I would go with a Subaru 360 van, Fiat 600 Multipla, or possibly an old VW Westfalia with the pop-up camper top.
Okay, that should appease the classic car hosts.
The Ford Freestar is an absolutely miserable vehicle. If you hate your wife, get that one. The Chrysler vans are a competent package but nothing special other than stow-n-go. I haven't ever driven / rented the GM vans. Agree on the Quest - too freaking weird, although the previous gen Quest / Villager are nice sturdy vans for cheap.
You probably ought to head over to the vans board. I think there's even a "help me choose a minivan" topic.
In Texas. Can be yours for $16,900 (buy it now price), which is a lot less than a new one. Yet it's nearly new (only 20k mi), and under factory warranty. A lot of van for the price. It even has the DVD entertainment system that folds into the roof. I think Mazdas tend to be more reliable than GM/Ford/DCX vehicles. At least my family has owned two Mazdas, and they gave very good service:
i've heard too many tranny-failure stories in the Chryslers to even think about recommending them. But I digress. Don't want to get too far off track here.
I always like the old '60s flat-nose Ford vans as project vehicles.
'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
If that sucker wasn't so far away, I would buy it today for my new driving 16yo son. the only thing that doesn't help is the Chevy 305 engine instead of the Olds 350.
I was actually kinda surprised to see the ad mention a Chevy 305. I thought that, for the most part, Olds kept the 305 out of their big cars? I know in the next size class up, they often used Chevy 350's.
According to my old car book, in 1980 you could get a Pontiac 265 V-8, an Olds 307, or an Olds 350. Plus the Buick 231 and the dreaded Diesel.
I guess though, it's possible that even if the 305 wasn't "officially" listed, that some may have ended up in there. I always liked the '77-79 LeSabre and Delta, because a good number of them were equipped with 350's. In '77-78, the Delta didn't even offer a V-8 in the 5-liter range. You either had to make do with the V-6 or the little Olds 260, or jump up to a 350 or 403. In '79 though, they did start offering Pontiac 301's. I believe the Pontiac 301 was optional in all three years with the LeSabre, but a good number of buyers still went with the 350 or 403.
My favorite of GM's downsized big cars was the '77-81 Catalina/Bonneville. Unfortunately, a lot of them ended up with the 301, with the 350 and 400 not being quite so common. And I don't know if my fears are well grounded or not, but I've heard enough bad things about the 301 to make me leery of one.
With the Olds V-8 versus the Chevy, I've heard that the Olds is much more durable. I believe it's also actually a lighter block. Olds used more nickle in the iron for their block, which made it stronger without adding weight. Chevy originally trimmed too much weight off of the smallblock, making it fragile, so then they kind of added weight back on in a piecemeal fashion, instead of integrating it into the design, so while it has a low reciprocating mass, the total weight of the engine is actually a bit high for its relatively compact dimensions.
The only bad things I've ever heard about the Olds block is that it's more prone to sludging than the Chevy block if you don't take care of it, and the valves are more prone to carbon buildup. Maybe because they're smaller or something? Oh, and if you go up to the 403, the large size of the bore forced them to go to a siamesed design, so it's more prone to overheating problems if you let the cooling system go for too long.
I've always thought the first-gen Aurora was a very sexy design. I especially liked them in that pale silvery metallic blue they offered. There was a lady here at work who had one, and she let me drive it once.
I wasn't as impressed with it once I drove it, but I still wouldn't mind having one. My two biggest complaints were the handling and the interior room. In the handling department, it just still felt too floaty and numb. Maybe I just got the feeling because of years of driving a Dodge Dart with a broken power steering pump, and a Gran Fury copcar with "firm feel" power steering that gives about the same road feel as most modern cars. But to me, this Aurora felt about how my Grandma's LeSabre would've felt if I put lower profile tires on it. Or even the way my '79 New Yorker does now, since I put the Gran Fury's tires and rims on it. It handled okay, but I guess I just expected it to feel sportier. I guess those seductive looks just raised my expectations to an irrational level!
