Someone ALWAYS legally owns a car at any given point, as far as the state is concerned. So one has to find out who is the LEGAL owner, which may not be the person selling you the vehicle...and THAT's a big problem.
So if that Dart had a clean title and checked out okay, what would be a reasonable price for it?
Last year one of my cousins had a '75 Valiant 4-door that he sold for something like $2400. Really shocked me, because while it was fairly low mileage (60-70K miles), it was just a cheap, basic 4-door sedan and it had rust coming through the rear quarter panels. I think it did have air contioning, but that was about it. Personally, if I needed a car I would've offered him like $800 for it, so I think he got off real lucky, selling it for $2400!
I know that in general 2-doors are worth a lot more than 4-doors, but it seems like in the 70's that gap narrowed. Personally, I think the Dart is way cool in that it's still a hardtop, but still, the market for an early 70's economy car probably isn't that hot.
Maybe he got lucky but a database of one drunken sailor's purchase of a rusty Dart doesn't make the market.
But sure a really clean 2 door hardtop for $2,000...why not? You could hardly buy any clean, decent, ready to roll used car for $2,000 anymore. But $2K is approaching top dollar for a 6 cylinder car that is a clean "driver" (not mint). If it were a pristing V8 car (Demon 340 e.g.), sure, it would bring way more money.
It's the old story---the more the POWER under the hood, the more you'll get for a "classic" American car.
well, i assumed that would be a matter to be worked out prior to purchasing, that's for sure. No way I'd buy a car with no title and leave it at that. I mean, you can't register it without a title!
Hot rodding the '59 rambler is exactly what i was thinking of.
'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'd be tempted by that Dart, depending on what it looks like in person. Most likely it just has a 225 slant six, which put out 110 hp that year. I think there was still a 198 variant that had 100 hp, but if it was still around by '72, it was very rarely ordered. If it's a V-8, it would be a 318-2bbl with 150 hp. There was also a 340 available, but only in high-performance versions. It put out 245 hp.
according to wikipedia, the 198 was standard starting in 1970 (which shared a block with the 225), the 225 and 340 were optional. The older 170 engine was 115hp and they call the 225 an upgrade, so I'm assuming its something like 125-130hp? So that would make the 198 ... what? 120hp?
'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
Well the 1970 numbers were gross hp. The old 170 put out 115 gross in its later years, and wasn't around to be rated in net. The 198 put out 125 gross, but I think for 1972 it was rated at 100 net. The 225 slant six put out 145 hp gross, and 110 net in 1972. There was a California version that was choked down to 100 hp, though.
1972 wasn't a bad year for the Dart, as they really weren't choking the engines down too bad yet (except for that California 225). The only hp loss was a "paper" loss in this case, although there were many cars that saw a compression cut that year, so you got a real loss of hp hidden in with the paper loss.
I always used to laugh when I took apart a slant 6. I would look at the pieces and wonder how it could run with so few parts inside. I would keep looking under the bench for more. I was so used to fuss-budget foreign engines with ohc and shimmed valves and aluminum heads. The /6s were such wood stoves in comparison. They used to sludge up like crazy but they were hard to kill...they died slowly, slowly...never in a dramatic fashion---the sure sign of a basically good engine.
Agricultural to the max. Reminded me in many ways of the MGB 1.8 engine or the Volvo B20---tough, rough and torquey.
I always used to laugh when I took apart a slant 6. I would look at the pieces and wonder how it could run with so few parts inside.
But was there anything about the Mopar slant six that was inherently simpler, or with fewer moving parts than, say, the Chevy inline-6 that was introduced around 1962? Or the two Ford families of inline-6? (the smaller 144/170/200 CID Falcon/Fairlane unit or the larger 240/250/300 CID big car/Granada/truck unit)
As for the sludge, I heard that was actually a beneficial aspect of them, because it wouldn't hurt them like it would with a modern engine, but it would help clog up oil leaks! :P
My Dad had a 1978 Ford Granada with the 250 straight-6. That engine was extremely easy to service and extremely reliable if not very powerful. I miss that kind of beautiful simplicity!
