The right Mopars go for obscene money but what he put in the ad is just dumb. If somebody clicked in his link, it's because they want a Camaro. Alot of people do. If you're cruising the web because you've got a jones for a mopar, you're not going to open that ad and be converted. Why bother trying to convert a mopar fan when there are so many Camaro lovers out there.
I never understood why, but 383 seems to be the most common displacement that 350 grow to when they're stroked. Maybe it's a little mopar envy but there is probably a more sound explanation from an engineering perspective.
Maybe it's a little mopar envy but there is probably a more sound explanation from an engineering perspective.
Yeah, there probably is some engineering reason. The stroke on a 383 is something like 3.8", versus ~3.48" for the 350. I wonder if 3.8 is the most you can stroke the 350 and still have an engine that likes to rev? I was reading around and it looks like the 383 is actually a 382 CID. I guess "383" rolls off the tongue better?
Along the same lines, the Ford 302 supposedly is actually a 301 when you do the proper rounding. And it's actually a 4.9, not a 5.0. Another mis-named example I can think of is the Chevy 402. They only offered it for a couple years in the early 70's, but it was badged as a 396! There was a guy at the GM Nationals in Carlisle who explained to me why they did that, but I can't remember his reasoning now. I've also seen it referred to as the "Turbo-Jet 400" in big cars, while the 400 smallblock was the "Turbo-Fire 400" IIRC.
383 is what you get when you rebuild a 350 with an .030 overbore and the 3.75" crank from a small-block 400 (stock 350 is 4.00" x 3.48").
That actually sounds like it makes more sense than what I found. Evidently though, there's a 383 available that uses the stock 350 4" bore, and a 3.8" stroke. I found it here: http://www.mortec.com/notepg2.htm
I always thought it was interesting that a Chevy 400 and a Pontiac 400 have exactly the same bore/stroke even though they're different engines: 4.12 x 3.75. Did they do that so they could use the same pistons? They don't use the same crank too, do they?
This Dodge is very close to home, so I've arranged to go see it tonight.
good = 8' bed, automatic, and he claims it was ziebarted (spelling?) when his FIL bought it new, so no rust, and a claimed 100k miles.
bad = 6-cyl, 23 years old, overpriced.
Opinions? I'm thinking its more like a $600-$700 truck. But, if it really is rust-free and there are no mechanical problems, I might wander up to $800.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
First thing I'd do is check the GVWR sticker on the thing to see if it's going to be capable of doing what you want it to do. I looked at an '87 or so Ram that was for sale this past summer at Carlisle. I was actually tempted, until I saw its GVWR sticker of 5200 pounds...and that was with a V-8! :surprise: My Silverado's GVWR is 5600 pounds and I know I've overloaded it many times (truck weighs about 4200 pounds, so that's really not that hard to do) so I figured that I didn't need something with a lower GVWR.
Also, by that time the slant six put out about 90 hp, and I think maybe 160 ft-lb of torque, so don't expect much power. In cars that used the later version of that engine, like the 1980-83 Mirada/Cordoba, 1980-81 Gran Fury/Newport/St. Regis, etc, the 318 actually got you BETTER economy because it didn't have to rev as hard! I imagine it would be the same in a Ram.
Another thing to check for is the manifolds. On the slant six they spanned a fairly long distance compared to a V-8. The intake was aluminum by that time, and had a habit of cracking in the middle. And the exhaust manifold somehow became more brittle than earlier versions as well. When the manifold cracks it makes the thing run like crap.
But, if the truck does what you need it to, doesn't sound bad for $600-800, especially if it's rust-free.
thanks for the opinions on the slant-6. Is that a 3.9, by the way? I couldn't seem to find a whole lot of info out there just yet. I saw a couple of sights that mentioned the 6-cyl Dodge truck, but one of them said 3.6 and the other 3.9.
My father is of the opinion that the dodge 6 had a tendency to burn oil, so i should be on the lookout for excessive smoke. (and he also mentioned the bad economy compared to the 318)
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I went to see this MGB yesterday. Horrible. A walked up and immediately wanted to walk away. The owner had her teenage son and his Vo-Tech buddy prep it for painting. The son, with no prior experience, painted it himself without any help. It looked like a cake frosted by a three year old child. The paint was thick beyond belief over most of the car and was running and dripping everywhere. Bad rust repairs, thick undercoating arbitratily applied. Dash and most of the interior covered by primer splatter or something. Seats not bolted down. Much of the interior was just missing. Engine compartment looked even worse in person than in the pictures. It was just scary. From a mechanical standpoint, it sounded like it just needed some points. The oil filter was marked 8/02. Free is the only price I would have accepted. OK, maybe I would have paid $300 and driven it at night when nobody could see me.