And I don't know why I thought the car would be bigger inside than it was. I mean, it was roomy enough, but I guess I just thought they were bigger. Kinda like I was expecting a fullsized car, but it ended up feeling more midsized
I hear the first-gen Aurora is very expensive to repair when things do break on them, though. I believe it has something to do with the design of this version of the Northstar? I think the engine bay might be more cramped than in something like a DeVille or Seville, so that might raise repair costs as well.
Benz did make the Unimog but volvo made a lot of commercial vehicles and military vehicles so maybe they are just calling it a Unimog since it kind of looks like one.
It looks like that Volvo has Portal axles too. Portal axles are :shades:
Mazda learned this one slowly. They decided to buck the sliding door trend and just have huge regular rear doors. Hmm so in order to get the door open wide enough to get out, you had to park 10 feet from the car next to you (slight exageration).
Its cool they then have changed their ways, even the new Mazda5 (Pontiac Vibe sized minivan) has sliding doors on both sides.
fintail: That 500 looks fine. I wouldn't mind owning something like that. Could be real fun to drive. With cars that cool, I say bring the Fiats and Citroens back to America. I'll take one Citroen CX and one Fiat 500 to replace my current Accord and Olds 98. Probably wouldn't actually like the ownership experience, but aesthetically they work for me. I suppose the odds are close to zero for bringing those brands back. Too bad.
That 68 MB looked pretty good. But 47k mi? On a car that old it'd be nice to see some documentation. Even 147 might be ok, as long as all the repairs and maintenance have been done religiously for all that time. It looks like it's been garaged. Frustrating how few people give the history of the vehicle ("my neighbor owned this car..."). Instead, "just like your father used to own." But whose father, exactly?
Re: the Aurora. I wonder if the handing improved over time. Do you remember what year the one you drove was Andre? For a while, the Aurora had an "Autobahn Package." I don't know what was in it, but I assume it was supposed to mean you could cruise at 100 mpg in Montanta (do they have speed limits on Interstates?) and feel like you were in Deutschland. But perhaps that was a lie--maybe it was really just a LeSabre with a different body and a Caddy engine.
Speaking of Germany, I'd be interested to hear a little more from Shifty, if he's willing, about his experiences with M Benz. Those 600 limos really sound like nightmares to work on, but I'm more curious about your experience with the culture of engineering at MB. Sounds silly to say it, but are they really engineered like no other cars in the world? Do they have more engineers per vehicle produced? Are their engineers less constrained by the budgets that affect other manufacturers? If Hondas are designed to last up to 150k--with good maintenance, some repairs, and some luck--are Mercedes Benz's designed to last up to 250k--or is that pure mythology?
This was the look of the future in the early 70s. At least one look of the future. Elegant and a little silly at the same time. As a college prof., I'd could make a strong and eccentric statement going to work in this thing! But 10.9k seems way too much. Plus maintenance is not easy. There is a reason why the Accord has been called the national car of the college professor. It's functional, practical, durable, a little sporty, a little luxurious, not extravagent, etc.
Where would you even go to get something like this repaired in the US?
I have a relative with one of those...there is a Puegot/Renault specialist that actually works out of the Toyota dealer by his house. I think its hilarious that all these French vehicles with less than stellar reputations get repaired at the Toyota dealer.
I think the Aurora my co-worker had was a 1995, the first year out. I think it also had about 70-80,000 miles on it by this time, too, so it had a bit of time to loosen up, so maybe it wasn't fair for me to judge all Auroras by this one!
And I don't know if it had any kind of special handling package or not. It might've just been a base level model.
Yeah, I think Unimog in that ad is used as a universal term.
Citroen and Fiat wouldn't stand a chance in most of NA. No dealer network, big negative stigma...no way. The cars themselves aren't so bad these days, but old attitudes stick around.
MBs can last a very long time, but compared to the average car, take a very high amount of maintenance. On most older models, the interiors and paint were beyond compare, so the cosmetics hold up well. That makes some people want to keep them for the long haul.
10K for a DS (sedan) is pretty much top of the market, it would have to be perfect. They do have some following though.
