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

lemko

My friend had a 1978 Chevrolet Impala sedan when we were in high school. I drove it a couple times and didn't think it was too bad. Another friend had a new 1982 Chevrolet Caprice Classic. I don't know what kind of engine it had, but I imagine it must've been a 267 from what I just read here. I never drove that car, but it must've been a dog because I drove a 1980 Malibu with a 267 and it was s-l-o-w.

andre1969

My friend had a 1978 Chevrolet Impala sedan when we were in high school. I drove it a couple times and didn't think it was too bad.

I think the 305-2bbl took a horsepower cut in 1979. I believe in '77-78 it had around 145-150 hp, but was cut to 130 for 1979. On a brighter note, the 305-4bbl came out that year, with 160 hp, although in some applications it was cut to 155. It was mainly a midsized-car engine, according to my old car book, and not offered in the full-sized cars.

You could still get a 350 in the big cars, with 170 hp, so maybe GM thought the 305-4bbl wasn't needed there?

Consumer Reports tested a 1977 Impala or Caprice with the 305, and 0-60 came up around 12.5-13 seconds. They also tested a 1979 with the 305, and got 15.4. Emissions controls were probably getting more restrictive, as well, making performance losses worse than what you'd think, from just a loss of 15-20 hp. That same 1979 test had a St. Regis with a 318-2bbl, and it clocked 0-60 in 15.9 seconds! The LTD with the 129 hp 302 was the musclecar of that bunch, with 0-60 coming in around 13.5-14 seconds.

My first car was a 1980 Malibu with a 229 V-6, and it actually seemed okay at the time. Of course, I was only 16, and didn't have much to compare it to. It would blow the doors off my friends' cars, which consisted of the likes of a 1980 Accord, '85 Cavalier, '83 Stanza that was about to self destruct, 4-cyl Mustangs, and so forth.

I'm sure that Malibu, if I got to re-experience it, would feel like a dog today. Heck, my '69 Dart GT, with the 225 slant six, made that Malibu feel like a dog!

I think the 267 had 125 hp, versus the 115 of my Malibu's V-6. Torque would've most likely been a lot better though. I think my Malibu only had around 175 ft-lb. For whatever reason, Chevy didn't get the torque out of it that Buick got out of their 231, and I think the Ford 232 was fairly torquey as well. But, I'd guess a 267 Malibu would've weighed around 200 lb more than my 229, so that might have negated the extra power.

berri

I had a 305 4bbl in a 79 Monte Carlo and it was not impressive. I'd have much preferred a 350, but it wasn't available. I don't think the 307 or 301 were any good either. Maybe a better transmission combination would have made a difference?

dieselone

The 301 was horrible IMO, but I thought the 307 my grandpa had in an '83 Olds Delta 88 seemed decent. It was reliable anyway and I drove it some when I got my license in '87. It was slow by today's standards, but back then it seemed better than average for the time.

A buddy of mine in HS had an '80 or so trans am with the 301 and it was dog slow and unreliable too.

lemko

The LTD with the 129 hp 302 was the musclecar of that bunch, with 0-60 coming in around 13.5-14 seconds.

I had a 1979 Ford LTD taxicab with a 351 V-8 in it, (I know, odd for a cab to have the bigger engine). How did it do 0-60?

fintail

Wow, those 0-60 times are pitiful...the fintail could nose ahead of those,with its huge roaring 2.2 liter powerhouse.

andre1969

I had a 1979 Ford LTD taxicab with a 351 V-8 in it, (I know, odd for a cab to have the bigger engine). How did it do 0-60?

I doubt that CR ever tested that configuration, as they rarely ordered their cars with the biggest optional engines. I have a Mopar police car book that shows the Michigan State Police tests, and it should have the results for a '79 LTD with the 351. I'll look it up when I get a chance. My guess would be 0-60 in around 11-11.5 seconds? All I can remember, off the top of my head, from 1979 was that they tested a St. Regis and Newport, and one did 0-60 in around 10.1 seconds, while the other was around 10.4. That was with the 195 hp 360-4bbl, Torqueflite 727, and 2.94:1 axle ratio.