I guess it was just so easy to take apart and had no clutter on it. You could rebuild it with a pair of vice grips practically and it didn't much matter if you were precise or not. I had to keep reminding myself this wasn't a Ferrari---you could just bang a slant six together, it didn't seem to care. I built about 6 of them all told. The hardest part was lifting them.
but this 1977 Bonneville Bro-hamm doesn't look too bad. Nicely equipped, and it has the 400-4bbl and the groovy "Valencia" interior. I wonder what that stain is next to the car, though?
I always thought the skirts made these cars look fat, though. And Bonnevilles always had fussier grilles, which may explain why I always preferred the Catalina in this timeframe, even if they weren't as plush. I was always the same way with Chevies too, preferring the Impala to the Caprice in this timeframe.
oh man, Metropolitans are the WORST cars in the world to drive, despite the undeniable cuteness factor. I don't know how Nash managed to make a tiny car handle and brake like a Cadillac cornering on lasagna, but they did.
Basically a Nash Kelvinator refrigerator mated to an MGA 1500 cc engine and transmission, placed on a chassis designed somewhere around 1929.
If that was a 65 Fairlane 2-dr I'd have a hard time holding my hubby back from buying it. He had one until an uninsured driver decided to cross 4 lanes of traffic and wipe it out.
"Basically a Nash Kelvinator refrigerator mated to an MGA 1500 cc engine and transmission..." Same engine as the MGA, but the Metro featured three-on-the-tree versus four-on-the-floor for the MGA.
That must have been some "minor" fender bender to total a $7500 car. These things go pretty fast on the lots down here because of their reputation for reliability and cheap cost. 2002 Elantra GT
420SEL sounds nice and looks good, for the money especially. Any major failures would easily exceed the value of the car though, so it's one for a DIYer or to drive til it dies...which with a W126 could be some time.
MB 420SEL: Well I'd say give it the usual "used old Benz test" which means you sit in the car and play with every switch and knob and make darn sure everything works, including dash lights, speedometer, heat, etc. THEN you can go for a test drive.
It's not the driveline on an old Benz that'll kill you, it's all the gizmos attached to it that will break your back. Sure, you CAN drive with no heat and none of the windows working, but that's hardly any fun at all.
So if you need say -- four tires, brakes and rotors and dashboard lights, (not uncommon for a used car) you've just bought this car twice over already. It's not a $2,100 car, it's a $4,500 car in other words.
Worth checking out however, definitely if big tanks are your thing. You could deliver plywood or tear down houses with it when you aren't driving it for pleasure. :P
The Benz looks like it's in a nice shape for the money. Life shifty said one needs to do a good test of the electronics to see if anything isn't working. Otherwise it doesn't look beat up at all, but then most people who own these cars since new take care of them. It's the second/third owners who tend to get into them and not follow the proper/expensive maintenance schedule.
For the Elantra, I guess "reconditioned" is a nicer way of saying rebuilt or salvaged title.
As for the Aries, I bet he has $450 in impound fees racked up and needs the money to get it out of there.
Exactly right. This is why buying a cheap luxury car is dangerous---because as the price drops, the car falls into hands of people who haven't a hope of maintaining them properly.
e.g.--what are the cheapest Porsches you can buy?
914s, 924s, early 944s.
AND--what are the rattiest Porsches you will ever see?
For the Elantra, I guess "reconditioned" is a nicer way of saying rebuilt or salvaged title.
Truthfully how bad is it to have a vehicle with a reconstruct title? Our 97 F-250 has one. Does it matter WHY the vehicle has one or is the rule all reconstruct titles are bad no matter what? Just curious, I've never had to deal with this issue before buying the F-250. Kind of strange to see the title with big bold letters at the top saying *Reconstructed Vehicle*.
It has to do with resale value more than reliability, but it also depends on why it has the salvage/reconstruct title. Flood vehicles can be horribly problematic, for instance.