I owned an ID-19 in 1967, and it was a great car, but very expensive to repair and not easy to find trained mechanics even then. The ID series was the cheaper model from the DS series, but still the same basic design. Citroen was (is) known for their engineering, but one oxymoron was the non-self-cancelling turn signals of my ID-19. I once removed one of the rear wheels (left rear if my memory serves me correctly), and drove the car to work one day. You should have seen the looks on eveyone's faces. But, that's one neat fact of the ID/DS suspension system, not only can it do that safely, but has a self-jacking feature as well.
Wait...you removed your wheel and were still able to drive? That's amazing. Were these cars sold in the US at that time? I'm afraid I just don't know, were Citroens ever sold in the US, and if so when did they pull out?
I like the turn signal indicators on the roof.
What was the luggage space like? Doesn't look like that much.
My boss had one of those old Citroens back in the late 60's and he could pull the same trick. Made it really easy to change a flat tire on the side of the road.
I think in the 60s through 80s Benz did deserve the reputation for the best engineered car in the world. Comparing a 1970 Benz say to a 1970 American car or English car---well, they were at least 20 years ahead in automotive engineering...I mean, think about it...a 1955 Mercedes with production fuel injection, ohc alloy engine and tubular space frame? It's no coincidence that America jumped 20 years ahead in space using German scientists.
But now I think a few car companies have caught up, and others are close behind---so I'm not sure the claim about the engineering is valid anymore.
Benzes can also be needlessly complicated. On the one hand, it's NICE that this or that part is adjustable and precise, but when you have to keep adjusting it, you sometimes wonder if the "one piece lifetime lubricated part" that breaks in 100,000 miles isn't a better way, if the part is minor.
In the old days you used to be able to shim your waterpump to compensate for wear, and you adjusted valves, repacked wheel bearings, lubricated u-joints. But who wants to do that now?
And sometimes BEnz gets carried away with their own technological pride (part of their national heritage I guess). I mean, their insistence on making the mating surfaces of some parts so smooth and precise that you don't need gaskets to hold the oil in. Yeah, great until you overtighten something a pinch or take it apart and don't clean it like it was ready for brain surgery.
I agree with fintail---Benz's strongest points are beautiful paint, high quality interiors and very rugged body integrity. As for mechanical engineering, I don't think it is really superior to anyone right now.
That car is the automotive equivalent of Sharon Stone's character in "Casino." It's the perfect vehicle for the rich masochist who's too proud for whips and chains.
Citroens were actually officially imported, from the late 50s through the early 70s. I think maybe the end of the DS cars/beginning of DOT bumpers killed them off, and the volumes were tiny anyway. Probably sold at the specialty kind of places that would sell other French cars. I have a US-spec DS brochure from about 1970.
The Olds vs Chevy 350 issue was one my dad was right in the middle of. The Chevy did not get as good of gas mileage, nor did it have the longevity. The Olds block does have a higher nickel content and was very strong.
Carbon deposits on Olds valves disappeared in the early 70's with the advent of PVR (positive valve rotation) on intake and exhaust valves. Basically, every time the valve opened and closed it rotated about 8 degrees. This virtually eliminated burned valves in the Olds engine. I have seen Olds 350 heads with over 150K miles on them and showing no need for a valve job.
Interesting to note that almost all Delta's sold in my part of the country had the Olds 350 engine, and a few with the 455. Very few V6's, and I didn't think the 305 was ever available. If there had been a better shot of the engine I could tell if it really was a chevy. I almost wonder if it was a typo and is a 350 Chevy (based on the color of the valve cover). The one thing I really didn't like about the Olds 350 was the goofy valve covers with their contortions and high number of bolts.
I gotta wonder if anybody real gives a damn about such a vehicle. And, even if they do, do they care enough to pay 3 to 4 times what a nice non-sinatra imperial should go for.
'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
if it really runs perfect, probably sold already. Damage doesn't took too bad, and you are right that it might be perfect for a new driver.
One downside is I think the '90 hat motorized belts, and I really hate them, but i guess for cheap enough, you can live with it.
If passaic wasn't so far from me, I might go take a look, but I don't need the car (since he won't have a permit) until next summer at the earliest. he won't be able to solo until the summer after that.