I also remember that 1978 was the last year a full-sized police car would hit 0-60 in under 10 seconds in those MSP tests, until the Caprice did it in 1989, with a 0-60 of 9.9 seconds. In '78, a midsized Fury with a 440 managed 0-60 in 9.2 seconds, and a Catalina with a 400 did it in something like 9.9.

MT or C&D would have gotten a quicker 0-60 time, as they'd use some tricks to get them to go faster, like manually holding first gear, revving the engine with the foot on the brake and then letting off the brake, etc. The MSP would basically just put two cops in the car and take off, and I think their time were actually a two-way average, coming and going, to account for wind and such.

I've also been a little suspect of that 1979 CR test, as I had a '79 Newport with the same driveline as that St. Regis...318-2bbl with 135 hp, Torqueflite 904 (actually it was the lockup torque converter version, which they might have called 998), and 2.45:1 axle. Just taking a stopwatch to it, I'd get 0-60 in around 12.5-13 seconds. And that was when it was around 18 years old, in excess of 230,000 miles, etc! I did have the distributor advanced a little, to the point that it needed high octane and would ping on 87, so that might have helped a little bit. But I suspect that there was just something going on that day CR did their acceleration testing. Maybe it was a hot, muggy day or something?

Weather was blamed when the Michigan State police did their 1985 testing, as it was hot and humid. IIRC, every single car in their test did worse in 1985 than its 1984 counterpart.

dieselone

My FIL bought a few mopar's from the 80's. He had a 3/4 ton Ram Van with a 318, I think it was an 87 and my MIL had an '82 or so Diplomat with a 318. Both were dogs and never ran very well, but ran none the less. The van was horribly slow. I remember driving it while towing his 3k lb bass boat and you'd have to keep it floored at 65mph to power through the bow wave of wind coming off the front of a semi. Any incline meant foot buried to the floor and listening to the 318 beg for mercy while going 50 mph at best.

What would a carbed 318 have for HP in 87? The van probably weighed 4,500-5k lbs, then add 3k lbs of boat and that all adds up to painfully slow.

andre1969

What would a carbed 318 have for HP in 87? The van probably weighed 4,500-5k lbs, then add 3k lbs of boat and that all adds up to painfully slow.

From 1985-89, the 318-2bbl had 140 hp, and I think 250 ft-lb of torque. There was a 4-bbl version that put out 175 hp (forget the torque rating though), but I'm pretty sure it was only used in police cars. In trucks, you could still get a 360 V-8, but in civilian RWD cars, the 318-2bbl was as good as it got.

lemko

Hmmmm! I don't remember my 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue M-body with the 318 V-8 being all that bad. Of course, I never tried to trailer a bass boat or anything else with it. My Dad actually pulled a U-Haul trailer from Pennsylvania to Mississippi with a 4-cylinder 1989 Chrysler LeBaron coupe!

dieselone

1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue M-body with the 318 V-8 being all that bad.

Most of my experience with it was in a fullsize 3/4 ton van. Also at the time my MIL had the diplomat (this was back before she was my MIL), I'd drive my dad's '92 Crown Vic and it felt like a race car compared to an '83 Diplomat.

andre1969

Hmmmm! I don't remember my 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue M-body with the 318 V-8 being all that bad. Of course, I never tried to trailer a bass boat or anything else with it.

I don't think that engine was too bad in cars. An M-body 5th Ave is actually a bit of a porker for its size, but still nowhere near the weight of a pickup or full-sized van! I think I've seen the curb weight of the 80's M-body 5th Ave listed around 3700 lb, whereas a Gran Fury or Diplomat might have been around 3400-3500. However, the 5th Ave had a lot of stuff standard that was optional on those other cars, plus a lot of extra padding, insulation, etc. And I'm sure that thick C-pillar treatment added some bulk.

Consumer Reports tested a 1985 5th Ave, Electra, and Grand Marquis. Here's the url, if you want to check it out: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/mikesspot/85CR.html

Unfortunately, it doesn't actually list 0-60 times, but did rate the 5th Ave's acceleration comparable to the Electra, giving it a "better than average" rating. So I'd guess 0-60 was around 12 seconds. They gave the Grand Marquis "Excellent" though, which surprises me that it would be much quicker. Unless CR got one with the dual exhaust, quick axle ratio, etc?

dieselone

I don't think that engine was too bad in cars.

