

Questionable sense of style

Nice front seats

hpmctorque

I really like those Chrysler an DeSoto Airflows, and I agree with you, that the first year is the best. Notice how upright that steering wheel is for the period.

ab348

Lordy, that '64 New Yorker wagon is incredible. I love it but that price reflects how unique and cool it is.

As for the '77 Pontiac, yes, it's the only one left like that. But the price is insane.

omarman

Just noticed that both the '77 Pontiac and the '78 LeSabre are Y code 301/2bbl engines. Seems like a lot of those late 70s downsized GM survivors turn up for sale now with that V8. Also seems like an odd engine option for a Grand Safari even in 1977. :sick:

andre1969

For some twisted reason, I think a pair of these old "HEMI 2.6" badges would be kinda cool to have...


Not that I'd have anything appropriate to put them on...

lemko

Likewise. The entire fleet is kept spotless. I'm upset because I have to take some people to lunch and the Grand Marquis got messed up from the last three days' weather! :mad:

andys120

For some twisted reason, I think a pair of these old "HEMI 2.6" badges would be kinda cool to have...

What the H is a Hemi 2.6?

andre1969

What the H is a Hemi 2.6?

The old Mitsubishi "Silent Shaft" 2.6 4-cyl. I think we first saw it in the States in the 1979-83 Plymouth Sapporo and Dodge Challenger, but it was also the optional bigger engine in the likes of the K-cars and minivans.

It didn't provide much more hp than the 2.2 Mopar engine as I recall, but it was torquier. It was also known for burning oil by 70-90,000 miles, so if you ever got stuck behind an old K-car or minivan that was putting up a blue smokescreen, chances or the 2.6 "Hemi" was the culprit!

I think the the engine actually WOULD last a pretty long time. It would just burn oil along the way. And I believe the combustion chamber actually WAS hemispherical, so the "Hemi" badge wasn't a lie. I think they only used those badges for a year, maybe 2. Perhaps 1982-83, or 1981-82?

tjc78

My Stepfather had an 83 Chrysler E-class with that engine. I don't remember it ever burning any oil (at least visually w/ blue smoke). It was actually pretty reliable and we sold it in the early 90s and I saw it around the neighborhood for years after that.

It was one of the talking ones....a door is ajar Your fuel is low What a bad idea that was.

hpmctorque

Our next door neighbor also had a E Class Chrysler with that Mitsubishi engine, but he ended up junking it at ~95,000 miles, due to a blown head gasket. I don't recall the exact year of that car, but it was a mid-'80s.

fintail

That engine went into vans too, right? I remember some of the Mopar vans were always seen with blue smoke.

I'll admit I have a minor thing for talking cars and elaborate digital displays...childhood nostalgia I guess.

tjc78

The 2.6 made it to the early vans too. I would think the most common smoking Chrysler vans are the 3.0 Mitsu V6. The valve seals go quite early.

Mr_Shiftright

I believe that Mitsu licensed that balancing shaft technology to a number of prestigious car makers.

fintail

Ah the 3.0, I forgot that.

Most of those vans are in that big parking lot in the sky now, anyway.

lemmer

My beloved Porsche 944, for one.

Mr_Shiftright

We wouldn't be driving large displacement 4 cylinder engines if it weren't for balancing shaft technology---too rough.

andre1969

The 2.6 made it to the early vans too. I would think the most common smoking Chrysler vans are the 3.0 Mitsu V6. The valve seals go quite early.

Oops, my goof. Yeah, I think it was the Mitsu 3.6 that was known to start burning oil around 70-90K. Dunno what the specific issues were with the 2.6. Head gasket maybe, as Hpmctorque mentioned? And even though they had a balance shaft, I think they were still kinda rough?