I'm still thinking an older small pickup (nissan maybe) might be my purchase. It can serve double duty (driving instruction on the stick, and utility beast for me).
We are getting a pool in the spring, so I can probably justify it by planning to do lots of landscaping, etc., and I don't want to get my wife's van all dirty!
You are right about the Accord: motorized seatbelts in 1990-91. In 1992 they added a (driver's side only?) airbag and dropped the motor-belts.
Interestingly, when the Nissan Maxima from that period added airbags, they retained the motor-belts until the next major body redesign. (Can you tell that I once shopped for these vehicles?)
Regarding the small pickup option: I drove a 1990 Nissan regular cab for many years. It was virtually trouble-free for my period of ownership: from 36m to 202m miles. It was still on its original clutch and had never needed any engine work. It neither burned or leaked oil.
The Nissan did get rather disappointing mileage for a small vehicle with a 2.4L, 4-cyl. engine: low 20s in mostly highway driving (70-80 mph). It did ride, handle, and accelerate pretty well for a little PU.
Concur with oregonboy. My ex had a '92 Accord LX and it had the single airbag.
One thing to consider with your son .. when he gets his license, he'll have to be 'rated' on one of the vehicles, if there are an equal number of drivers and vehicles in the household. However, an older car that needed liability only might not be too bad on the budget.
oregonboy:
The Nissan did get rather disappointing mileage for a small vehicle with a 2.4L, 4-cyl. engine
In my previous wife-time we had an '85 Isuzu P'up. 2.3L, 5 speed. I really wished I tracked the MPG of that, as I used it to commute to LA one summer for work - about 60 miles one way, some of it on PCH through Malibu. Of course, gas was probably at or around a buck a gallon then, so it didn't really matter.
Yes indeed, you could remove one of the rear wheels and drive the car on three wheels due to its self-leveling hydroelastic suspension system design. Citroens were sold in the USA until 1972, I believe. But, don't quote me on this . . .
A significant number of marques pulled out of the USA market in the early '70s due to increased Federal government emission and safety legislation.
Luggage space was actually quite good. Pretty much on par with a 2007 Camry in terms of total cubic feet, maybe a bit less. The trunk was deep, but not too wide.
WOW, that 75 is identical to the car my mother had when I was very little. White on white, 460, big smooth boat. She loved that car and my parents took many trips in it. I remember sleeping in the back seat and playing with the 1000 way power drivers seat. The white interior probably wasn't a good choice for a car where kids would be riding, and something that thirsty couldn't have been fun with the gas prices during those years. In 84 I think, a Ciera replaced it.
I kinda like that 79...probably because my 2nd grade teacher, who I liked, had one.
but I don't give a damn about the Frank Sinatra edition. The '81-83 Imperial is a car that looks really great in black. Of those bustleback-themed cars, I like the Imperial better than the Seville and the small Fairmont-based Continental. Those cars had kind of a neoclassic, throwback look to them, whereas the Imperial almost looks kinda futuristic. I think the slicked-back nose and hidden headlights help alot.
I see these Imperials fairly regularly at Carlisle, and people usually want way too much for them. But hey, that's Carlisle for you! Sometimes I'll see one that seems reasonably priced, though.
I've heard that the fuel injection system was troublesome though, and it was common for them to get retrofitted with 2-bbl Lean Burn carburetors.
I like that '79 T-bird, too. Even though it looks like a basic model, it still has a ritzy, upscale look to it.
Lee Iacocca had an Imperial converted to a four-door limousine during his tenure at Chrysler. I bet the Imperial would've made an awesome sedan and would've greatly broadened its market. I recall seeing an Imperial print ad with both Frank Sinatra and Lee Iacocca standing next to the car.
Evidently there were several different versions: a 24" stretch, a 30" stretch, and a 36" stretch. The webpage also mentions that there's a company that can make an Imperial limo for about $25K today. Plus it sounds like the conversion requires two Imperials (the second one to donate the additional length of roof, floorpan, and doors) and a Chrysler R-body, for the B-pillars.
Comments
Okay, that should appease the classic car hosts.
