By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The Buick 215 V-8 is still exceptionally light for its displacement -- about 320 pounds, which is still impressive today (by comparison, that's about the same as a modern Audi 3.0L V-6). The all-iron V-6 (which started off as 198 cid) was a bit more than 100 lbs. heavier, which still wasn't outrageous compared to the straight-sixes of the time, though. The iron-block 300 V-8 in '64 (which still used the aluminum heads) was about 460 lbs., the all-iron version from '65 on something like a hundred pounds more than that. But again, that was still in the same ballpark as the Chevy small block or the Mopar 318/340. The iron Buick engines weren't the lightest around, but they weren't unusually heavy for the time, either. The later Pontiac 301 was much lighter, but the machining for thinwall castings had improved greatly in the intervening decade, and the 301 just wasn't as beefy. Engineers in the early-mid sixties were generally more conservative about how thin they wanted to cast iron blocks, fearing durability problems.
The Mopar slant six offered the aluminum block only in 225-inch form (there were apparently engineering prototypes of aluminum 170s, but none were sold) as an option on Valiants and Lancers from 1961-1963. It was dropped early in the '63 model year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This just in.................
Some Darts Coming Up In Value!
The January 2003 issue of Sports Car Market has an interesting article on collectible Dodge Darts, 1968-69 V8s.
For #2 cars (very very nice, local show quality), projected prices are:
340 Dart GT $15K-20K
383 18K-23K
440 25K-35K
Hemi $50K-75K
The Hemis were built by Hurst-Campbell and they only made 80 of them
Sports Car Market says the 6 cylinder cars have no collector potential as they are very common and base level automobiles, and that the Scat Pack Darts will not have the following and desireability of the Chevys and Mopars of the era, due to their "humble origins". I think that means that a Charger started life as a more upscale and well-equipped car.
Still, it goes to show that even the most pedestrian car in an automaker's lineup, if equipped with the right motor and cosmetics, can find new life as a collectible.
" Italians were building very reliable alloy engines in the 50's and 60's"
My memory must have suddenly failed me!
The interesting thing to me about both the Mopar aluminum Slant Six and the Rambler six was not that they were playing with aluminum, but that they applied it to their six-cylinder engines, rather than their V-8s. Both Chrysler and AMC must really have thought that the trend towards compacts and economy cars was going to continue, because up till that point six-cylinder engines were nowhere. Every American automaker had seen the perils of not offering a V-8, and the damage it had done to makes like Kaiser, Hudson, and even Packard (which got one, but way too late). A lot of the mid-range brands (Olds, Buick, Mercury) didn't even offer a six in the late 50s or early 60s.
Then, look what they did to the full-sized Dodge and Plymouth for '62. Almost accidentally, they "invented" the intermediate! I heard that the '62 DeSoto was also supposed to be downsized. I saw some pics of it online somewhere, and it was actually quite attractive, compared to the '62 Dodge (which I find ugly in a cool sort of way) or Plymouth (which is just flat-out ugly!)
The Plymouth and Dodge used styling themes from the 1960-62 Valiants and Lancers, which were some of the most, um, unusual cars ever put into production (from a styling standpoint) by an American manufacturer. They aren't boring and homely (most Ramblers) or gaudy and tortured (most 1958-59 full-size domestic cars). The long hood/short deck proportions, fender blades, bold grille, "shoulderless" body sides and six-window greenhouse on such a small car make for a very interesting design. Not necessarily beautiful, but interesting.
He ALSO found he had to build a 'double' engine stand to support the bare V-12 block on BOTH ends, otherwise it would WARP if only supported on one end! Nice, eh?
There's a lot of mystique surrounding Ferrari's... and likewise a lot of myth. Quality engineering of their '50s & 60s street cars is apparently one of those myths.
When my parents bought their '62 Buick Special with the aluminum engine, they were given strict attention that coolant had to be used!
Otherwise, the aluminum would flake off and plug the radiator. Now, we never had a problem but others (who used wate) did, and the engines got a bad reputation they really didn't deserve.
Of course, even though I was from NY I had never put A/F in my car either (VW Beetle-lol).
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
That damn seam burst 4 times within 2 years, but the last time was almost 8 years ago, so I guess it's going to hold this time!
