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

Mr_Shiftright

I never understood the appeal of a Dart 6. I think I'd get tired of it in about 10 minutes.

andre1969

The posting got deleted before I could see it. What year Dart was it? A Dart/Valiant with the larger 225 slant six actually isn't a bad car. Pretty well-balanced, good blend of power and economy, pretty torquey, so even though they're not the best revver in the world, they really don't need to to get the job done. By the time the late 60's rolled around, a Dart with the 225 was actually faster than an Impala with a 307.

If you specified the optional 2.94:1 axle, it gave them a bit more kick around town. Most of 'em just had a 2.76:1 though. I had a '69 Dart GT hardtop with the slant six, and it was a great little car. Good looking, sturdy, reliable, roomy, decent handling (with 205/70/R14 tires at least), fairly economical (about 15-18 around town, 21-23 on the highway, and using the a/c didn't seem to hurt it one bit), and it would hit 100 mph with little strain.

Sure, just about any V-8 compact is going to be more fun. Well, except for maybe a mid-late 70's domestic compact V-8. By that time, they got so heavy and so smog-choked that you needed a V-8 to match the performance of a late 60's 6-cyl!

gsemike

I'm with you. I had a 72 Dart slant 6. The car was no fun at all. A 340 Duster with a 4 speed is something that I could go for.

fintail

It was a 66 Dart 2 door post, white on red, looked to be very clean and sound.

Mr_Shiftright

I would just be so tempted, if I was driving a Dart 6, to put passengers in the rear seat, turn around and say "where to, Mac?"

qbrozen

I never understood the appeal of a Dart 6.

well, its not very appealing to most people, which is why its an affordable classic.

seems like anything with a v8 from the 60s is overpriced these days. So a good-looking 6-cyl coupe is just fine with me (and some sedans, too).

And, honestly, I think any rear drive coupe from the 60s is potentially more fun (and worlds better looking) than the millions of front-drive 4-cyl family sedans being sold today. So, even as a used grocery getter, it has appeal to me.

Mr_Shiftright

I think you should spend a day with one before you buy it :P

Mr_Shiftright

And who said miracles don't happen?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=013&sspagename=STRK%- 3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=230059676454&rd=1,1

fintail

Buyer has iffy feedback and no feedback has been left for the 3 week old auction...seems fake. Not that a price that has to be 3x a pristine example is odd.

qbrozen

i've spent more than that with it .... but that was about 15 years ago. About 10 years ago, I had a '79 Mercury Zephyr 2-door with the 200 I6. Pretty much an unchanged car from the 60s fords, like the 6-cyl mustang (i had a '66 stang and found most parts interchangeable with my zephyr). I found it to be a competent car. Nothing like a musclecar or even a entry-level sportscar, certainly ... but, again, given the RWD, it was at least fun to slide around turns. Way more fun than a 4-cyl camry, for my money.

Mr_Shiftright

It's a lunatic price that's for sure.

fintail

I just stumbled across this...lots of freakshows here

andre1969

About 10 years ago, I had a '79 Mercury Zephyr 2-door with the 200 I6.

Heck, if you could tolerate a car like that, a Dart or Valiant with a 225 will feel like a musclecar to ya! I had my '69 Dart GT slant six for about 2 years and 27,000 miles, and my only real complaint about the slant six was that it could get really cranky in cold, wet weather. It could handle freezing weather just fine, but it seemed like those cold, damp rainy days when it was just above freezing, it couldn't deal with.

The Zephyr would probably handle better than a Dart, with its rack and pinion steering and tighter wheelbase (~105.5" versus 111") but if you put a set of 195 or 205 70-series tires on it, it would make a world of difference in handling.

There was a 2-bbl version of the slant six offered in the 60's and early 70's for export markets that bumped the hp from 145 to 160 (in net hp it bumped it from 110 to 120), but unfortunately it was never offered here. I'd imagine that if you set up a '63-72 Dart 225 with that carb and a 2.94 rear end, it would be kinda fun.

You could get a 2-bbl "Super Six" setup in the '77-79 Volare, which put out 110 hp, and it had a 2.94:1 rear end, but it just wasn't the same, as the Volare was a few hundred pounds heavier than a Dart and the emissions controls were more strangling.