The slant six is a 225 CID, which comes out to a 3.7 liter I think. Chrysler dropped it from their cars after 1983, but by that time the only RWD cars they had left were the Diplomat/Gran Fury/5th Avenue, 3500 pound beasts that really needed a V-8.
I had a '69 Dart GT with the slant six, and can't remember it being too bad about burning oil. At least, no worse than any other 20+ year old car I've had! It actually got good fuel economy, but then it probably weighed about 1000 pounds less than that pickup, and the only attempt at an emission control it had was a pcv valve! The slant six didn't take well to emissions controls, which is one reason that it got choked down so bad and gave poor power relative to something of similar displacement like a Chevy 229 or Buick 231 V-6, which could put out around 105-115 hp with just a 2-bbl carb.
There was a 2-bbl option on the slant six called the "super six" setup, offered in the late 70's. It boosted hp by 10 (back when the 1-bbl gave you 100 hp), but also gave you much better torque across the board, so it was a noticeable improvement. I don't know if it would be feasible to get one of those 2-bbl setups and try to mate it to the watered-down 80's slant six. I'd imagine you'd have to play around with some emissions controls.
The slant six was replaced in either 1987 or 1988 by the 3.9 V-6, which was a 318 with two cylinders chopped off. In cubic inch terms, I think that's about a 238 CID. IIRC it had 150 hp initially, and was fuel injected.
Another thing I remember about my slant six Dart is that it ran really bad in cool, wet weather. It was fine in dry weather, hot weather, and cold, freezing weather. But it positively hated a cool, damp fall or spring day, for example. I don't know if the emissions and electronic controls of the later models would have made that little "feature" better or worse.
Thanks bumpy for the very succint answer to a question that I've pondered for decades.
The reason why the 402 was marketed as a 396 is because GM had a self imposed limit on displacements in muscle cars of no more than 400 cubes. This was a case of the Chevy engineers getting over on the corporate parent.
by the time the 402 came out though, did they still have that imposed limit? IIRC the 402 was only offered from 1970-72, and I'm sure that Pontiac, Olds, and Buick were stuffing their respective 455's into their musclecars. Not to mention the Chevelle and its 454.
see, its this whole darned metric system that screws me up still. That is, at least when we're talking older vehicles. Now that you say 225, I can say "oh, i remember that engine." Its when people apply the metric standards to engines that us americans only knew by SAE numbers back in the day that I get confused.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I beleive that the prohibition was lifted in 1970, hence the LS-6 454 Chevelle. All the 69s topped out at 396 (Chevelle) and 400 (GTO, 442, GS). I believe that the 396 in the 69 Chevelle SS was actually a 402.
I always use a guesstimate method of 60 cubic inches = 1 litre. You end up being a few cubes off in larger engines, but it is accurate within a percent or two.
I always thought it was interesting how a 350 CID engine is a 5.7 while a 351 is a 5.8! I think in actuality, the 350 is a 5.73 liter, while the 351 is a 5.75.
Isn't the Ford 302 actually something like a 4.942 liter?
That means my 69 Pontiac Catalina Safari wagon with the 400 v-8 had a 6.5 liter engine in it. Wow. No wonder it ate gas like a starving kid eating candy.
That means my 69 Pontiac Catalina Safari wagon with the 400 v-8 had a 6.5 liter engine in it. Wow. No wonder it ate gas like a starving kid eating candy.
IIRC, didn't the GTO actually have a badge on the 400 CID models that read "6.5 Litre"?
I had a '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop with a 400 4bbl, but it was never running long enough to get an idea of fuel economy! My '67 Catalina, with a 400-4bbl, actually isn't TOO bad. I've gotten as bad as 9 mpg around town, but to be fair I've also gotten my '85 Silverado with its little 305-4bbl to be just as bad. Out on the highway, as long as I keep a fairly constant speed, I've been able to break 17 mpg with it. It has a tall rear-end though, 2.56:1 I believe, so it's pretty loafy on the highway. Kinda quick to downshift though if you put your foot into it, and I think that's when it really starts to guzzle.
CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS ALWAYS ON {MECHANIC SAID BAD SENSOR, WILL NOT EFFECT INSPECTION STATUS}
i guess i could maybe give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he hasn't been through inspection in about 5 or 6 years to know that a CEL is an automatic fail.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That needs ALOT of mechanical work. Add that to the fact that, at 169k miles, its pretty much at the end of its life expectancy (or past it, depending on who you ask), and I think its about a $1k car, at best. With that many miles, even if all the repairs were done, I think its maybe a $3k car (and that's if the body and interior are clean).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Yeah, I wouldn't touch it for the asking price. If I could get ahold of it for 1/2 the asking, I would be willing to toy around with it. I would still end up in arears though. I know I would. :sick:
Give me an old truck. :P
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I am not necessarily disagreeing about this particular car, but I am not sure you can get a clean high mileage Z for $3,000. I follow them a little bit, and rarely see anyone asking less than $5500 for something decent looking. You might get it down in the mid $4K range, but I can't see $3K.
Also, I really stop paying nearly as much attention to miles on anything 25 years old. There are too many other variables at that age. I will admit that anything over 200K miles really seems to make me nervous regardless of condition, but around 150K, not nearly as much.
That being said, I probably wouldn't pay over $1000 or so for the Z in question.
Hey all, Just wanted some advice on the feasibility of a project I am contemplating. I am 29, I drive a 93 Inifiniti G20 and have been looking at cars recently to replace it, largely because even though it is low mileage and has had only a few isolated things go wrong (starter, alternator, CV stuff), I imagine the day for replacement is coming. Anyway amidst all the high priced late model used and new cars I have been looking at, I came up with an idea:
I saw a 1975 Chevrolet Caprice Classic Convertible that was a summer driver in what looked like good condition for like $8,000. I always liked the way older big American cars looked From what I understand it has a 400 CID engine that makes like 150hp to 180hp. It's on it's second owner, and stuff looks pretty original.
What I was wondering: Is it feasible to buy a GM Crate or some smaller company's motor and plug it in to this thing (or some similar 60s-70s car that I could find)? I assume I would need a new transmission as well.
I live in an apartment with no garage of my own to work on things, could I:
A) Rent a storage facility and buy/rent tools and try to do this on my own? I have a lot of free time from my job (I work full time longer night shifts and some weekends, leaving me with 17-18 free days a month) but have never worked on a car before.
Pay some good shop to do this. I have been looking on the web and have not really found much info on this subject. How much labor time am I looking at for this? 30-40 hours? I also imagine that 60s-70s American brakes are a horror I don't really want to experience, what about putting on a whole new set of modern brakes- what would that run?
The advantadge of this approach is that I imagine if I take care of the car after the work is done, I probably will not lose that much money on the car even if I drive it for years.
Is this just more trouble than its worth? Should I just look for a car someone has already fixed up if I can't do it myself? Should I just buy that WRX instead?
I'm gonna disagree here... it could be OK if it hasn't been abused... but the business about "clutch replacement in 2004, may need it again" is really scary.
If those had been gentle miles, 169k would not worry me in a Nissan V6... AFAIK, all those Nissans are variants of one really good engine, and you regularly see Mercury Villagers with well over 200k miles. And minivans live a rough life.
The body looks clean... all the other stuff, starter, battery, tires etc. is not a big deal.
This one may well have been flogged to death, but I think we're often a little quick to condemn a vehicle out of hand on this forum. Just try and buy a "decent" car for less than $3,000.
Hmmm...that doesn't sound like a great plan for a couple reasons.
I think if I were you I'd just get a speed shop to massage the engine that is in there...you can get "enough" power out of the 400 and really you don't want some monster HP engine in there or you'll have to rework the entire car to handle it. Maybe just enough to boost low end torque with a mild cam and better flowing heads.
The '75 Caprice is not a high dollar car so you have to be careful how much you put into it. Right around $15,000 total investment (car + mods) is the most you'll ever see out of it again if it were in stunning shape.
With a mild boost in HP, all you'll really need is better tires and some good Koni shocks and if you can find 'em, sturdy front and rear sway bars.
Don't you already have disks on that car, in the front?
But trying to adapt a crate engine in a garage with no experience is not a great idea. I'd work with the engine you have---it's not ideal but its do-able. Then maybe LATER you can think about a crate engine, beefed up transmission (a 300HP crate engine will tear your old tranny right up I think) and all the rest of the engineering that goes with a 100% increase in horsepower!