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
we had one of those when I was a little kid, but I don't remember it very well. At the time, my Mom had a '68 Impala 4-door hardtop, and Dad had a beat-up '62 Corvette that had a 4-speed, which Mom couldn't drive, and even if she could, well it was broken down half the time. Dad had a bad habit of going out with his buddies on the weekend and he'd take Mom's car, leaving her at home, alone, with a baby, and a car she couldn't drive, so if there was an emergency she'd be screwed.
So, Granddad found this non-running '64 Galaxie that some friend of the family wanted gone. I think he gave them like 50 or 70 bucks for it, put a new starter in it, and it was good to go. He got it so that my Dad would use it, instead of always driving my Mom's car. But Dad hated Fords, so he would still bum the Impala, and Mom would get stuck going to work and trotting me around in this old clunker Ford.
After my Mom and Dad got divorced, Granddad gave that old Ford to the mother of some friend of the family, and she drove it awhile until she wrecked it. As I recall, it wasn't a bad car, but was just old and out of style by that time. And Dad hated Fords, and as a kid I think some of that rubbed off on me! Granddad always hated Fords too, but I think part of that was because he was a self-taught mechanic, and to him CM cars were just easier to work on than Fords.
Anyway, it was kind of a medium blue 4-door sedan, and as I recall, it had a 352.
It has to do with resale value more than reliability, but it also depends on why it has the salvage/reconstruct title. Flood vehicles can be horribly problematic, for instance.
The story we got which seems to be true was that the truck was purchased in early 05 by a military kid from affordable used cars in Fairbanks. The truck was pretty clean I guess according to the guys at affordable. In the year he had it he destroyed it, I mean dented, dinged, his dogs mangled the interior, basically just beat it up bad. He blew the front diff in the truck and then someone sanded the fuel tanks. He turned it into the insurance company, they totalled the truck, he bought it back for $1500, cleaned the fuel system and drove it for a couple more months. Then he was told he was going to england and the truck couldn't go due to the reconstruct title. His buddy totalled his wife's truck so he got in a hurry and sold us the Ford for $2000. We replaced the front diff, got the tranny flushed, and have been driving it for the past 4 months with no real issues other than glow plugs. We own the truck for about $3k including new tires. It books for around $15k in good shape (which it isn't except mechanically which its sound).
Oh and the funny part.......he ended up not going to England because he got into too much trouble right before he was to go.
I suppose eventually we'll sell it, maybe, I dunno, hubby's pretty attached to it, lol.
my next door neighbor has an occasional driver '69 corvette convertible, and i have an occasional driver '91 mustang 5.0 convertible. they are for fun. sometimes when one of us starts their car in the winter, the other will run their car at the same time, just for kicks. of course, i can't compete with a 427 with side pipe exhausts. at one the block parties, we were talking about when do you drive your car, etc... another neighbor came over and said he used to have a tr7. awkward silence followed. oops. :sick:
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Looks nearly the same as the '91 my grandmother used to own. I tell you, she could flat MOVE that car. It seemed rather anemic when she first bought it but, as she put it, she "trained it well." The only thing real memorable about it was its ride on the highway. I have never been in a car that had a smoother, quieter ride. There was this one gravel road, in particular, that was just riddled with various sized 2-3" deep pot holes. She was driving the car at 35 along the length of this road and if I had not seen the holes, I would have never known we were traversing them.
It was, indeed, a very large car. :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
Yeah, my old boss had a late old school TC, like a 96 or 97. I rode in it once...like being on a cloud, but I suspect it handled like a cloud too. It did have more class than the current style, I think.
Didn't say I was going to buy it, just look since it is rare for something posted here to be close to me!
I almost did buy one though, probably about 10 years ago? It was IIRC an '80 TR-7 convertible, some "special" model (I think it was a spyder). But, it was very clean and well cared for, drove pretty nice (at least I think I drove it!). Good body/interior, etc. For 2K, didn't seem like a bad deal. Mush better than a couple of real rats I saw at about the same time.
oddly, a black convertible didn't look too bad.
I right now want to get a Volvo P1800E that is on Ebay (a couple, not the wagon), but the wife seems to have other ideas.