The Ford Freestar is an absolutely miserable vehicle. If you hate your wife, get that one. The Chrysler vans are a competent package but nothing special other than stow-n-go. I haven't ever driven / rented the GM vans. Agree on the Quest - too freaking weird, although the previous gen Quest / Villager are nice sturdy vans for cheap.
You probably ought to head over to the vans board. I think there's even a "help me choose a minivan" topic.
-Jason
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/06-MPV-LX-20K-MINT-REAR-A-C-TV-DVD-FAST-FREE-SHIP- PING_W0QQitemZ200028422004QQihZ010QQcategoryZ6318QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZVi- ewItem
But I digress. Don't want to get too far off track here.
I always like the old '60s flat-nose Ford vans as project vehicles.
'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
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1997-OLDSMOLBILE-AURORA-LOADED-LOW-MILES-NO-RESER- VE_W0QQitemZ190034367535QQihZ009QQcategoryZ6404QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I was actually kinda surprised to see the ad mention a Chevy 305. I thought that, for the most part, Olds kept the 305 out of their big cars? I know in the next size class up, they often used Chevy 350's.
According to my old car book, in 1980 you could get a Pontiac 265 V-8, an Olds 307, or an Olds 350. Plus the Buick 231 and the dreaded Diesel.
I guess though, it's possible that even if the 305 wasn't "officially" listed, that some may have ended up in there. I always liked the '77-79 LeSabre and Delta, because a good number of them were equipped with 350's. In '77-78, the Delta didn't even offer a V-8 in the 5-liter range. You either had to make do with the V-6 or the little Olds 260, or jump up to a 350 or 403. In '79 though, they did start offering Pontiac 301's. I believe the Pontiac 301 was optional in all three years with the LeSabre, but a good number of buyers still went with the 350 or 403.
My favorite of GM's downsized big cars was the '77-81 Catalina/Bonneville. Unfortunately, a lot of them ended up with the 301, with the 350 and 400 not being quite so common. And I don't know if my fears are well grounded or not, but I've heard enough bad things about the 301 to make me leery of one.
With the Olds V-8 versus the Chevy, I've heard that the Olds is much more durable. I believe it's also actually a lighter block. Olds used more nickle in the iron for their block, which made it stronger without adding weight. Chevy originally trimmed too much weight off of the smallblock, making it fragile, so then they kind of added weight back on in a piecemeal fashion, instead of integrating it into the design, so while it has a low reciprocating mass, the total weight of the engine is actually a bit high for its relatively compact dimensions.
The only bad things I've ever heard about the Olds block is that it's more prone to sludging than the Chevy block if you don't take care of it, and the valves are more prone to carbon buildup. Maybe because they're smaller or something? Oh, and if you go up to the 403, the large size of the bore forced them to go to a siamesed design, so it's more prone to overheating problems if you let the cooling system go for too long.
I wasn't as impressed with it once I drove it, but I still wouldn't mind having one. My two biggest complaints were the handling and the interior room. In the handling department, it just still felt too floaty and numb. Maybe I just got the feeling because of years of driving a Dodge Dart with a broken power steering pump, and a Gran Fury copcar with "firm feel" power steering that gives about the same road feel as most modern cars. But to me, this Aurora felt about how my Grandma's LeSabre would've felt if I put lower profile tires on it. Or even the way my '79 New Yorker does now, since I put the Gran Fury's tires and rims on it. It handled okay, but I guess I just expected it to feel sportier. I guess those seductive looks just raised my expectations to an irrational level!
And I don't know why I thought the car would be bigger inside than it was. I mean, it was roomy enough, but I guess I just thought they were bigger. Kinda like I was expecting a fullsized car, but it ended up feeling more midsized
I hear the first-gen Aurora is very expensive to repair when things do break on them, though. I believe it has something to do with the design of this version of the Northstar? I think the engine bay might be more cramped than in something like a DeVille or Seville, so that might raise repair costs as well.
Did both companies use that name?
'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
It looks like that Volvo has Portal axles too. Portal axles are :shades:
Mazda learned this one slowly. They decided to buck the sliding door trend and just have huge regular rear doors. Hmm so in order to get the door open wide enough to get out, you had to park 10 feet from the car next to you (slight exageration).