Short version...from the incomplete discription in the ad, Edmunds puts up $16,258 trade/$18,129 PP/$19,766 dealer retail while he is asking 21,500. I don't get it
First things first. Do yourself & everybody else a favor and put your first efforts in a project into making sure the car is safe. If you want to boost the power over stock, fine, but make sure the suspension and brakes can handle it. 150 ~ 180 HP doesn't sound impressive for a 400 CID engine, but don't underestimate the importance of TORQUE!! Even though that seems weak on paper, I'll bet that engine has plenty of actual power, so drive it first to see if you really want more. My guess is that you will be happier with a good handling auto with strong brakes and good road manners than the ultimate acceleration machine. I find that most of my driving joy comes from the twistys and cruising rather than full throttle acceleration. Long story short, make the first priority the foundation, the basics, and then worry about horsepower. Torque production in a big, heavy car is way more important anyway. IMO, Horsepower vs. torque is overrated in this country. Also, the more you can do yourself, the better. If you pay others for labor, you will be way behind the curve in no time. Just my two cents.
Is this just more trouble than its worth? Should I just look for a car someone has already fixed up if I can't do it myself? Should I just buy that WRX instead?
I think the first thing you need to ask yourself is whether or not you could really deal with a big car. There are big car people and there are small car people, and it's fairly rare for either side to "jump ship". About the closest example I know is a buddy of mine with a 2001.5 Passat who also has two 1978 Lincoln Mark V Diamond Jubilees and, if they weren't big enough at ~230" long, he's now trying to find a late 70's Continental sedan, a ~233" long beast!
Anyway, as far as the transmission goes, GM usually put THM350's behind their smallblock engines and smaller-displacement Pontiac engines (like the 326/350) and THM400's behind their bigblock engines and larger displacement Pontiac engines (like 389, 400, 455 CID).
However, I'm not sure what a '75 Caprice would have, as the 400 is actually a variant of the smallblock. Also, while it doesn't have much hp, it's still pretty torquey, and torque is what will rip up a transmission. If it's the THM400 transmission and in good shape, you might not have to do much with it, but the THM350 might be overmatched if you put too strong of an engine up to it.
Another trick you could do with these cars to get a bit more performance out of them is to change the axle ratio. I forget what year it was, but sometime in the mid 70's, they started slipping really sucky 2.41:1 axle ratios in the larger V-8 cars. It helped out with highway mileage IF you could keep a fairly steady speed and avoid downshifting, but it also held back the engine and kept it from utilizing its full power. Even the emasculated 70's engines.
I have a '76 LeMans with a Pontiac 350-2bbl, and I think it has the 2.41:1 rear. I can tell when I step on it that it really wants to take off, but it just feels like it's held back. One of the previous owners did some work to the transmission and put a shift kit in it, so it does shift quicker and at higher speeds it's more responsive and quick to downshift, but from, say 0-60 I don't think it helps.
Other common ratios back then were 2.56:1 (which isn't THAT different from a 2.41:1) and 2.73:1. And I'm sure GM also had something around 2.9X:1 and 3.2X:1 and even quicker ratios, but I'd guess anything quicker would really be overkill for something like a Caprice.
As for handling, something like that will have disc brakes up front and I think it would have 11" drums in the back. I think the standard tire was a 225/75/R15. They were actually pretty good handling cars for the time, although the experience is going to be vastly different from a modern car, especially a small one.
As long as you can afford the gasoline and don't have to park in tight spaces, they're pretty easy cars to live with.
FWIW, I have my heart set on one day getting a '75 LeSabre convertible. Preferably in this color scheme
Is this just more trouble than its worth? Should I just look for a car someone has already fixed up if I can't do it myself? Should I just buy that WRX instead?
I'd say that if you're asking the question, you should definately think twice. Projects take passion and money to be seen through to completion. Are you going to be willing to clear off entire weekends to dedicate to wrenching and would you enjoy it? If the car needs a series of multi-hundred dollar upgrades and repairs in short order, will it break you?
Just remember, no matter how good they look, they all need work whether it be more frequent maintenance or repairs.
300ZX - maybe you guys are forgetting, this is the GS, not the turbo. We're talking ~220 hp, ~3300 lbs, and ~19 mpg. It gets embarassed by today's mid-sized family sedans. Its really an unloved Z.
Dodge pickup - so... well ... i can say the guy wasn't really fibbing about the rust. The frame and body were amazingly solid and rust-free. Only some surface spots on the roof. That's about it for the good.