Problem with the TR-7, aside from being British in the late 1970s or early 80s, is that you can't keep a head gasket on them. The engines are totally defective...you can't even fix them short of a major bit of re-engineering. This was the same junky engine Saab used for while until they re-thought the whole thing.
Not a project car question, but since you guys know everything about every car made: I just rewatched My Cousin Vinny. The whole case hinged on the Buick Skylark have a live rear axle, but what about the 63 Tempest? Would that car realy have had independant rear suspension and posi? Ut was such a critical part of the movie, but I'd be really suprised if it wasn't solid axle like all the GM intermediates.
I've never seen that whole movie the whole way through, but I caught the tail end of it with one of my friends not too long ago, when they were going on about the part of the Buick Skylark versus the Tempest. I started cracking up at how detail-oriented they got, while most of that stuff went right over my buddy's head. But he said he knew I'd get a kick out of it!
Anyway, while the '61-63 Special/Tempest/F-85 were the same basic platform, the Pontiac was much more unique than the other two. First off, instead of a tiny V-6 or V-8 engine, it came with a Pontiac "Slant Four", a 389 V-8 with one bank of cylinders missing. I think it put out something like 120 hp, which was about the norm for an engine of that displacement at the time, but I'm sure doing it that way made for a heavy engine!
The Tempest also had a flexible driveshaft that went from the engine, bending down under the floor, to a transaxle mounted in the back of the car. This made for a roomier interior, as the driveshaft hump was smaller and there was no transmission hump up front, but I'd imagine that it had to take up room somewhere in the back, sacrificing trunk room, fuel tank capacity, or something.
It also had an independent rear suspension, a swing-axle design similar to the Corvair. I guess having the transaxle in the back was what predicated the IRS. I've heard that it had all the potential for terror on the highway that the Corvair did, but somehow this little scandal-in-the-making flew under Ralph Nader's radar screen.
Another thing that the Tempest had that was very unique for the time was 15" rims. The F-85 and Special most likely rode on 13" rims. I think the VW Bug was one of the few other cars of the time to have 15" rims. Just about all full-sized cars had gone down to 14" rims by 1957, and most wouldn't go back up to 15" rims until the late 60's.
I remember reading with the Corvair, that it was critical to watch the tire pressure. It was supposed to be something like 15 psi up front, and 26 psi in the rear. Most people didn't pay that much attention to their cars or owner's manuals, and simply inflated the tires to 25 psi all around (or whatever was common on bias-ply tires of the era) and that's what caused the handling problems. I wonder if the Tempest required different front and rear tire pressures, as well?
As for posi-traction though, I don't know. I guess it's possible that Pontiac made it standard on the Tempest, but I doubt it.
Thanks Andre. Another critical point of the movie is that both the Skylark and Tempest had identical 75R 14s on em. I guess that they missed on that one, although of course the tires could have been swapped over the Tempest's long life.
Comments
Last year one of my cousins had a '75 Valiant 4-door that he sold for something like $2400. Really shocked me, because while it was fairly low mileage (60-70K miles), it was just a cheap, basic 4-door sedan and it had rust coming through the rear quarter panels. I think it did have air contioning, but that was about it. Personally, if I needed a car I would've offered him like $800 for it, so I think he got off real lucky, selling it for $2400!
I know that in general 2-doors are worth a lot more than 4-doors, but it seems like in the 70's that gap narrowed. Personally, I think the Dart is way cool in that it's still a hardtop, but still, the market for an early 70's economy car probably isn't that hot.
Maybe he got lucky but a database of one drunken sailor's purchase of a rusty Dart doesn't make the market.
But sure a really clean 2 door hardtop for $2,000...why not? You could hardly buy any clean, decent, ready to roll used car for $2,000 anymore. But $2K is approaching top dollar for a 6 cylinder car that is a clean "driver" (not mint). If it were a pristing V8 car (Demon 340 e.g.), sure, it would bring way more money.
It's the old story---the more the POWER under the hood, the more you'll get for a "classic" American car.