I have an old Mopar Performance catalog that lists everything you need to do to get a slant six Dart/Valiant to do the quarter mile in under 14 seconds. Unfortunately, one of the things it mentioned was "reduce vehicle weight to under 2600 pounds". :surprise: So, the slant six *can* be made to perform, but it's just easier to start with a V-8.

gsemike

All I remember about my Dart was that I had to put my foot through the floor to get it to move and that it would spin out under hard braking. Not a fun car at all.

fintail

Not a classic or even redeeming in any way...just thought it was funny. This has to be totalled about 4 times over

Mr_Shiftright

I had a 4-speed Valiant coupe for a short time. It was kinda fun but a noisy critter with an ornery gearbox linkage. 1965 I think it was, 2-door hardtop. That big six could pull in the low gears but it ran out of air really fast as I recall. It was a car that everyone tried to like but there was just something unpleasant about it and it never really stuck with any of us who drove it.

Perhaps too truck like. I'm sure that it could have been vastly improved by an imaginative owner.

boomchek

I guess he's looking for someone desperate for work, otherwise he'd be getting it fixed by now. And I don't think $1000 will cover the damages anyways, probably not even the parts.

fintail

When I look at it, I see a $4500 repair bill on a $3000 car.

boomchek

He should donate it or sell it to a body shop school where they can tinker with it. I'm guessing he had no insurance or money to pay for the repair.

fintail

Yeah...when you are begging on CL for a repair, that's not a good sign. Either that or he bought it as a wreck, thought he could fix it on the cheap, then got a visit from reality.

Another diesel dreamer. Also nice to leave out such insignificant details as year, mileage, features, etc when asking 2x+ market for your car.

Mr_Shiftright

re: Diesel --- well, you can see what happened here. He fell for the dealer's pitch and overpaid for the car, found out it was a nasty thing to have to drive all day every day, and that running biodiesel is really expensive, and now wants the marketplace to bail him out of his paying over retail for a dream that has a harsher reality.

boomchek

It'll be on there for quite some time.

Mr_Shiftright

Or maybe he just wanted heated seats, cupholders and the ability to get out of his own way----reasonable enough demands...

boomchek

Not the best photo to prove it's in good shape

Waaaaay out to lunch

"You can drive it home but it does not turn right" Well it's going to be a fun drive home

Neat Mustang, funny write up

Old school Suburban

First Gen M3

Nice Benz, too bad about the $19k accident history

akangl

I really should stay off of Ebay, but its fun to dream.

This one is my favorite only because its a sleeper:

66 Fairlane

However, this one has eye appeal and is really really nice:

67 Fairlane

I used to be stuck on Trans Ams, but hubby's got me hooked on the Fairlane. Might have to pony up some greenbacks and go find one some day, lol, yeah, when my kids stop showing horses and I have money again.

qbrozen

my zephyr still holds my personal record for long-distance high-speed driving. 3 states at 100+ mph. Turned a 5-hour drive into just under 3. I was young and stupid, what can I say? I can only guess at the speed most of the time since, as I recall, the speedo topped at 95 mph. I had the needle past the numbers and pinned straight down.

Mr_Shiftright

'71 Mustang needs to drop to about 1/2 price he is asking.

andre1969

"shoe-box car"? I caught it on another site, and it aroused my curiosity. Here's the context it was used in...

"...which is why, in lieu of title services, so many people are resorting to dealing with "shoe-box cars" these days in order to save/rescue a vintage car just to avoid an argument with some moron across the counter with an ego and a lunch date."

I'm guessing it has something to do with buying an old car that doesn't have a title, and just never bothering to title/tag it, for whatever (possibly illegal) reasons?

fintail

That same dealer also sells Smart cars for like $26K.

fintail

Nice looking C140, but yeah shame it has a history...his price is high too.

That M3 has been on Seattle CL as well, wants like 18K for it.

I like the Mustang too...but who would buy such a thing and not want attention? I mean, I get strangers coming up to me in the fintail even, wanting to talk old cars.

fintail

Sounds right...or maybe a title created with materials one would keep in a shoebox (old registrations etc)?

The only other place I have heard that in regards to cars is the nickname for 49-51 Fords.

fintail

I am sure you could find an OK one cheaper, too. I mean, on those Alaska roads, you don't want it to be too perfect right?

Those cars are cheap compared to their GM/Mopar counterparts.

fintail

What a great investment

Mr_Shiftright

Delorean -- try $18,000, and if you find one of the 7 people in America who still want a mint one, sell it for that price and hug the buyer by the ankles.

boomchek

Hey I always wanted a Delorean.

Mr_Shiftright

yes, but not at that price, right?

Personally I don't think there's a Delorean in the world worth over $12,000. I mean, aside from some movie fame, what have we got here? A pretty mediocre car.

fintail

If I had one of those things, I would have to outfit it like this

When I was little, there was a guy in my town who had a red Delorean. Doesn't that negate most of what makes the car special?

british_rover

Hmhh I saw a red delorean in Madison WI once. Did you live near there as a kid?

fintail

Nope, never been there. I swear I have seen a couple other painted examples in books though.

jlflemmons

Packard Catfish???

It looks like a catfish to me.

Mr_Shiftright

It's actually a Studebaker. There is not anything Packard about it except the name they stuck on it. Packard would never have made anything so grotesque.

andre1969

I know this has been explained to me before, but I forget the answer. If Packard actually bought out Studebaker (it wasn't a merger of equals), then why was it that the Packard bodies were discontinued and not the Studebakers? And how come, in the end, the name Studebaker was what lived on, and not Packard?

I know the company was running out of R&D money very quickly, and buying financially ailing Studebaker really sealed Packard's fate, but was the Studebaker body considered more modern and competitive than the Packard? Or just cheaper to build, which I'm sure it was.

One thing I'll say for those Studes and Packardbakers...they did have pretty nice interiors and some cool dashboards. The dash was a bit sparse compared to most 50's cars, but had a clean, uncluttered look to it. It had everything within close reach of the driver, and full gauges (although I thought they had a tach, too?) that were closely grouped right in your line of vision. I like the way it wraps around on the sides, too...

Mr_Shiftright

No, Packard engineering was miles ahead of Studebaker. A 1955 Studebaker was hardly different than a 1936 Studebaker. I think the idea was that the luxury car market was totally unprofitable for Packard--they ended up selling I think only about 28,000 cars the year they merged with Studebaker. Pathetic, huh? I bet that General Motors LOSES more cars than that in shipping.

Packard pioneered active suspension, electronically controlled automatic transmissions, and the lock-up torque converter----all of which we have today on modern cars. Studebaker was still installing flathead 6 engines while Packard was doing this!!!

Basically Studebaker deceived Packard (or Packard was so desperate they didn't notice) about finances. Packard was literally gutted--many of its archives thrown in the trash, (!!!) and its longterm loyal employees dumped without notice or harrassed into early retirement.

It was one of the uglier forms of corporate behavior in the history of American business.

There have been books written about it. I don't remember all the details, but it isn't pretty.

Yet, I don't think Packard was salvagable....but it's demise could have been far more decent. Too bad GM didn't buy them. Perhaps Packard's engineering staff could have made GM more innovative.

jlflemmons

Packard, Studebaker, whatever ...

I still think it looks like a catfish.

Mr_Shiftright

They only made 588 of them, thankfully. A 58 Packard Hawk is just '58 a Studebaker Hawk with a fiberglass hood, and a '58 Studebaker Hawk is just a '55 Studebaker President coupe with a different hood and some fins welded on. A '55 Studebaker could be a 1935 Studebaker with a different body for all I know.... :P

To be fair, Studebaker wasn't the last manufacturer to use flathead engines...I believe American Motors was using them in 1963 or thereabouts...

fintail

Not many of these are still on the road

british_rover

Careful insulting those flathead motors there cause someone from the OHC engines are not better then pushrod motors argument will come in and tell you that flathead motors are the way to go and we never should have gone to OHV designs.

:confuse: :sick: :surprise:

andre1969

to a flathead motor? I guess if nothing else they're cheap, simple to fix, and durable. I've heard that aftermarket parts are pretty easy to come by as well, perhaps because they don't have that many internal pieces to begin with?

I knew a guy who had a 1950 DeSoto Custom sedan with a flathead six, which I think at that point was a 236.6 with something like 112 hp gross (about 90 net?) It wasn't a bad car around town, and out on the highway it had no trouble doing 65-70 mph. 0-60 was best measured with a sundial, but it seemed like passing power was pretty good. I'm guessing the thing was geared to keep it at its peak power range in most driving?

hpmctorque

Not many, to be sure, but they had a following until a few years ago. I imagine whatever following they have today would be minuscule. I think the Fiesta was a worthy competitor to the VW Rabbit of the late '70s/early '80s; fun to drive, but not too reliable or durable. Maybe they were more reliable than the trouble plagued Rabbits of that period, but Fiestas were tuned to run on premium fuel, which was inconsistent with the notion of economy. Come to think about it, the same applies to the MINI. The base MINI should be tuned to run on regular, in my opinion.

andre1969

When I was a teenager, my neighbors had a Ford Fiesta, in that burnt-orange color that seemed really popular on them. Guess that color was more adept at hiding rust?

I'm not sure what year it was, but they moved into the neighborhood in 1985, and it looked like it had been around the block a few times by then. Around 1992 they upgraded to a Honda CRX, and ditched the Fiesta. They also had a late 70's Corolla wagon that they retired at the same time. Of the two, I think the Fiesta may have been the better car. It had less rust on it, and they drove it more than the Corolla.