The bad is that, upon my initial inspection, I found the driver's side floor to be wet. Ok, I COULD overlook that because the weatherstripping around the door was pretty well rotted, so I figure that's where it came from (dry under the dash). I decide to go ahead and drive it. It started up pretty rough, as I expected. Once I got it on the road, the tranny or driveshaft was making an awful lot of rattling noise. Oh, and I discovered there were no power brakes when I came to the first intersection. Yikes! Anyway, after running it a bit, I came back and parked it so I could get under and look for leaks now that it was warmed up. Sure enough, there was both oil and tranny fluid all over the bottom. The tranny seemed like the pan, so no biggie, but the oil was coming down at the bellhousing, so that was my sign to thank them for their time and move on.
Maybe I'm expecting too much for $800, but I just want a hauler that I don't need to perform major surgery on.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Sounds like an old horse that needs to go to the glue
factory.
EDMUNDS PRICING: Edmunds prices are pretty much hard-nailed real world prices, whereas asking prices are, after all, nothing more than a person exercising their First Amendment Rights.
I would never use Edmunds Pricing to SET the *asking* price, (Kelley is better for that) but I would use their pricing to actually buy something (in most cases).
Maybe I am biased because I had a '95 300ZX, but it gives you quite a different experience than a mid-sized sedan. Maybe something like an Accord V6 or an Altima with a manual can outrun it to 60 by a little less than a half a second, but that doesn't really matter that much to me. It is still close to two seconds faster to 60 than a contemporary Miata, but I wouldn't turn down one of those either.
that's what the book might say it's worth, but I have a feeling that if it really was in good condition, they'd be wanting a few thousand bucks for it!
I'm guessing that it has a lot of miles on it, if it has a rebuilt engine and "driveline" (which I guess they mean transmission, and maybe rear end?) But then, if it has a Pontiac 301 mated to a THM200C and if it has the same lightweight rear-end my '80 Malibu had (I needed new rear axles at around 85,000 miles), I guess it's quite possible.
Well those values come from sales reports. You can ask whatever you want for a car, but if you want to sell it, you'd best be somewhere around the book price. Even wrecking yards don't want these late 70s GM cars.
Life isn't fair when it comes to values. It's a supply and demand thing, strictly.
He obviously wants to sell it. If he asked $2,000 he'd own it forever most likely. I had a neighbor with a similar 77 Chevy---it took him forever to sell it for $750, and it was pretty nice.
Comments
I never understood why, but 383 seems to be the most common displacement that 350 grow to when they're stroked. Maybe it's a little mopar envy but there is probably a more sound explanation from an engineering perspective.
Yeah, there probably is some engineering reason. The stroke on a 383 is something like 3.8", versus ~3.48" for the 350. I wonder if 3.8 is the most you can stroke the 350 and still have an engine that likes to rev? I was reading around and it looks like the 383 is actually a 382 CID. I guess "383" rolls off the tongue better?
Along the same lines, the Ford 302 supposedly is actually a 301 when you do the proper rounding. And it's actually a 4.9, not a 5.0. Another mis-named example I can think of is the Chevy 402. They only offered it for a couple years in the early 70's, but it was badged as a 396! There was a guy at the GM Nationals in Carlisle who explained to me why they did that, but I can't remember his reasoning now. I've also seen it referred to as the "Turbo-Jet 400" in big cars, while the 400 smallblock was the "Turbo-Fire 400" IIRC.
That actually sounds like it makes more sense than what I found. Evidently though, there's a 383 available that uses the stock 350 4" bore, and a 3.8" stroke. I found it here: http://www.mortec.com/notepg2.htm
I always thought it was interesting that a Chevy 400 and a Pontiac 400 have exactly the same bore/stroke even though they're different engines: 4.12 x 3.75. Did they do that so they could use the same pistons? They don't use the same crank too, do they?
good = 8' bed, automatic, and he claims it was ziebarted (spelling?) when his FIL bought it new, so no rust, and a claimed 100k miles.
bad = 6-cyl, 23 years old, overpriced.
Opinions?
I'm thinking its more like a $600-$700 truck. But, if it really is rust-free and there are no mechanical problems, I might wander up to $800.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Should be very simple and cheap to work on as well. Not overly "electronified".
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
Also, by that time the slant six put out about 90 hp, and I think maybe 160 ft-lb of torque, so don't expect much power. In cars that used the later version of that engine, like the 1980-83 Mirada/Cordoba, 1980-81 Gran Fury/Newport/St. Regis, etc, the 318 actually got you BETTER economy because it didn't have to rev as hard! I imagine it would be the same in a Ram.
