Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"

lilengineerboy

Both of those are very pretty. The 3.0 coupes always looked cool to me.

Mr_Shiftright

The 3.0 looks pretty good and if it isn't rusty (most are) that's a fair enough price. The fuel-injected models are much preferred over the dual carbs. Nice heavy GT type of car, not really a sports car. Great cruiser.

jlflemmons

is just another way of saying the rotor seals are gone, this sucker is going to cost you some major bucks. I haven't had much experience with the Wankel's, but every one I know who has says failure to idle on a high mileage rotary is a sure sign of rotor seal wear. And major rebuild cost.

british_rover

Ohh I like the BMW and the buick too actually.

andre1969

is that BMW 3.0 coupe a "true" hardtop where the back windows roll down? Or are they stationary like a lot of those fake hardtops of the late 70's? Or do they flip out?

Normally I don't like BMW's from that era because, driving dynamics aside the interiors look about as comfy as a Model-T depot hack and outside they look like little toasters with two kidney beans glued to the front, but I kinda like that 3.0 coupe. Probably because, since it's bigger than those little 2002 things, it just seems better proportioned to my eye.

Might be the color, too. Usually if I see a 2002 it seems to be a faded-out rusty orange color that's more rust than orange! Or if they're fixed up they just tend to be loud colors like yellow, orange, economy car orange-red. Or white. Or at best, black. That deep metallic blue looks nice on that 3.0 though.

Did those things really put out 200 hp net? Or is that gross hp?

benjaminh

The first Caddy to have fins was around 1949, I think. So Olds was just twenty years behind the times.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/OLDSMOBILE-Ninety-Eight-98-31-500-ACTUAL-MILES_W0- QQitemZ110039692681QQihZ001QQcategoryZ6407QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

andre1969

didn't Olds and Buick keep some semblance of a tailfin on the Electra/Ninety-Eight even after the tailfin fad died down? I'm not talking big, monstrous things that looked as if they could take flight, but rather more like thin blades atop the rear fenders that ran straight out the back, while the trunk lids themselves sloped down. Kinda like what Cadillac stuck with, but a bit lower.

I think Olds/Buick toned them down on the '65-70 models, but they did seem to make a bit of a comeback on the '71-76. Even the downsized models had a faint vestige of a fin on them. It actually sloped downward from the C-pillar back, but the trunk itself sloped off further.

Even on my Grandma's cousin's '89 Coupe DeVille, there's a slight fin/blade atop the rear quarter. As I recall, Cadillac tried to bulk up these FWD cars in 1989 to make them look look like they had more presence, and one way they did that was extending the rear to make it longer, and giving it more of a fin than the little '85-88 models had.

That '71 Ninety-Eight is a pretty car, IMO. I actually like the exterior style of the '74+ models better, as they toned down that peak between the headlight bezels considerably for '74. And I liked the square headlights and little triangular quarter windows in the C-pillars of the '75-76 sedans. I think I like the '71's interior better though. It just has a clean, sleek look to it. Later on in the decade the interiors started going for that antique furniture-looking, overly intricate carved plood look that was just a bit too much. I think they kept the plood to a fairly tasteful level on that '71.

I saw a '73 4-door hardtop at Carlisle this past weekend. Dark blue with a light interior. They wanted $1800 for it and it looked good except for tears in the driver's seat and a rust spot coming through pretty nasty over the rear right wheel. Still, it kinda made me wish I needed another spare car!

fintail

I'm pretty sure they are real hardtops.

Very nice looking slow-as-a-turtle W123 that isn't as overpriced as most

Mr_Shiftright

As we used to say, a 240D couldn't pull the skin off rice pudding!

"You can expect 300,000 miles from a Mercedes diesel"

Yes, and you can expect to spend double the price of the car getting there as well. 300K automatic transmissions? 300K shocks? 300K climate controls....I don't THINK so....

michaellno

After jumping through too many hoops to count, I got the Subaru for sale on craigslist:

Dad's old Subaru

Mr_Shiftright

That should sell.

michaellno

Thanks for the positive feedback .. the muffler will run somewhere between $250-600 (depending upon how much of it gets replaced), but Subarus in Colorado bring stupid money.

Edmunds TMV says only $1100, but kbb estimated $2350 for private party.

fintail

You'd sell that Subaru fairly quickly here, esp in any college/ski area like Bellingham.

Mr_Shiftright

You have to remember that in 2006 there is a "bottom line" for any car that a)runs well b) looks decent...if it meets that criteria, it really can't go below a certain price, no matter what the books says. These days a fully functioning clean 90s car has got to be worth at least $2,000----unless you want to be driving a shabby piece of junk or a big domestic whale with a gazillion miles on it.

xwesx

I agree. I'd buy it for >$2000 were it a *little* closer to home. Good lookin' car.

fintail

This is a nice looking old tank, even with the park bench bumpers

stevedebi

"The 3.0 looks pretty good and if it isn't rusty (most are) that's a fair enough price. The fuel-injected models are much preferred over the dual carbs. Nice heavy GT type of car, not really a sports car. Great cruiser."

I seem to recall that you have to pull the motor to change the muffler system on the 3.0, due to the engine size.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh maybe on the old ones with the catalytics built right into the exhaust headers...I think those clunky Bavarias were like that.

lilengineerboy

I think the 70's 530's and 630's had that too. Thermal reactors right there, cooked everything. The 528i's were a step forward in that respect.

jrosasmc

I remember seeing some cars with thermal reactors; they were just plain awful. Mazdas with rotaries were the worst culprits- they could backfire even if you wanted them to!

Shifty, of another important note I read in "Excellence" (the Porsche magazine) recently that 914 values seem to be steadily rising higher, especially the last 2.0 models from 1974-76. The article said that they were the first cars to use Bosch L-Jetronic injection. I'm pretty sure that this was the first fuel injection system that could last over 100k miles without the owner having to do anything to it.

lilengineerboy

Yeah the 914 2.0l is an RSS search on area classifieds and ebay for me. I miss California where you can find non-rustbucket cars though. There were 2 2002s as a package on eBay that ended today, reserve not met. They weren't rusty but they both needed a lot of attention. I am still tryin to find the auction to post it.

Mr_Shiftright

Yep, the 2.0s are the ones to get. A friend of mine who owns a Porsche repair shop keeps promising to build me a motor for a nice black 2.0 he has in his back garage. That would be a fun car, as he would punch it up to 2.2 or 2.4.

Actually VW produced the first production electronic fuel injection in 1968 I believe--but it's the same basic engine as the 914.

These early electronic injection systems do work fine but....BUT...they have problems with bad grounding...it behooves any owner to check these and clean them and also install better grounding for the system. So unlike modern injection systems, these need periodic cleaning and maintenance of the electronics...including the throttle sensor (similar to Volvo 140E systems.)

qbrozen

the board is quiet here today. anyway ... just ran across this

low mile '73 Grand-prix

andre1969

Hmmm, depending on how much rust there really is "here and there", that doesn't look like a bad car. I like that green, and the white interior is suprisingly clean looking, at least in the pics. I'd lose those rims though.

I imagine that 400-4bbl would have a lot more kick than the 350-2 in my LeMans.

qbrozen

This seems real interesting for the money. Needs a TON of questions answered, though. And the location of that gas tank scares the HELL out of me! IS that normal? What is supposed to be there?

I'll just throw this one in here for the discussion factor.

qbrozen

hehe. and i almost posted, "except for that color ..."



I have a tough time living with green on a car. Has to be a real nice shade.

fintail

That gas tank looks like it is where the bumper should attach. Scary, that can't be right.

Esprits are flammable, Shifty will have a lot to say.

Mr_Shiftright

Lotus Esprit--basically a sale-proof car. I don't know how he would sell it at that price. Fun to drive, hell to own.

andre1969

that is where the gas tank is on a '32 Chevy. Here's a pic of a 1932 Chevy 4-door, and you can see the fuel filler cap just to the right of the license plate.

qbrozen

so is the tank just supposed to be painted like the body? Or is there some sheet metal missing of the car for sale?
Its tough to tell in that 4-door showcar pic.

qbrozen

My first thought when I saw that ad was: the owner only put 900 miles on it in 3 years for a REASON.

so what is a realistic price on such a vehicle?

andre1969

That rat-rod is at least missing the bumper and its mounts. Back then though, a lot of cars had gas tanks that just stuck out the back like that. The bumper and its mounts would probably add about 8" or more to the length of the car behind that tank.

As for another piece of sheetmetal, some cars may have offered it, to bridge the gap between the rear bumper and the body of the car, but I dunno if the Chevy did.

Mr_Shiftright

I really don't know. I don't think you could even sell a Lotus Esprit for any price....but maybe...I dunno....somebody might bite at $10,000....???There are so few buyers out there that you can't afford to turn one away, is the problem.

qbrozen

interesting.

i'm surprised. I mean, I would think there are a ton of young buyers who saw these as kids (like me) and always thought of them as an unattainable supercar like Ferraris and Lambos. And now they see them for a price like this and want to jump all over it without doing their due diligence.