As it turned out, of course, Newberg was ALMOST right. Chevrolet did introduce two smaller models, but they weren't the full-sized line -- they were the '62 Chevy II and '64 Chevelle/Malibu. Both the intermediate Ford Fairlane and the Chevelle/Malibu line did well, so if Chrysler had introduced smaller cars IN ADDITION TO, rather than instead of, its big-car line, they probably would've been all right. But as it was it became one of Chrysler's biggest blunders ever, and one of the things that got Newberg the sack.
By comparison I think the Mopar 225 Slant Six weighed about 475 pounds in cast iron.
(I'd mistakenly assumed the all-iron Olds 330 and all-iron Buick were similar, but they're not -- the Olds was 567 pounds, fully 100 pounds more than the Buick.)
It was quite a scandal at the time. But he was gone before the 1962 Dodges and Plymouths bombed in the market. He wasn't there to take the fall for his decision.
According to my info, Pontiac's 195 "Indy 4" weighs 479 lbs without flywheel while the 389 weighs 675 lbs as a 4bbl. I cannot see how it would be possible to eliminate one bank of 4 cylinders from a V-8 and ONLY lose "40 lbs"!!
The 195 (1961) was based on the 389: it shared the same bore... not to mention the 326 didn't appear until 1963.
Finally- the reason the Pontiac 'smaller-displacement' 326 is heavier is mostly because it it NOT a small-block; it shares the same block as the 350, 389, 400, 421, 428 & 455: just the bore & crank journal sizes change.
I dunno how they get away with it in engines though. The Vega's 4-cyl had iron cylinder liners, and I think my Intrepid's 2.7 does, too. Nowadays they also have the technology to make aluminum alloys that are much stronger while still being light-weight, but I don't know how they did it back in the old days.
One of the guys in one of my Mopar clubs put an aluminum slant six in his Canadian Valiant. He rebuilt it himself and from what I heard it leaked like a Vega!
ftp://rohan.sdsu.edu/pub/mml/archive/Engine/engine-weight-fyi.txt
It lists the Chevy smallblock (305, 350, etc) at 575 lb. It doesn't list a 396, but the 454 is listed 675 lb.
In comparison, the Mopar smallblock (273, 318, 340) is only 525 lb, although for some reason the 360 is 550. The big block 361/383/400 are listed at 620 lb, and the 413/426Wedge/440 are listed at 670.
I know the Pontiac 326 was not a small block, which is why I said "small displacement" rather than "smallblock." It was an underbored 389 with lighter pistons and crank, so it was only a little bit lighter than the 389. In terms of pounds per cubic inch, that put it at a disadvantage compared to the Chevy or Buick engines of similar displacement. I guess since the 195 did come before the 326, it would be more correct to say it was based on the 389, but they're all very closely related. ROAD AND TRACK in '61 quoted the weight of the 195 at 557 pounds with all accessories; I've seen another figure of about 20 pounds less than that, which may have been without accessories. My understanding was that even though the slant-four had four fewer cylinders than the 389, because it shared the entire crankcase and crankshaft, it ended up being a LOT heavier than if it'd been a clean-sheet engine.
The 301 was genuinely a smallblock, substantially lighter and considerably less beefy.
Actually, Pontiac's V-8s were within an inch dimensionally from Chevy's big blocks, so while I've heard "medium block" with regards to Pontiac V-8s before, technically they are more so big blocks (tho again: the terms are comparative).
As far as lbs/CI of an engine... if you go too far you get a weaker block in the name of 'boasting rights' that won't withstand power upgrades as well as a heavier block. I'd much rather have a heavier block and not worry about upgrades.
The main thing I noticed about the Pontiac 301 was that it looks like it has that same l-o-n-g upper radiator hose that my Catalina's 400 has. I always thought it was just the same basic block, but hollowed out and weakened to within an inch of its life in the interests of light weight and fuel economy.
As for "medium blocks", if there is such a thing, I've heard the DeSoto Hemi referred to as such, probably because the Dodge would be the "small" Hemi and the Chrysler would be the "big" Hemi.
And then how would you compare the old 318 poly "wide block"? It's called a smallblock, but that sucker just looks huge, especially compared to the later 318's and such. At a quick glance, it looks as big as the Mopar big blocks to me, with the exception of the jagged-shaped valve covers and distributor in the back. Maybe most of that thing's bulk is in the heads?
Pontiac's 301 was NOT the same block as the 326--455 block. BTW, the previous Pontiac V8s (287/317/347/370) also were NOT the same block as the 326--455 block but external dimensions (as with the 301) were similar.