Its cool they then have changed their ways, even the new Mazda5 (Pontiac Vibe sized minivan) has sliding doors on both sides.
That 68 MB looked pretty good. But 47k mi? On a car that old it'd be nice to see some documentation. Even 147 might be ok, as long as all the repairs and maintenance have been done religiously for all that time. It looks like it's been garaged. Frustrating how few people give the history of the vehicle ("my neighbor owned this car..."). Instead, "just like your father used to own." But whose father, exactly?
Re: the Aurora. I wonder if the handing improved over time. Do you remember what year the one you drove was Andre? For a while, the Aurora had an "Autobahn Package." I don't know what was in it, but I assume it was supposed to mean you could cruise at 100 mpg in Montanta (do they have speed limits on Interstates?) and feel like you were in Deutschland. But perhaps that was a lie--maybe it was really just a LeSabre with a different body and a Caddy engine.
Speaking of Germany, I'd be interested to hear a little more from Shifty, if he's willing, about his experiences with M Benz. Those 600 limos really sound like nightmares to work on, but I'm more curious about your experience with the culture of engineering at MB. Sounds silly to say it, but are they really engineered like no other cars in the world? Do they have more engineers per vehicle produced? Are their engineers less constrained by the budgets that affect other manufacturers? If Hondas are designed to last up to 150k--with good maintenance, some repairs, and some luck--are Mercedes Benz's designed to last up to 250k--or is that pure mythology?
Where would you even go to get something like this repaired in the US?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Citroen-D-Special-1973_W0QQitemZ180029368635QQihZ- 008QQcategoryZ6183QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
And I don't know if it had any kind of special handling package or not. It might've just been a base level model.
Citroen and Fiat wouldn't stand a chance in most of NA. No dealer network, big negative stigma...no way. The cars themselves aren't so bad these days, but old attitudes stick around.
MBs can last a very long time, but compared to the average car, take a very high amount of maintenance. On most older models, the interiors and paint were beyond compare, so the cosmetics hold up well. That makes some people want to keep them for the long haul.
10K for a DS (sedan) is pretty much top of the market, it would have to be perfect. They do have some following though.
I like the turn signal indicators on the roof.
What was the luggage space like? Doesn't look like that much.
But now I think a few car companies have caught up, and others are close behind---so I'm not sure the claim about the engineering is valid anymore.
Benzes can also be needlessly complicated. On the one hand, it's NICE that this or that part is adjustable and precise, but when you have to keep adjusting it, you sometimes wonder if the "one piece lifetime lubricated part" that breaks in 100,000 miles isn't a better way, if the part is minor.
In the old days you used to be able to shim your waterpump to compensate for wear, and you adjusted valves, repacked wheel bearings, lubricated u-joints. But who wants to do that now?
And sometimes BEnz gets carried away with their own technological pride (part of their national heritage I guess). I mean, their insistence on making the mating surfaces of some parts so smooth and precise that you don't need gaskets to hold the oil in. Yeah, great until you overtighten something a pinch or take it apart and don't clean it like it was ready for brain surgery.
I agree with fintail---Benz's strongest points are beautiful paint, high quality interiors and very rugged body integrity. As for mechanical engineering, I don't think it is really superior to anyone right now.
Carbon deposits on Olds valves disappeared in the early 70's with the advent of PVR (positive valve rotation) on intake and exhaust valves. Basically, every time the valve opened and closed it rotated about 8 degrees. This virtually eliminated burned valves in the Olds engine. I have seen Olds 350 heads with over 150K miles on them and showing no need for a valve job.
Interesting to note that almost all Delta's sold in my part of the country had the Olds 350 engine, and a few with the 455. Very few V6's, and I didn't think the 305 was ever available. If there had been a better shot of the engine I could tell if it really was a chevy. I almost wonder if it was a typo and is a 350 Chevy (based on the color of the valve cover). The one thing I really didn't like about the Olds 350 was the goofy valve covers with their contortions and high number of bolts.
140k, no pic, needs "a little work", 4 grand
I wonder if ol blue eyes ever really had one
'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
'90 Accord Coupe 5-spd
'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
For the price, its probably just the 1.9, unfortunately. Too bad its an automatic, too.