Another thing to check for is the manifolds. On the slant six they spanned a fairly long distance compared to a V-8. The intake was aluminum by that time, and had a habit of cracking in the middle. And the exhaust manifold somehow became more brittle than earlier versions as well. When the manifold cracks it makes the thing run like crap.
But, if the truck does what you need it to, doesn't sound bad for $600-800, especially if it's rust-free.
My father is of the opinion that the dodge 6 had a tendency to burn oil, so i should be on the lookout for excessive smoke. (and he also mentioned the bad economy compared to the 318)
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I went to see this MGB yesterday. Horrible. A walked up and immediately wanted to walk away. The owner had her teenage son and his Vo-Tech buddy prep it for painting. The son, with no prior experience, painted it himself without any help. It looked like a cake frosted by a three year old child. The paint was thick beyond belief over most of the car and was running and dripping everywhere. Bad rust repairs, thick undercoating arbitratily applied. Dash and most of the interior covered by primer splatter or something. Seats not bolted down. Much of the interior was just missing. Engine compartment looked even worse in person than in the pictures. It was just scary. From a mechanical standpoint, it sounded like it just needed some points. The oil filter was marked 8/02. Free is the only price I would have accepted. OK, maybe I would have paid $300 and driven it at night when nobody could see me.
I had a '69 Dart GT with the slant six, and can't remember it being too bad about burning oil. At least, no worse than any other 20+ year old car I've had! It actually got good fuel economy, but then it probably weighed about 1000 pounds less than that pickup, and the only attempt at an emission control it had was a pcv valve! The slant six didn't take well to emissions controls, which is one reason that it got choked down so bad and gave poor power relative to something of similar displacement like a Chevy 229 or Buick 231 V-6, which could put out around 105-115 hp with just a 2-bbl carb.
There was a 2-bbl option on the slant six called the "super six" setup, offered in the late 70's. It boosted hp by 10 (back when the 1-bbl gave you 100 hp), but also gave you much better torque across the board, so it was a noticeable improvement. I don't know if it would be feasible to get one of those 2-bbl setups and try to mate it to the watered-down 80's slant six. I'd imagine you'd have to play around with some emissions controls.
The slant six was replaced in either 1987 or 1988 by the 3.9 V-6, which was a 318 with two cylinders chopped off. In cubic inch terms, I think that's about a 238 CID. IIRC it had 150 hp initially, and was fuel injected.
Another thing I remember about my slant six Dart is that it ran really bad in cool, wet weather. It was fine in dry weather, hot weather, and cold, freezing weather. But it positively hated a cool, damp fall or spring day, for example. I don't know if the emissions and electronic controls of the later models would have made that little "feature" better or worse.
The reason why the 402 was marketed as a 396 is because GM had a self imposed limit on displacements in muscle cars of no more than 400 cubes. This was a case of the Chevy engineers getting over on the corporate parent.
I think I've decided to pass on it.
see, its this whole darned metric system that screws me up still. That is, at least when we're talking older vehicles. Now that you say 225, I can say "oh, i remember that engine." Its when people apply the metric standards to engines that us americans only knew by SAE numbers back in the day that I get confused.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I always just rounded down to 61.
Isn't the Ford 302 actually something like a 4.942 liter?
But a 5.0 V-8 sounds sexier in the brochures :P
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
Remember ford had a straight six 300 CID motor that they called a 4.9 liter so they had to bump the 302 up to a 5.0 liter.
IIRC, didn't the GTO actually have a badge on the 400 CID models that read "6.5 Litre"?
I had a '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop with a 400 4bbl, but it was never running long enough to get an idea of fuel economy!
No problem...let us know how that truck ends up looking in real life!
It does meet the 1hp per cubic inch standard anyway.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
CHECK ENGINE LIGHT IS ALWAYS ON {MECHANIC SAID BAD SENSOR, WILL NOT EFFECT INSPECTION STATUS}
i guess i could maybe give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he hasn't been through inspection in about 5 or 6 years to know that a CEL is an automatic fail.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That needs ALOT of mechanical work. Add that to the fact that, at 169k miles, its pretty much at the end of its life expectancy (or past it, depending on who you ask), and I think its about a $1k car, at best. With that many miles, even if all the repairs were done, I think its maybe a $3k car (and that's if the body and interior are clean).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Give me an old truck. :P
Also, I really stop paying nearly as much attention to miles on anything 25 years old. There are too many other variables at that age. I will admit that anything over 200K miles really seems to make me nervous regardless of condition, but around 150K, not nearly as much.
That being said, I probably wouldn't pay over $1000 or so for the Z in question.