Hot rodding the '59 rambler is exactly what i was thinking of.
'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
Y'know, that thought has crossed my mind! :shades:
according to wikipedia, the 198 was standard starting in 1970 (which shared a block with the 225), the 225 and 340 were optional. The older 170 engine was 115hp and they call the 225 an upgrade, so I'm assuming its something like 125-130hp? So that would make the 198 ... what? 120hp?
'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
1972 wasn't a bad year for the Dart, as they really weren't choking the engines down too bad yet (except for that California 225). The only hp loss was a "paper" loss in this case, although there were many cars that saw a compression cut that year, so you got a real loss of hp hidden in with the paper loss.
Agricultural to the max. Reminded me in many ways of the MGB 1.8 engine or the Volvo B20---tough, rough and torquey.
But was there anything about the Mopar slant six that was inherently simpler, or with fewer moving parts than, say, the Chevy inline-6 that was introduced around 1962? Or the two Ford families of inline-6? (the smaller 144/170/200 CID Falcon/Fairlane unit or the larger 240/250/300 CID big car/Granada/truck unit)
As for the sludge, I heard that was actually a beneficial aspect of them, because it wouldn't hurt them like it would with a modern engine, but it would help clog up oil leaks! :P
I always thought the skirts made these cars look fat, though. And Bonnevilles always had fussier grilles, which may explain why I always preferred the Catalina in this timeframe, even if they weren't as plush. I was always the same way with Chevies too, preferring the Impala to the Caprice in this timeframe.
Quite a loud interior in that '77 Bonnie...but it looks like a good cruiser for the $$$.
Basically a Nash Kelvinator refrigerator mated to an MGA 1500 cc engine and transmission, placed on a chassis designed somewhere around 1929.
If that was a 65 Fairlane 2-dr I'd have a hard time holding my hubby back from buying it. He had one until an uninsured driver decided to cross 4 lanes of traffic and wipe it out.
'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
great track car
could at least be fun to drive for a little while
opinions from the Benz crowd?
Soo... is that $450 PLUS impound fees?
'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
2002 Elantra GT
I can't believe someone restored a TR7.
It's not the driveline on an old Benz that'll kill you, it's all the gizmos attached to it that will break your back. Sure, you CAN drive with no heat and none of the windows working, but that's hardly any fun at all.
So if you need say -- four tires, brakes and rotors and dashboard lights, (not uncommon for a used car) you've just bought this car twice over already. It's not a $2,100 car, it's a $4,500 car in other words.
Worth checking out however, definitely if big tanks are your thing. You could deliver plywood or tear down houses with it when you aren't driving it for pleasure. :P
For the Elantra, I guess "reconditioned" is a nicer way of saying rebuilt or salvaged title.
As for the Aries, I bet he has $450 in impound fees racked up and needs the money to get it out of there.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
e.g.--what are the cheapest Porsches you can buy?
914s, 924s, early 944s.
AND--what are the rattiest Porsches you will ever see?
answer: all of the above.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Truthfully how bad is it to have a vehicle with a reconstruct title? Our 97 F-250 has one. Does it matter WHY the vehicle has one or is the rule all reconstruct titles are bad no matter what? Just curious, I've never had to deal with this issue before buying the F-250. Kind of strange to see the title with big bold letters at the top saying *Reconstructed Vehicle*.
So, Granddad found this non-running '64 Galaxie that some friend of the family wanted gone. I think he gave them like 50 or 70 bucks for it, put a new starter in it, and it was good to go. He got it so that my Dad would use it, instead of always driving my Mom's car. But Dad hated Fords, so he would still bum the Impala, and Mom would get stuck going to work and trotting me around in this old clunker Ford.
After my Mom and Dad got divorced, Granddad gave that old Ford to the mother of some friend of the family, and she drove it awhile until she wrecked it. As I recall, it wasn't a bad car, but was just old and out of style by that time. And Dad hated Fords, and as a kid I think some of that rubbed off on me! Granddad always hated Fords too, but I think part of that was because he was a self-taught mechanic, and to him CM cars were just easier to work on than Fords.