Hmmmm... a Honda not passing NJ inspection?? That's a scary thought. I'd really enjoy a 5-speed prelude, though. Nice color, too.
'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
One downside is I think the '90 hat motorized belts, and I really hate them, but i guess for cheap enough, you can live with it.
If passaic wasn't so far from me, I might go take a look, but I don't need the car (since he won't have a permit) until next summer at the earliest. he won't be able to solo until the summer after that.
I'm still thinking an older small pickup (nissan maybe) might be my purchase. It can serve double duty (driving instruction on the stick, and utility beast for me).
We are getting a pool in the spring, so I can probably justify it by planning to do lots of landscaping, etc., and I don't want to get my wife's van all dirty!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Andre and Lemko can fight over this one
Are there any 240SXs left that aren't projects?
Money pit in the making.
Shiftymobile
Benz diesel: this one or this one?
I think the quote on the wheelchair ramp was $1267.
Back when cars were bought by the pound.
Beyond cool long hood.
More money than I'd want to spend just to be different, however.
'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
Interestingly, when the Nissan Maxima from that period added airbags, they retained the motor-belts until the next major body redesign. (Can you tell that I once shopped for these vehicles?)
Regarding the small pickup option: I drove a 1990 Nissan regular cab for many years. It was virtually trouble-free for my period of ownership: from 36m to 202m miles. It was still on its original clutch and had never needed any engine work. It neither burned or leaked oil.
The Nissan did get rather disappointing mileage for a small vehicle with a 2.4L, 4-cyl. engine: low 20s in mostly highway driving (70-80 mph). It did ride, handle, and accelerate pretty well for a little PU.
james
That Galaxie looks pretty good too.
One thing to consider with your son .. when he gets his license, he'll have to be 'rated' on one of the vehicles, if there are an equal number of drivers and vehicles in the household. However, an older car that needed liability only might not be too bad on the budget.
oregonboy:
The Nissan did get rather disappointing mileage for a small vehicle with a 2.4L, 4-cyl. engine
In my previous wife-time we had an '85 Isuzu P'up. 2.3L, 5 speed. I really wished I tracked the MPG of that, as I used it to commute to LA one summer for work - about 60 miles one way, some of it on PCH through Malibu. Of course, gas was probably at or around a buck a gallon then, so it didn't really matter.
A significant number of marques pulled out of the USA market in the early '70s due to increased Federal government emission and safety legislation.
Luggage space was actually quite good. Pretty much on par with a 2007 Camry in terms of total cubic feet, maybe a bit less. The trunk was deep, but not too wide.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1990-35th-Anniversary-Edition-Ford-Thunderbird-WO- W_W0QQitemZ150033828488QQihZ005QQcategoryZ6240QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1979-only-10-200-miles-family-owned-excellent-con- d_W0QQitemZ330031463112QQihZ014QQcategoryZ6240QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Here's a 75, also with 10k mi, in white. Perhaps the nicest of the bunch, but what a boat. It's really a Lincoln Mark IV, I think:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320029965240&fromM- akeTrack=true
I kinda like that 79...probably because my 2nd grade teacher, who I liked, had one.
I see these Imperials fairly regularly at Carlisle, and people usually want way too much for them. But hey, that's Carlisle for you! Sometimes I'll see one that seems reasonably priced, though.
I've heard that the fuel injection system was troublesome though, and it was common for them to get retrofitted with 2-bbl Lean Burn carburetors.
I like that '79 T-bird, too. Even though it looks like a basic model, it still has a ritzy, upscale look to it.
Evidently there were several different versions: a 24" stretch, a 30" stretch, and a 36" stretch. The webpage also mentions that there's a company that can make an Imperial limo for about $25K today. Plus it sounds like the conversion requires two Imperials (the second one to donate the additional length of roof, floorpan, and doors) and a Chrysler R-body, for the B-pillars.
'86 Chrysler Limo
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1947-Cadillac-Project-Car_W0QQitemZ200030616894QQ- ihZ010QQcategoryZ6152QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem