They did bump up the size of them over the years. By the time they came into the US in the 1980s they were 3.9, 4.0 or 4.2 liters.
Still only made about a 175-189 hp though. By the time they were done with the engine in 2002-2004 it was up to 4.6 liters and 220-222 hp but made over 300 ft-lbs of torque.
Torque is good...
One of our techs was telling me that taking either a 4.6 crank and putting it in a 4.0 block or the other way around, I forget which it is now, makes a really great powerful engine with fewer problems then either of the regular engines.
Dad was an Olds service manager during the great 215 Aluminum debate. His shop had excellent service with these engines because as soon as they came in, the coolant was drained and replaced with one that wouldn't corrode the aluminum. No overheating problems. Funny this topic showed up as he and I were just talking about this the other day. The owner of the dealership group he worked for had come back from a zone meeting in Houston and wanted to know why so many dealers were having problems with these engines, and his dealerships weren't. When dad told him the service managers had all come to agreement on what was causing the problem and how to fix it, the owner spread the word.
Those Specials that had that Dual Path transmission were only able to move about 5MPH in reverse. This never bothered me but it was a quirky thing about them.
I like some '80s Cadillacs (like, say, Fleetwood Broughams), but not something like a FWD '80s Seville. I prefer the (relative) mechanical simplicity and classic styling of the B-bodies rather than the fussy FWD, lackluster engines and borderline nouveau 'classic' look of the Eldos and especially Sevilles, not that my feelings on the subject are unique here. Other than gas, I'd think an '80s DeVille (RWD) or Fleetwood would be a relatively inexpensive car to own: fairly easy to fix and parts are readily available, low-cost insurance, and you can buy a super nice example for $5k or so (just saw a beautiful '89 Fleetwood for $4500; it had a salvage title due to a supposedly minor accident which had been repaired, which to me doesn't seem like much of an issue on an almost 20 year-old vehicle).
Speaking of engines, the V8-6-4 was a disaster. Fairly often the call would come in of one of these monsters rolling up to a stop light on 4cyl mode, and not switching back to V8 mode. Try getting a high geared 5000lb sled moving with about 80HP. Many of these came into the shop on the hook because they didn't have enough oommph left on 4cyl to get in under their own power.
I guess my memories of these beasts is what scares me about the new "variable displacement" engines.
These things are all over this part of Texas, I don't know why the seller thinks it is rare. Then again, he doesn't know the difference between a V6 and an inline 6!
wooo-eeee. People are really tryin' to push the junk out the barnyard door ain't they? What a collection of tired sad machinery we have here. Bad technology, bad radiators, bad rust, or in the case of the Jaguar, an entirely bad car.
I wouldn't give you $500 for all four cars quite frankly, although the Chrysler at least has the possibility of running well for we presume not a large investment.
You can't make a silk purse out of a blah blah, and the Chrysler is the only worth car in the bunch IMO...and even that's touch and go if it's overheating.
Don't waste his time with stupid offers?! What the heck did he just do to us???? :mad: What a POS - and, seriously, are SB steps rare? If I see a 67-72 Chevy step, it is ONLY a short bed. :sick:
That has to be the worst example I have seen in a long, long time. It looks 30 years older than it actually is.
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
Speaking of engines, the V8-6-4 was a disaster. Fairly often the call would come in of one of these monsters rolling up to a stop light on 4cyl mode, and not switching back to V8 mode. Try getting a high geared 5000lb sled moving with about 80HP. Many of these came into the shop on the hook because they didn't have enough oommph left on 4cyl to get in under their own power.
I was told prior to the new generation of DOD engines, they used the 8-6-4 in livery vehicles where economy trumps performance (hearse was one of the examples). My guess is it went through some revisions since the early 80s but they were still put to work.
I was told prior to the new generation of DOD engines, they used the 8-6-4 in livery vehicles where economy trumps performance (hearse was one of the examples). My guess is it went through some revisions since the early 80s but they were still put to work.
I think they did use the V-8-6-4 up through 1985 for applications like the limo and hearse. The factory Caddy limo actually went FWD in 1985, but some long-wheelbase chassis models were built for custom coachwork and such.
I have a 1985 Consumer Guide that has a Fleetwood Brougham in it with the 4.1/4-speed auto. 0-60 came up in a leisurely 14.8 seconds. I'd imagine that if they tried putting the 4.1 in the hearses and limos it would be downright dangerous!
IIRC, the hearses and limos used the old THM400 transmission, a nice, beefy unit, but it probably would have sapped an awful lot of power from the already weak 4.1. Also, the 4-speed overdrive unit GM had back then, the THM200-R4 or whatever it was called, wasn't very strong. I think it was pretty much capped to a displacement of about 5 liters and a GVWR or around 6,000 pounds. In later years, GM did start mating it up to 350 Diesels, but I don't think they were torquey enough to hurt it. A Caddy 368 probably would have shredded it in short order, though.
Still, GM managed to put those 200-R4's in their full-sized wagons, up behind 305's and 307's. And the Grand National had one as well, so they must have found ways to beef it up.
I wonder how hard it is to disconnect the cylinder deactivation on the V-8-6-4? I've heard that it's actually a fine engine, if you can keep it on all 8 cylinders!
Cool...that beats the heck out of something like an '81-83 Imperial, where they're not bad cars if you swap out the fuel injection for a carbureted setup (preferably 4-bbl). But I imagine that would be a bit harder.
I think if I were to go for one of those bustleback Sevilles, I'd want the 1980 model with the 368. Motortrend or C&D did a test of one of them pitted against a 1980 5th Ave with a 318 and a 1980 Continental Mark VI which I think had a 351. The Seville did 0-60 in 10.6 seconds, which I think is downright impressive for something that was two tons and only had 150 hp! The Lincoln did it in 11.0, but both of them hit the quarter mile in 17.9, so I'd take that to mean that the Caddy was running out of steam and the Lincoln was starting to catch up?
The poor Chrysler wasn't even in the running. Its 318 was choked down to 120 hp that year, and was only able to run off a 14.1 0-60 time and a quarter mile of 19.8 seconds. If they had used a 360-2bbl it would've been a better match, but for these tests I guess they have to take the cars that are handed to them. And to be fair, the vast majority of 1980 NYers had only had a 318-2bbl. The 360-2bbl was a rare option that year, and finding one with a 4-bbl was probably on the same magnitude as finding the lost Ark of the Covenant.
But, with those pimpy downsized GM luxury cars, my preference runs towards the Riviera and especially the Toronado, anyway. I just thought they were more tastefully styled, especially on the inside, and they tended to have better engines (gas 350's early on and later on Olds 307's)
at the DC auto show, but by the time we got to the Ford display it was near closing time, so we had to rush it a bit and focused on ragging on, er, I mean checking out what was already available to the public, so we only saw the Airstream from a distance.
Yeah, me too, but then I have always been a sucker for vans... and this one somewhat reminds me of my '69 Econoline, were I to paint it in a mirrored silver. :P
That is not to say it is not an ill-conceived concept. I mean, if I were to actually see these things on the road then it would have to signal the beginning of the end - I am certain I would never buy a new car again. :sick:
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
If that Falcon is relatively sound, and runs and drives ok, I could see picking it up. It will never be something that you'd dump a ton of money into hoping to get some B. Jackson auction screen time on, but if you wanted an older car as your daily driver, you could do worse than that for that price.
Not a bad pick for a son's first car either. Something he can tinker with and obviously won't be winning any stoplight gran-prix's with!
I wouldn't pay that price if it's all dinged up though. I'd need to see the other panels. I already see maybe $600 damage. And no kid wants to drive a banged up car for his first one---that's cruel.
But if the interior was clean and there was only that one dent and the car could shine up nicely, might be a nice first car...it's not too big and wouldn't suck too much gas. Would be nice to install shoulder belts though.
Yeah but the things our parents did to us would now be worthy of criminal charges.
I think it's fine if the kid buys his own banged up car with his own money, but as a "gift"---I dunno, there's some baggage attached to that gesture that might not fly so well
Of course, if you bought the kid the Falcon, a new fender, a spray gun and a course in auto body at the community college, that might be pretty interesting.
scare me a bit, because they just seem too lightweight and fragile. Plus, that drop-in gas tank that hangs like 2 inches from the back of the car, with very little bracing of substance between it and the back of the car, never gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling. Something like a Valiant/Lancer/Dart or a Chevy II just seems to have much more substance, IMO.
Still, I'm guessing that, like the Pinto and the Chevy saddle-tank pickups, it's not like a gas tank fire happened as often as the media would have liked you to believe!
What 6-cyl would that Falcon have in it? I know there was a 170 CID unit out by that time, but they weren't still pushing that little 85 or so hp 144 unit, were they?
Interestingly, the Falcon rode the longest wheelbase of the initial big-three compacts. I think it was 109.5" or something like that, compared to 106.5 for the Valiant/Lancer and 108 for the Corvair. I think the Chevy II ended up being around 110.5", though. But for such a long wheelbase, the Falcon just looked so tiny to me.
I see a '64-65 Falcon 2-door sedan parked at work on occasion. It's amazing how tiny it looks compared to just about any modern car out there. Even something like a Cavalier makes it look dainty. This particular Falcon is mostly rusted out in back, with either aluminum or tin or some kind of sheet metal pop-rivited, which makes up more of the rear quarter panel than the original metal!
Andre, I agree with you. I wouldn't want a child of mine driving that Falcon on the freeway. They were pretty primitive and had no safety features whatever.
Of course, I used to tool around in my dad's 1962 VW Beetle with never a worry. I think it had front seatbelts and that's it. Ten gallons of gas in my lap, no airbags, crush zones etc. Just a good thing I never got hit, I suppose.
I did manage to hit a skunk one night in Palos Verdes that made that VW stink for a month no matter what I did.
I was about to buy a 944 in '83, got married instead, got a GTI - oh, well. I understand the 944's are maintenance hogs, and parts are $$, of course. As for the previous BMW 528e, I was always a fan of the 528i, and remember being shocked when the 528e came out by how slow it was, a C/D comparison had it slower than some domestic slug of the day.
Hmm, the Falcon is in "great original condition". Wow, I had no idea that AM/FM with CD changer in the trunk was original to the 1060's Falcon. Ford was WAY ahead of it's time! :surprise:
One of the most amusing things I witnessed as a teenager with many speeding tickets, I watched one night as a motorcycle cop hit a skunk almost in the same spot I did with the VW!
It does look good, though I think the 300 looks pretty good as well. I think that new Toyota subcompact... Yaris?... is shorter than the deck lid of that 300. Oh, and there is a 96-99 Subaru wagon behind the 300. *sniffle*
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I remember my uncle's old Mustang-1967-his son was thrilled because the car had a reverb unit. This was an ersatz form of stereo-the unit fed the sound impulses through a delay line ( a spring), and amplified the signal-played through a speaker in the back. They sounded HORRIBLE-distorted and noisey-plus, when the car went over a bump, you heard copious noise as the spring vibrated. Anybody know how long these things were made for?
Comments
Still, what a puny little engine in a big Land Rover!
They were air cooled and the transmission pan was held in place with one bolt, right in the middle of the pan.
These were so bad that most of the rebuilders wouldn't touch them. They would install a factory remanufactured one out of the crate.
Still only made about a 175-189 hp though. By the time they were done with the engine in 2002-2004 it was up to 4.6 liters and 220-222 hp but made over 300 ft-lbs of torque.
Torque is good...
One of our techs was telling me that taking either a 4.6 crank and putting it in a 4.0 block or the other way around, I forget which it is now, makes a really great powerful engine with fewer problems then either of the regular engines.
WVK
It evolved into the 3800 which is one of the sweetest, rugged engines out there!
Good accessory for a late 50s-60s pickup.
Those are, shall we say, interesting cars.
I guess my memories of these beasts is what scares me about the new "variable displacement" engines.
ugly truck
I wouldn't give you $500 for all four cars quite frankly, although the Chrysler at least has the possibility of running well for we presume not a large investment.
You can't make a silk purse out of a blah blah, and the Chrysler is the only worth car in the bunch IMO...and even that's touch and go if it's overheating.
Speaking of Airstream, though, have any of you seen this ill-conceived concept before?!
That has to be the worst example I have seen in a long, long time. It looks 30 years older than it actually is.
I was told prior to the new generation of DOD engines, they used the 8-6-4 in livery vehicles where economy trumps performance (hearse was one of the examples). My guess is it went through some revisions since the early 80s but they were still put to work.
I think they did use the V-8-6-4 up through 1985 for applications like the limo and hearse. The factory Caddy limo actually went FWD in 1985, but some long-wheelbase chassis models were built for custom coachwork and such.
I have a 1985 Consumer Guide that has a Fleetwood Brougham in it with the 4.1/4-speed auto. 0-60 came up in a leisurely 14.8 seconds. I'd imagine that if they tried putting the 4.1 in the hearses and limos it would be downright dangerous!
IIRC, the hearses and limos used the old THM400 transmission, a nice, beefy unit, but it probably would have sapped an awful lot of power from the already weak 4.1. Also, the 4-speed overdrive unit GM had back then, the THM200-R4 or whatever it was called, wasn't very strong. I think it was pretty much capped to a displacement of about 5 liters and a GVWR or around 6,000 pounds. In later years, GM did start mating it up to 350 Diesels, but I don't think they were torquey enough to hurt it. A Caddy 368 probably would have shredded it in short order, though.
Still, GM managed to put those 200-R4's in their full-sized wagons, up behind 305's and 307's. And the Grand National had one as well, so they must have found ways to beef it up.