I don't have the dimensions of the early Dodge or DeSoto Hemi's handy. Here's what I do have regarding MoPar V8s:
273, 318, 340, 360 -- 24" x 29" x 27"
361, 383, 400, 413, 426W, 440 -- 29.5" x 30" x 29"
331, 354, 392 -- 29" x 31" x 31"
426 HEMI -- 29" x 32" x 32"
Obviously there will be variations with different years/equipment. For example, the early 331s had an obvious extended block; made the casting about 6 inches longer! Also, in a pic I have the 392 is an inch or 2 longer than the late 331 & 354. But the figures are probably averaged enough to show a clear small block/big block difference, I think.
As far as a 318 wide block would go: I think as long as the other 2 dimensions were consistant with the regular 318 it could still be considered a small block. Remember; technically these are unofficial terms rather than black-n-white definitions.
Now that I think about it, a MK IV 427 is going to weigh less than a 396...
and a 1955 265 is going to weigh less than a 1956.
From that description, it sounds like my '69 Dart GT had the Carter carb and not the Holley. But it's been 15 years since I wrecked that car and 13 since I got rid of it, so my memory could be getting fuzzy.
Still, I remember getting good fuel economy out of it...maybe 15-18 in local driving and 22-23 on the highway at a steady 70-75, a/c running full blast. The only thing I remember is that car absolutely HATED cold, damp weather. It could be snowing and that car would run fine, but in damp, rainy weatehr where the temps were around 40-50 degrees, it was almost impossible to kee running.
After I totaled that '69 I got a '68 Dart with a 318-2bbl. I remember one day, going to the gas station, and seeing a guy with a '74 or so Valiant. We started chatting about our cars, and I found out his had a slant six. This was during a time when fuel prices were expensive...probably $1.30-1.40 per gallon! :P I commented that while I like the power of the V-8, I sure envy the fuel economy of the slant six right about now. I told him I was only getting around 13/17. That's when he said "Hell, that's about all I get!"
I guess that's an indication of how far downhill the emissions controls and other strangulations took engines in the 70's. :sick:
There are also a few online Mopar club/mailing lists you could join, and put out a message saying what you're looking for.
I don't know if it's worth it to donate to a charity, because these days you can only write off what the charity actually gets for the car when they sell it. Used to be you could actually write off the book value of the car, but too many people abused that, so the gov't started cracking down and now they make the charities keep more paperwork and records.
As for sinking more money into it, it depends on what all is wrong with it, and what condition it's in. For instance, if the only thing that's not making it run is a $2.99 ballast resistor, or a burnt-up set of points, then by all means get them fixed. But if it needs an engine rebuild or has a bad tranny, and the body needs a lot of work to boot, then you'd just be throwing more money away.
BTW, what's wrong with it now? You say it won't start, but will it do anything? Does the engine at least turn over, but not fire up? Or are you just getting nothing?
You might also try joining an on-line Mopar club, where you could probably get a lot of tips from other members that might be able to talk you through your problems, or if nothing else, find someone who'd want a car like that.
A '71 Swinger isn't quite in the league of something like a Hemi Roadrunner when it comes to popularity, but they definitely have their following. Heck, I kinda like them myself.
As for "keep or sell", it really depends on the condition of the body and interior. No sense sinking money into a really ratty car that's not worth too much even in nice condition.
One other area I'd check is underneath up front, where the torsion bars are mounted to the sub-frame. This is a long rod that runs from the lower control arm in the suspension and and joins into the structure of the car a couple feet back. If this area where it joins is rotted out, the car is probably pretty much shot. It wasn't a common problem back in the day, but you are dealing with a car that's 37 years old!
The only other thing I can think of is to check the engine. I'm presuming it's a slant six. There were two sizes that year, a 170 that put out 115 hp and a 225 that put out 145. In modern net hp terms, that's more like 85-90 hp and 110, respectively. They're both reliable, sturdy engines that should last forever, but the 170 slant six would be a dog, and in today's traffic would probably be pretty scary. Especially in instances like highway merging and such. The 225 version is much better suited to highway driving. 0-60 is nothing to brag about by today's standards, maybe 13-14 seconds, but it has no trouble at higher speeds.
The slant six is also reasonably economical. I had a '69 Dart with the slant six, and got around 15-18 around town, and 22-23 on the highway. Now if this car has a 318 V-8, that's a whole different story. I had one of those too (actually still do, but it doesn't run). They had 230 hp (around 160-170 net I guess), and would probably do 0-60 in about 9 seconds.