I'm sure they were competitive at the time. Man did that bing back memories reading about those cars. I am a bit surprised the Mercury did so well. Though IIRC the 302 was always good at producing low rpm torque.

My point of reverence was more of comparing those early to mid 80's cars to those of the '90's and a 9.5 second 0-60 of a '92 Crown Vic felt fast compared to 11-12 seconds of the cars 5-10 years prior.

tjc78

They gave the Grand Marquis "Excellent" though, which surprises me that it would be much quicker. Unless CR got one with the dual exhaust, quick axle ratio, etc?

Having driven both my 89 Grand Marq (trailer tow package) and my neighbor's 86 Fifth Av I would say that is about right. The Merc was definately a little quicker. Of course, by today's standards both are quite slow.

tjc78

My point of reverence was more of comparing those early to mid 80's cars to those of the '90's and a 9.5 second 0-60 of a '92 Crown Vic felt fast compared to 11-12 seconds of the cars 5-10 years prior

Funny you say that. At the same time I had my 89 Grand Marq my Grandfather had a 93 TC Cartier with the 4.6 and duals. It would blow the doors off the 89.

andre1969

I have a 1985 Consumer Guide that actually managed to get 10.5 seconds out of a 1985 Crown Vic! But that was with the quick 3.55:1 axle, dual exhaust, traction-lox axle, etc. That performance/trailering package only cost something like $250, but IMO was a bargain.

They also tested a Grand Marquis with the regular 2.73:1 axle, but didn't quote a 0-60 time. They had both cars listed at 140 hp, but I think that the dual exhaust might have bumped the Crown Vic slightly to 150.

But yeah, overall that era wasn't exactly the best of times. And it's interesting how, as time goes by, those old cars aren't as we remember them. For example, when I was a teenager, I liked driving Granddad's '85 Silverado because it felt fast. And compared to my '80 Malibu, it was! But, I remember the day it got handed down to me back in late 2002 and the first time I tried to stomp on it, my first thought was damn, what is this, like 20 seconds?! But, I've timed it with a stopwatch, and it's around 12-13 seconds on a good day. And that actually impresses me, because according to the scale at the dump, at least, the thing weighs about 4200 lb.

But, after being used to faster and faster cars over the years, that truck today doesn't live up to my memory of how it performed when it was new. The old rose-tinted glasses thing, I guess. :shades:

dieselone

Funny you say that. At the same time I had my 89 Grand Marq my Grandfather had a 93 TC Cartier with the 4.6 and duals. It would blow the doors off the 89.

The 4.6 was a big improvement in performance and smoothness over the 302 or 305, it actually liked to rev a bit. It was quicker along with being smoother and quieter than the 350 in my grandpa's '92 Roadmaster with the TBI 350. That was basically a truck engine. Certainly the LT1 changed things later on, but IMO, the 4.6 was a game changer when it came out in '90 or 91. My dad put 220k miles on that Crown Vic and he had very little engine troubles with it over the 9 years he had it and it survived me and my brother's and sister's abuse too.

dieselone

The old rose-tinted glasses thing, I guess. :shades:

Definitely.

tjc78

but IMO, the 4.6 was a game changer when it came out in '90 or 91. My dad put 220k miles on that Crown Vic and he had very little engine troubles with it over the 9 years he had it

I can't argue there. Ford had a few problems with the late 90s 4.6 when they decided to put in a plastic intake manifold, however, largely it is a bulletproof engine. I see some of the early ones smoking a bit now but who knows how many miles they have or how they were treated.

I have been in CV/TC taxis that have odometers showing in excess of 350K miles.

dieselone

I see some of the early ones smoking a bit now but who knows how many miles they have or how they were treated.

My dad's started smoking in the high 100k range. It ran fine and it would smoke after idling for a bit. Most like it was a valve guide issue. But he just added oil every now and then and drove it another few years until the car was pretty much completely warn out.

explorerx4

I have both 4.6 and 5.0 engines.
The 5.0 produces much more low end torque.
If you use the throttle a bit, it doesn't lose many rpms between shifts.
The 4.6 has a wider rev range, so it loses a lot more revs when shifting under the same condition.
First gear can be lazy or lightening quick if you ask it to.

andre1969

My buddy's '04 Crown Vic had the intake manifold issue, but when it happened it was well north of 100K miles. He still has the car, and it has around 190,000 miles on it now. I rode in it this past weekend, and I was impressed at how well it's held up. Very tight, and squeak and rattle-free. I could tell that his rotors were warping because it would shudder a bit when he hit the brakes. Also, the car had a bit of a queasy, unstable feel to it, but that might have been because I was in the back seat, and, well, that's kind of the way my friend drives!

His previous car, a '95 Grand Marquis, was getting a bit tired, but it had 175,000 miles on it when he traded it for the Crown Vic. The Grand Marquis was smoking, and the check engine light was on, and it didn't sound so muscular anymore when he stomped on it, but if a car starts crapping out at 175,000 miles, I'm not gonna hold that against it!

explorerx4

It was probably all that weight in the back seat.
Rear shocks for a CV have got to dirt cheap.

andre1969

It was probably all that weight in the back seat.

I'm not THAT much of a porker now...I'm only around 195 lb! :P There were 5 of us in the car though, two up front, 3 in the back. And that seating arrangement reaffirmed my belief that there is no such thing as a true 6, or even 5-passenger sedan anymore. The middle seating position was lost back in the 70's, with the advent of downsizing. Once the likes of the '78 Newport/New Yorker and '79 Lincolns went away, everything since has been, at best, a comfy 4-seater.

tjc78

I have both 4.6 and 5.0 engines.
The 5.0 produces much more low end torque.

Which 5.0? The lopo or HO? The lopo varient in the Panther is really a different animal than the HO in the Foxes. The lopo runs out of steam probably before 4K RPM. The HO revs a bit more giving up some low end.

tjc78

The middle seating position was lost back in the 70's, with the advent of downsizing.

One of the best cars on the road for true 5 passenger seating in the 05+ Toyota Avalon. The rear floor is practically flat (maybe 1 1/2" hump) and the width isn't too bad. The rear seats recline too.

The BMW 750LI I rode in recently was great too, however, its the price of 2 1/2 Avalons.

dieselone

Which 5.0? The lopo or HO? The lopo varient in the Panther is really a different animal than the HO in the Foxes.

IIRC, the 5.0 used in a Panther in 90-91 was 150-160HP. The 4.6 in '91 was 190hp single exhaust and like 210HP with dual. IIRC a '92 5.0 in a Mustang was like 225hp/300 ft-lbs. I don't remember the torque output of the 4.6 back then, probably in the 270ft/lb range.

tjc78

probably in the 270ft/lb range

Pretty close I know the newer ones are 287 the main difference being that peak is around 4K RPM, while the 5.0 lopo did that at 2K or so.

Mr_Shiftright

That's not heavy at all Andre. The way to tell if you're gaining too much weight is when you're working on your car and you notice that your wrenches and screwdrivers have been trapped in your gravitational field and are now orbiting around you. :P

kyfdx

My neighbor bought an '06 750Li, last year... He is 6'5", and with driver's seat adjusted for him, can still fit in the back seat behind it...

$30K... cheaper than an Avalon...

michaellno

$30K... cheaper than an Avalon...

Until he starts having to maintain it .. then the costs will outstrip the Avalon by a factor of 4 or 5!

kyfdx

That's true.... I think he has until January on the CPO warranty.... but, he loves the car!

Mr_Shiftright

After CPO, the massacre occurs. It won't be pretty, either, I'm afraid. Poor guy, in a few years the car will be worth $5000.

The 750iL is my current candidate for "The Best Worst Car in the World"

tjc78

The only way to own those cars is to have the means to do a three year lease and then give it back.

Mr_Shiftright

You have to be kind of crazy to buy one of those cars. That's really askin' for it.

My friend's 750iL finally died. It's worthless. Junk. He paid $85,000 for it originally. But it staggered on for many years and it truly was a delight to drive (when it ran). I think he ran up something like $30,000 in repair bills.

lemmer

I can only imagine that your friend feels some sense of relief that the whole ordeal is finally over.

jwilliams2

Sounds like one of those people who knows nothing about cars and gets taken to the cleaners. Repeatedly.