I wonder how hard it is to disconnect the cylinder deactivation on the V-8-6-4? I've heard that it's actually a fine engine, if you can keep it on all 8 cylinders!
1981 was the only year Cadillac used that 4-6-8 engine in their mainstream cars. It was a disaster and the beginning og Cadillac's downfall.
Then in 1982 things got even worse. The 4100 engines were just junk until 1988 when they got better.
Cool...that beats the heck out of something like an '81-83 Imperial, where they're not bad cars if you swap out the fuel injection for a carbureted setup (preferably 4-bbl). But I imagine that would be a bit harder.
I think if I were to go for one of those bustleback Sevilles, I'd want the 1980 model with the 368. Motortrend or C&D did a test of one of them pitted against a 1980 5th Ave with a 318 and a 1980 Continental Mark VI which I think had a 351. The Seville did 0-60 in 10.6 seconds, which I think is downright impressive for something that was two tons and only had 150 hp! The Lincoln did it in 11.0, but both of them hit the quarter mile in 17.9, so I'd take that to mean that the Caddy was running out of steam and the Lincoln was starting to catch up?
The poor Chrysler wasn't even in the running. Its 318 was choked down to 120 hp that year, and was only able to run off a 14.1 0-60 time and a quarter mile of 19.8 seconds. If they had used a 360-2bbl it would've been a better match, but for these tests I guess they have to take the cars that are handed to them. And to be fair, the vast majority of 1980 NYers had only had a 318-2bbl. The 360-2bbl was a rare option that year, and finding one with a 4-bbl was probably on the same magnitude as finding the lost Ark of the Covenant.
But, with those pimpy downsized GM luxury cars, my preference runs towards the Riviera and especially the Toronado, anyway. I just thought they were more tastefully styled, especially on the inside, and they tended to have better engines (gas 350's early on and later on Olds 307's)
Yeah, me too, but then I have always been a sucker for vans... and this one somewhat reminds me of my '69 Econoline, were I to paint it in a mirrored silver. :P
That is not to say it is not an ill-conceived concept. I mean, if I were to actually see these things on the road then it would have to signal the beginning of the end - I am certain I would never buy a new car again. :sick:
Decent looking survivor
Not a bad pick for a son's first car either. Something he can tinker with and obviously won't be winning any stoplight gran-prix's with!
But if the interior was clean and there was only that one dent and the car could shine up nicely, might be a nice first car...it's not too big and wouldn't suck too much gas. Would be nice to install shoulder belts though.
Hmm, I should have let you talk to my father about the first 3 cars I owned then! (that I purchased with my own money of course)
I think it's fine if the kid buys his own banged up car with his own money, but as a "gift"---I dunno, there's some baggage attached to that gesture that might not fly so well
Of course, if you bought the kid the Falcon, a new fender, a spray gun and a course in auto body at the community college, that might be pretty interesting.
Still, I'm guessing that, like the Pinto and the Chevy saddle-tank pickups, it's not like a gas tank fire happened as often as the media would have liked you to believe!
What 6-cyl would that Falcon have in it? I know there was a 170 CID unit out by that time, but they weren't still pushing that little 85 or so hp 144 unit, were they?
Interestingly, the Falcon rode the longest wheelbase of the initial big-three compacts. I think it was 109.5" or something like that, compared to 106.5 for the Valiant/Lancer and 108 for the Corvair. I think the Chevy II ended up being around 110.5", though. But for such a long wheelbase, the Falcon just looked so tiny to me.
I see a '64-65 Falcon 2-door sedan parked at work on occasion. It's amazing how tiny it looks compared to just about any modern car out there. Even something like a Cavalier makes it look dainty. This particular Falcon is mostly rusted out in back, with either aluminum or tin or some kind of sheet metal pop-rivited, which makes up more of the rear quarter panel than the original metal!
I doubt the auto is a good thing, but cosmetically it looks nice
Of course, I used to tool around in my dad's 1962 VW Beetle with never a worry. I think it had front seatbelts and that's it. Ten gallons of gas in my lap, no airbags, crush zones etc. Just a good thing I never got hit, I suppose.
I did manage to hit a skunk one night in Palos Verdes that made that VW stink for a month no matter what I did.
Maybe we should get back to work?
Was the skunk a lawyer resident of Palos Verdes?
One of the most amusing things I witnessed as a teenager with many speeding tickets, I watched one night as a motorcycle cop hit a skunk almost in the same spot I did with the VW!
Looks like a nice old battleship
Same as above, but a little high maybe
Magnette
Our garage is full and I've got the old Buick on the side yard. No more room if I get tempted.
GM called it Reverb and Ford "Studio Sound"
These came out in the early sixties and were popular for about five years.