Hell, if I had more disposable income ...
then again, there are other vehicles I'm sure I'd pick over the Lotus if I really did have the money to burn.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh, you might not know how horrendous these cars can be to own....I mean, all they do is break...the Lotus Esprit Club might be the only car club I know of that lists a "fire secretary" They keep track of all engine fires in these cars...my friends who own Fantasy Junction car dealership won't even allow one of these cars on the showroom floor, for fear of fire! It's hard to have a car more troublesome than a Lamborghini but I think Lotus achieved that.

benjaminh

Transmission went bad months after a new $2800 paint job. The question is why they put such an expensive painjob on an essentially worthless car to begin with....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1985-Oldsmobile-98_W0QQitemZ160035100748QQihZ006Q- QcategoryZ6407QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Mr_Shiftright

That's somewhat of a budget paint job where I live, especially if there was body work involved. However, you're right, relative to the car, it's an expensive job. I would have painted it will a vacuum cleaner or something.

oregonboy

I'm speechless, but I know that this group will not be similarly affected.

http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/car/213023109.html

james

lilengineerboy

Tapped out 'lude
So this guy wants $1000 for a used up rusty Prelude with a bad trans.

benjaminh

Wow. That is weird. Where is the 626--the engine? The seats?

When I had my 88 Olds 98 repainted I went to--you guessed it--Maaco. It cost something like $400. And that wasn't their bottom of the line paint job. It was more than 4 years ago, and it's still holding up. I think I got my money's worth, but I have to admit that at least once every month I wonder if it's going to start peeling or something.

How could $2800 be a low cost paint job? What's a high cost paint job?

Mr_Shiftright

You mean a paint job where they take out the glass, remove the trim and go down to at least primer and/or bare metal?

About $6,000 on up to around $12,000 for a really nice paint job that would make people go WOW and that will look good 10 years from now and where there is no overspray, tape lines, orangepeel, curtains, fish eyes, dust, dry brush, ripples, checking, bondo, etc. and where door jambs, trunk engine bay, etc. are all done.

it's all in the details.

My rule of thumb is that the paint job should cost about 1/4 the value of the car, up to around $50,000---then it levels off.

jlflemmons

Nice little MGB

gsemike

Around here (Long Island) paint jobs are very expensive. I wouldn't call $2800 an economy job, but these guys make so much money on collision repair, that they've got to make it worth the bother to paint a car.

jlflemmons

'71 Spitfire in rough condition, only $5K!

stickguy

I love it! At the right \price, I would bring it home!

Truly bizarre to see the shifter from my old 626 in a 'Cuda body though. Wonder how the heck they made this work? Is it even legit?

Actually, it wouldn't surpwise me if the Cuda body fit over the mazda, like a cover! It most have been bigger than the Mazda, right?

johnster

Well, it's in decent condition for what it is :P, but really, get a '74 or earlier model without the ugly bumpers. Or better yet, something before '68 when they had a little bit of performance.

Mr_Shiftright

real MG people hate the rubber bumper cars, and with good reason. Ugly and slow and handle like hogs on ice. Depressing to drive, really.

andre1969

they were about 192" long I think, and rode on a 108" wheelbase. I don't think Mazda even today makes cars on a wheelbase that long. Isn't the Mazda6 on a 105" wheelbase?

I'd guess that Barracuda probably weighed about 2800 pounds stock, with a slant six and no air conditioning. However, the slant six was a heavy engine, about 475 pounds. Going from that boat anchor to a 4-cyl probably saved close to 200 pounds right there.

That thing is actually kinda neat. I'd like to see it in person. It's weird seeing a Mopar A-body engine bay with strut towers and a transverse-mounted 4-cyl! I wonder what kind of fuel economy something like this would get? It looks like that engine/tranny combo was rated at 26/32 in the 626. The EPA wasn't around during the time of the '68 Barracuda, but with my '69 Dart 225 slant six, I'd get around 15-18 around town and 22-23 on the highway.

I guess something like that might actually be marginally safer than a real Barracuda, since in a frontal collision, the engine, especially if it was a slant six, would be less likely to shove back into the passenger cabin.

Neat idea for a cool looking economy car!

qbrozen

engine fires? well ... i did say if I had money to "burn." LoL.

qbrozen

I'm disturbed by this.

I don't think its necessarily a horrible idea, if you can pull it off safely, but an old 4-cylinder 626 is NOT where I would start.