Just wanted some advice on the feasibility of a project I am contemplating. I am 29, I drive a 93 Inifiniti G20 and have been looking at cars recently to replace it, largely because even though it is low mileage and has had only a few isolated things go wrong (starter, alternator, CV stuff), I imagine the day for replacement is coming. Anyway amidst all the high priced late model used and new cars I have been looking at, I came up with an idea:
I saw a 1975 Chevrolet Caprice Classic Convertible that was a summer driver in what looked like good condition for like $8,000. I always liked the way older big American cars looked From what I understand it has a 400 CID engine that makes like 150hp to 180hp. It's on it's second owner, and stuff looks pretty original.
What I was wondering:
Is it feasible to buy a GM Crate or some smaller company's motor and plug it in to this thing (or some similar 60s-70s car that I could find)? I assume I would need a new transmission as well.
I live in an apartment with no garage of my own to work on things, could I:
A) Rent a storage facility and buy/rent tools and try to do this on my own? I have a lot of free time from my job (I work full time longer night shifts and some weekends, leaving me with 17-18 free days a month) but have never worked on a car before.
I also imagine that 60s-70s American brakes are a horror I don't really want to experience, what about putting on a whole new set of modern brakes- what would that run?
The advantadge of this approach is that I imagine if I take care of the car after the work is done, I probably will not lose that much money on the car even if I drive it for years.
Is this just more trouble than its worth? Should I just look for a car someone has already fixed up if I can't do it myself? Should I just buy that WRX instead?
Thanks
If those had been gentle miles, 169k would not worry me in a Nissan V6... AFAIK, all those Nissans are variants of one really good engine, and you regularly see Mercury Villagers with well over 200k miles. And minivans live a rough life.
The body looks clean... all the other stuff, starter, battery, tires etc. is not a big deal.
This one may well have been flogged to death, but I think we're often a little quick to condemn a vehicle out of hand on this forum. Just try and buy a "decent" car for less than $3,000.
-Mathias
I think if I were you I'd just get a speed shop to massage the engine that is in there...you can get "enough" power out of the 400 and really you don't want some monster HP engine in there or you'll have to rework the entire car to handle it. Maybe just enough to boost low end torque with a mild cam and better flowing heads.
The '75 Caprice is not a high dollar car so you have to be careful how much you put into it. Right around $15,000 total investment (car + mods) is the most you'll ever see out of it again if it were in stunning shape.
With a mild boost in HP, all you'll really need is better tires and some good Koni shocks and if you can find 'em, sturdy front and rear sway bars.
Don't you already have disks on that car, in the front?
But trying to adapt a crate engine in a garage with no experience is not a great idea. I'd work with the engine you have---it's not ideal but its do-able. Then maybe LATER you can think about a crate engine, beefed up transmission (a 300HP crate engine will tear your old tranny right up I think) and all the rest of the engineering that goes with a 100% increase in horsepower!
Edmunds Pricing
Short version...from the incomplete discription in the ad, Edmunds puts up $16,258 trade/$18,129 PP/$19,766 dealer retail while he is asking 21,500. I don't get it
I don't know if GM was into metric quite that early. I know the mid-70s Firebirds read "6.6 Litre" on the hood.
Yeah, but 10.44 L V8 is better still.
I'm going to vote for a VVL swap on the Infiniti.
150 ~ 180 HP doesn't sound impressive for a 400 CID engine, but don't underestimate the importance of TORQUE!! Even though that seems weak on paper, I'll bet that engine has plenty of actual power, so drive it first to see if you really want more.
My guess is that you will be happier with a good handling auto with strong brakes and good road manners than the ultimate acceleration machine. I find that most of my driving joy comes from the twistys and cruising rather than full throttle acceleration.
Long story short, make the first priority the foundation, the basics, and then worry about horsepower. Torque production in a big, heavy car is way more important anyway. IMO, Horsepower vs. torque is overrated in this country.
Also, the more you can do yourself, the better. If you pay others for labor, you will be way behind the curve in no time.
Just my two cents.
I think the first thing you need to ask yourself is whether or not you could really deal with a big car. There are big car people and there are small car people, and it's fairly rare for either side to "jump ship". About the closest example I know is a buddy of mine with a 2001.5 Passat who also has two 1978 Lincoln Mark V Diamond Jubilees and, if they weren't big enough at ~230" long, he's now trying to find a late 70's Continental sedan, a ~233" long beast!