Now 9 seconds might not sound like much, as there are many entry-level 4-cyl models that'll do that these days, 9 seconds was just "different" somehow back then. It was less composed and sophisticated, and a little bit more raw, exciting, and dangerous. Very easy to spin the back wheels, and you'll learn what fishtailing is very quickly! And, unlike your typical modern 4-cyl where performance suffers big-time once you start loading the car up with your friends, you could almost tie a Honda Civic to the back of a V-8 Valiant or Dart and it wouldnt' care! Fuel economy would also suffer with a V-8. Now I've heard people claim to get 20+ mpg on the highway with V-8 Darts and Valiants, but I was never able to break 18. But then, oddly, I had a 1979 Newport and a 1989 Gran Fury copcar, both with 318's and both much heavier cars, and they had no trouble breaking 20 on the highway! :confuse: The Dart's 318 was much more powerful than the Newport's though, and I suspect maybe the Gran Fury's, too.
Also, by that time, there were no high-performance versions or "special" versions of the Valiant. They just came in a 2- or 4-door sedan, and I think were offered in cheapo basic or uplevel "Signet" trim. There were no hardtops or convertibles.
One other thing you might want to look at...the wheels. Some of these cars were still sold with tiny 13" rims, although 14" rims were much more common. If that's what this one has, at some point down the road you might want to look into getting some larger optional 14" rims. They might not be that easy to find nowadays locally, although in these days of the internet it shouldn't be hard to track some down. Just make sure you specify the 4" bolt pattern. Most Chrysler cars had a 4.5" bolt pattern, but compacts used the 4", although from around 1973 onward, models with disc brakes used the 4.5".
As for tires, when it comes time to get new ones, if you have the 14" rim, I'd recommend a 205/70/R14. Stock was a bias ply tire that I think roughly equated to a 195/75/R14. Going one size wider and one size lower-profile improves handling considerably, without sacrificing the ride. And it's not so wide or low-profile that it would cause too much trouble in wet weather, or encourage your daughter to re-enact "Speed Racer".
Oh, and one last thing...if your daughter gets this Valiant, I'd highly recommend that she join an internet Mopar club. While these cars are very simple and easy to work on, and mechanical parts are still quite common, it's not so easy anymore to find a mechanic that will work on them, and it's just good to have a network of friends into the same type of cars, that can help her out when the car gives her problems. And as old as it is, it WILL give her problems, no matter how often you hear people brag about how durable and bulletproof these cars were.
And if she's used to a modern car's steering and brakes, she's in for a shock. But she'll get used to it in a few days if she's careful.
If the car is a V8, I'd definitely have it checked for a cracked front frame rail, especially if the car steers "funny".
Normally, you'd think bucket seats would be more comfortable than a bench, but sometimes they're not. I have a friend who had a '66 Charger, and the seats in that thing were HORRIBLE! They were narrow, not very well-padded, pretty flat as I recall, and the backrest was way too low. It only came up about to the bottom of my shoulder blades. If I got rear-ended in that car, I'd be toast!
Oh, if this car originally had a bench seat, and you want to put buckets in, you're going to have to drill two extra holes on either side. When I did that with my '68 Dart, I had to shim the seats on the inner side, because there was a support bracket on the outer part where the bench seat bolts went through the sheetmetal, but nothing on the inner part. With factory buckets, they would've added a support bracket towards the middle.
Now I probably didn't do it the safest way in the world. I just drilled the holes and then used some pieces of wood to shim it. Then underneath, I just sprayed some undercoat stuff on to keep the fresh holes from leaking or rusting.
As for seats in general, any '63-66 Valiant or Dart interiors should swap in. However, if the car is a 2-door, the vinyl side panels in back seat from a Dart would be too long. The Dart rode a 5-inch longer wheelbase back then, and unlike many GM and Ford cars of the era, that actually translated into a bigger back seat with more legroom, but that also meant that the vinyl side trim panels had to be longer in the Dart. In 4-doors, I think the back doors were the same size, but the back seat was just moved further back between the C-pillars, so you just had more exposed plastic in the C-pillar trim.
While the 1967-76 Valiant/Dart/Barracuda was a new design (well, as new as was possible; back then they always found a way to carry over as much of the old designs as possible.
Where are you located? The Mopar Nationals in Carlisle, PA is coming up July 7-9. They have tons of vendors there selling old and new stuff, so you might be able to find something there that catches your eye.
I loathe bench seats because they fatigue your body. You are constantly using your back muscles to stay straight on curvy roads. It's exhausting over time.