Anyway, it was kind of a medium blue 4-door sedan, and as I recall, it had a 352.
The story we got which seems to be true was that the truck was purchased in early 05 by a military kid from affordable used cars in Fairbanks. The truck was pretty clean I guess according to the guys at affordable. In the year he had it he destroyed it, I mean dented, dinged, his dogs mangled the interior, basically just beat it up bad. He blew the front diff in the truck and then someone sanded the fuel tanks. He turned it into the insurance company, they totalled the truck, he bought it back for $1500, cleaned the fuel system and drove it for a couple more months. Then he was told he was going to england and the truck couldn't go due to the reconstruct title. His buddy totalled his wife's truck so he got in a hurry and sold us the Ford for $2000. We replaced the front diff, got the tranny flushed, and have been driving it for the past 4 months with no real issues other than glow plugs. We own the truck for about $3k including new tires. It books for around $15k in good shape (which it isn't except mechanically which its sound).
Oh and the funny part.......he ended up not going to England because he got into too much trouble right before he was to go.
I suppose eventually we'll sell it, maybe, I dunno, hubby's pretty attached to it, lol.
they are for fun. sometimes when one of us starts their car in the winter, the other will run their car at the same time, just for kicks. of course, i can't compete with a 427 with side pipe exhausts.
at one the block parties, we were talking about when do you drive your car, etc... another neighbor came over and said he used to have a tr7. awkward silence followed. oops. :sick:
It was, indeed, a very large car. :P
I almost did buy one though, probably about 10 years ago? It was IIRC an '80 TR-7 convertible, some "special" model (I think it was a spyder). But, it was very clean and well cared for, drove pretty nice (at least I think I drove it!). Good body/interior, etc. For 2K, didn't seem like a bad deal. Mush better than a couple of real rats I saw at about the same time.
oddly, a black convertible didn't look too bad.
I right now want to get a Volvo P1800E that is on Ebay (a couple, not the wagon), but the wife seems to have other ideas.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Anyway, while the '61-63 Special/Tempest/F-85 were the same basic platform, the Pontiac was much more unique than the other two. First off, instead of a tiny V-6 or V-8 engine, it came with a Pontiac "Slant Four", a 389 V-8 with one bank of cylinders missing. I think it put out something like 120 hp, which was about the norm for an engine of that displacement at the time, but I'm sure doing it that way made for a heavy engine!
The Tempest also had a flexible driveshaft that went from the engine, bending down under the floor, to a transaxle mounted in the back of the car. This made for a roomier interior, as the driveshaft hump was smaller and there was no transmission hump up front, but I'd imagine that it had to take up room somewhere in the back, sacrificing trunk room, fuel tank capacity, or something.
It also had an independent rear suspension, a swing-axle design similar to the Corvair. I guess having the transaxle in the back was what predicated the IRS. I've heard that it had all the potential for terror on the highway that the Corvair did, but somehow this little scandal-in-the-making flew under Ralph Nader's radar screen.
Another thing that the Tempest had that was very unique for the time was 15" rims. The F-85 and Special most likely rode on 13" rims. I think the VW Bug was one of the few other cars of the time to have 15" rims. Just about all full-sized cars had gone down to 14" rims by 1957, and most wouldn't go back up to 15" rims until the late 60's.
I remember reading with the Corvair, that it was critical to watch the tire pressure. It was supposed to be something like 15 psi up front, and 26 psi in the rear. Most people didn't pay that much attention to their cars or owner's manuals, and simply inflated the tires to 25 psi all around (or whatever was common on bias-ply tires of the era) and that's what caused the handling problems. I wonder if the Tempest required different front and rear tire pressures, as well?
As for posi-traction though, I don't know. I guess it's possible that Pontiac made it standard on the Tempest, but I doubt it.
Hacked wiring job no title something looks funny
If it is on the up and up it sounds like a good deal.
You could proabably sell the carbon fiber bits and get your purchase price back.
Weird pile of tin
'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