Anyway, as far as the transmission goes, GM usually put THM350's behind their smallblock engines and smaller-displacement Pontiac engines (like the 326/350) and THM400's behind their bigblock engines and larger displacement Pontiac engines (like 389, 400, 455 CID).
However, I'm not sure what a '75 Caprice would have, as the 400 is actually a variant of the smallblock. Also, while it doesn't have much hp, it's still pretty torquey, and torque is what will rip up a transmission. If it's the THM400 transmission and in good shape, you might not have to do much with it, but the THM350 might be overmatched if you put too strong of an engine up to it.
Another trick you could do with these cars to get a bit more performance out of them is to change the axle ratio. I forget what year it was, but sometime in the mid 70's, they started slipping really sucky 2.41:1 axle ratios in the larger V-8 cars. It helped out with highway mileage IF you could keep a fairly steady speed and avoid downshifting, but it also held back the engine and kept it from utilizing its full power. Even the emasculated 70's engines.
I have a '76 LeMans with a Pontiac 350-2bbl, and I think it has the 2.41:1 rear. I can tell when I step on it that it really wants to take off, but it just feels like it's held back. One of the previous owners did some work to the transmission and put a shift kit in it, so it does shift quicker and at higher speeds it's more responsive and quick to downshift, but from, say 0-60 I don't think it helps.
Other common ratios back then were 2.56:1 (which isn't THAT different from a 2.41:1) and 2.73:1. And I'm sure GM also had something around 2.9X:1 and 3.2X:1 and even quicker ratios, but I'd guess anything quicker would really be overkill for something like a Caprice.
As for handling, something like that will have disc brakes up front and I think it would have 11" drums in the back. I think the standard tire was a 225/75/R15. They were actually pretty good handling cars for the time, although the experience is going to be vastly different from a modern car, especially a small one.
As long as you can afford the gasoline and don't have to park in tight spaces, they're pretty easy cars to live with.
FWIW, I have my heart set on one day getting a '75 LeSabre convertible. Preferably in this color scheme
I'd say that if you're asking the question, you should definately think twice. Projects take passion and money to be seen through to completion. Are you going to be willing to clear off entire weekends to dedicate to wrenching and would you enjoy it? If the car needs a series of multi-hundred dollar upgrades and repairs in short order, will it break you?
Just remember, no matter how good they look, they all need work whether it be more frequent maintenance or repairs.
Dodge pickup - so... well ... i can say the guy wasn't really fibbing about the rust. The frame and body were amazingly solid and rust-free. Only some surface spots on the roof. That's about it for the good.
The bad is that, upon my initial inspection, I found the driver's side floor to be wet. Ok, I COULD overlook that because the weatherstripping around the door was pretty well rotted, so I figure that's where it came from (dry under the dash). I decide to go ahead and drive it. It started up pretty rough, as I expected. Once I got it on the road, the tranny or driveshaft was making an awful lot of rattling noise. Oh, and I discovered there were no power brakes when I came to the first intersection. Yikes! Anyway, after running it a bit, I came back and parked it so I could get under and look for leaks now that it was warmed up. Sure enough, there was both oil and tranny fluid all over the bottom. The tranny seemed like the pan, so no biggie, but the oil was coming down at the bellhousing, so that was my sign to thank them for their time and move on.
Maybe I'm expecting too much for $800, but I just want a hauler that I don't need to perform major surgery on.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
factory.
EDMUNDS PRICING: Edmunds prices are pretty much hard-nailed real world prices, whereas asking prices are, after all, nothing more than a person exercising their First Amendment Rights.
I would never use Edmunds Pricing to SET the *asking* price, (Kelley is better for that) but I would use their pricing to actually buy something (in most cases).
Maybe something like an Accord V6 or an Altima with a manual can outrun it to 60 by a little less than a half a second, but that doesn't really matter that much to me. It is still close to two seconds faster to 60 than a contemporary Miata, but I wouldn't turn down one of those either.
I vote no on your truck.
I'm guessing that it has a lot of miles on it, if it has a rebuilt engine and "driveline" (which I guess they mean transmission, and maybe rear end?) But then, if it has a Pontiac 301 mated to a THM200C and if it has the same lightweight rear-end my '80 Malibu had (I needed new rear axles at around 85,000 miles), I guess it's quite possible.
Life isn't fair when it comes to values. It's a supply and demand thing, strictly.
He obviously wants to sell it. If he asked $2,000 he'd own it forever most likely. I had a neighbor with a similar 77 Chevy---it took him forever to sell it for $750, and it was pretty nice.