Mr_Shiftright

He's quite well-to-do, so it wasn't painful in that sense, and he's very easy-going, too. He did get maybe 80,000 miles out of it, but they were expensive miles I have to say. He still has it on the "back 40". Can't bring himself to dump it. It needs a battery, the dashboard display is completely dead, seat trim broke and fell off, tail lights don't work anymore, door locks don't work, it has some kind of oil leak, and the windshield weatherstripping is completely rotted. Paint is okay though and it did take a 2000 mile trip last year (it's last perhaps).

kyfdx

I guess it depends on how long you are keeping it... He buys an '06 for $30K, and drives it for 3 years, of which the first 1.5 years are covered under warranty...

Then, sells it for $15K....

Even if he has $10K in repairs for that uncovered 1.5 years.... he is way ahead of leasing one for $1300-$1600 per month... or... way, way ahead of buying one and taking $40K of depreciation.. :surprise:

If he gets lucky, and only has $3K-$4K of maintenance/repairs, then he is even better off....

If you want to buy one and drive it for ten years... then, yes.. it will be very sad....

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, your scenario makes sense. The scary part is when he's out of warranty but not ready to sell. It could be good, or it could be like 30 seconds in the ring with the heavy weight champion. It wouldn't take long to do a lot of damage.

The GOOD news is that in this year 2006 the 750iL is a V8, not a V-12. The BAD news is that I think $1000 a year guessimate for repairs and maintenance is wayyyy too low.

More like $3000 a year. And if you include EVERYTHING to keep this car on the road each year (fuel, insurance, repairs, depreciation, financing, more like $12000 a year.

To give you a comparison, a 2006 Honda Accord might cost half that (not to say they are equivalent cars, but an Accord isn't a crap heap either).

kyfdx

Well.. yeah.. I'm not in his tax bracket, even though we live next door.. He had the fever (but, trying to get by cheaper than a new one). He really wanted it for the size, as well... Drove a '95 Maxima for 12 years, so he paid his dues...

It could turn out badly... but, he'll be ready to cut and run, if need be, I think... I told him he was taking a big chance..

It is a sweet car... and, it is a good year... just a normal non-turbo V-8.

explorerx4

It's 5.0 in a fox body GT. The '88 T'bird I had before that had the low power 5.0.

fintail

Saw an Audi 90 Quattro today, in decent enough shape for its age, but like with so many old Audis, it seemed to give off a feeling of being one step away from the graveyard in the sky. Also saw a mid 90s Saab 900 cabrio with the same vibes.

dieselone

Saw an Audi 90 Quattro today

I can't remember the last time I saw and Audi 90.

oregonboy

This turned up on the local Craigslist.... such finds are becoming increasingly rare, for good reason. Just the sort of orphan that Andre might take into his menagerie.

link title

martian

Citroen sells a few cars in Brazil. I don't know if they are locally produced, but they have a tiny market share. The big (domestically produced) brands in Brazil are Chevrolet, Ford, VW, Fiat.

dieselone

In the late 80's, we had a neighbor that had a Citreon CX. It was an interesting looking sedan.

lemko

Wow, sad to see such a once-stately car reduced to a lawn ornament. Maybe he can sell it to some shady BHPH lot in a marginal Lower Northeast Philly neighborhood? There are plenty of modest income chumps here who try to look rich for cheap. These cars often become permanent parking spot preservers - that is until the city takes them away when the inspection/registration expires!

lemko

Eeek! I guess I missed the part where he said it was only a 2006! Good God, I thought the car was at least ten years older! My Cadillac DTS Performance is only a year newer and it doesn't cost me remotely near that number in repairs and maintenance!

dieselone

My Cadillac DTS Performance is only a year newer and it doesn't cost me remotely near that number in repairs and maintenance!

You have to drive it some. My Expedition is an 07 and I've easily spent $3k in repairs in maintenance over the past 12 mos. Tires, brakes, and of course a few customary other issues that always seem to happen on my vehicles. But it's not an garage queen either as it has 85k miles on it now. If I only drove it when the sun shined on 80 degree days it probably would have less than 20K miles and just costs for oil changes etc.

Plus a BMW 7 series probably has more technology in the rear bumper than a DTS has through the whole car. They are not even in the same universe in terms of complexity.