That seems pretty optimistic. Where'd those numbers come from? I know many of the Hemis wound out at about 116 mph because of the monster low gearing. Nobody wanted the high speed rear ends.
While I don't remember the exact ratio, the vehicle I was referring to belonged to a buddy in the army. They were checking the speed accurately to determine the speed at which the front end would lift. I do know it was not a barn burner on the drag strip, so I suspect it had a fairly high gear. This was a real beast with no A/C. Scary to drive in the rain, too.
They're awful to drive, those old Mopar muscle cars...well, fun to mash the gas pedal (pretty awesome) but other than that, a real pain in the butt to drive. With the high compression and low gearing, all you do in traffic is snap your head back and forth as you creep down the street. Brakes and steering are of course, all too 60s and way inadequate for the car's power.
I'm not surprised so few owners drive them around anymore aside from an occasional bit of exercise.
Last night, parked in front of the local watering hole as a car that got my attention and Andre, you would have loved it.
A yellow 1967 Bonneville Convertable in mint condition! It even had those beautiful finned aluminum brake drums that comprised must of the "wheel".
After the drums had been turned a couple of times, these EXPENSIVE drums would have to be replaced. In the mid seventies, they were still available from the dealer and they were over 100.00 each back then! Today, they would be hard pressed to find at ANY price I would think.
Those old Pontiacs had weak front ends. They used tiny ball joints that would quickly wear out. On some of the big Pontiacs you had to replace the entire lower control arm when the ball joints went bad.
Still, nice cars! I had forgotten how big they were!
Ferrari 308 is market correct. Anything over 30,000 miles is worrisome on these cars however. I'd like to see service records about as thick as a Manhattan phone book please, then maybe I'll give that price. Fair enough if it's got NOOOOOOOO questions attached. No service records, no sale.
'96 Porsche price is sheer utter total, complete certifiable lunacy. Let's give the car every benefit of the doubt and call it the best one in the Milky Way Region----ask $65,000, take $60K and run with it.
Jaguar XJ8 price is high retail (think of the resale of a Jaguar as a man dropping a bowling ball from a railroad bridge). Try $10-$11K and be happy Mr. Dealer.
Mercedes 4Matic -- nice car, nice price, not so nice repair bills. 4Matic doesn't have a good reputation---this is a car you want to drive for a week before you buy it.
when it comes to mustang's, etc... 'unmolested' usually means it hasn't been wrapped around a tree or the heads haven't been lifted from too much boost. :sick:
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
aw, man. don't tell me that. first you crush all my jag dreams and now this??
well, ok, 4matic isn't really my benz dream ... but my wife's. and as we know, the wife's dreams outrank one's own and therefore her potential benz may be the only benz i ever get. so are you saying we should scrap the R320cdi or E500 wagon dreams?
'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
"In 1998, Mercedes-Benz reintroduced the 4MATIC all-wheel drive system. Although this 4Matic system shares its name with the notoriously problematic early '90s 4-MATICsystem of the W124 300TE, the system was totally redesigned and simplified. Abandoning complicated clutches and couplings, Mercedes opted to use three open differentials: front, center, and rear. The system has no known design defects, and incurs very limited, if any, additional direct maintenance costs. The unique front suspension design of the 4MATIC-equipped models make some replacement parts, such as shock absorbers, somewhat more expensive than that of rear-wheel drive counterparts."
There's a guy in one of my internet Mopar clubs that bought an aluminum slant six to put in a Canadian '66 or so Valiant (actually based on the longer Dart). I remember he tried to rebuild it and when he was done it made a mess and spewed oil all over the place. I don't know if he went back and rebuilt it again, or gave up and just put a normal one in.
I think they only made a couple thousand of those aluminum slant sixes. IIRC, they had a high scrappage rate on the assembly line, and out in the real world tended to have problems as well.
Those old Pontiacs had weak front ends. They used tiny ball joints that would quickly wear out. On some of the big Pontiacs you had to replace the entire lower control arm when the ball joints went bad.
I had to have the front-end rebuilt on my '67 Catalina back in 1995, about a year after I bought it. I remember one thing that irritated me was how product specific GM parts were, compared to Mopar. I think the only parts that would interchange were from a 1967-68 full-size Pontiac. Forget about using something from a '66 or '69. Or from a '67-68 Chevy, Olds, or Buick! In contrast, I think the ball joint on my '57 DeSoto is the same part that's on my '68 Dart! But then, I guess that's not a good thing either, because I guess that would imply that either the part is oversized for the Dart, or undersized for the DeSoto!
Still, nice cars! I had forgotten how big they were!
One thing that's impressed me about the two big Pontiacs I've had, is that they feel much more nimble and maneuverable than their size might suggest. My '67 Catalina has a 121" wheelbase, and I think it's about 215" long overall, but the only time it really lets its size be known is in tight maneuvering situations, such as squeezing into a tight parking spot.
My old '69 Bonneville had a 125" wb, and I think I saw some specs that put it at 225" long overall! But I swear, it handled even better than the Catalina! It had 225/75/R15 tires though, while the Catalina only has 215/75/R14, so that might make most of the difference.
Back in the 60's, Pontiac really tried hard to stretch out the Bonneville to make it look bigger than the Catalina. I think in some years, it was almost as long as an Electra or Ninety-Eight!
Oh, as for the suspensions, another annoying thing I noticed, at least on my '67, is that there's very little clearance between the tire and the upper control arm. Barely enough to squeeze your finger in. I want to get bigger tires for it, but I'm worried about having it rub. I did see a '68 Bonneville with 225/75/R14's on it though, so maybe at least the next size up wouldn't be too much.
Well, my memory hasn't totally failed me. I was about 99% sure they made aluminum slant sixes. Those iron ones were so strong and reliable.
The ball joints in your Pontiac are smaller than the ones Chevy used at the time and they didn't last long. The aftermarket ones made by Moog were much better.
our latest ponderings lean towards an expensive and sporty SUV for her and a cash-on-the-barrel beater for me. This of course won't happen for at least a year when her Pacifica is close to lease end.
We were thinking, rather than 2 payments on decent vehicles, we'd have 1 payment on a high-end vehicle that we'd hopefully like to keep for 7-10 years. Its probably nothing more than a pipe dream, but at least it is something different to entertain for a while.
So far I've thought about the Cayenne, E500 wagon, FX45, XC90 V8, R500, and then maybe the R320cdi, depending on how "sporty" that might be. I think the FX45 might be the best idea, although one of the smallest.
'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
Two more - if the FX is too small, and you want 10 years, the Acura MDX might do, and if the Porche's too small, the Audi Q7 would give you 3 rows, but be a bit smaller than the MB R. (just don't ask for 10 years trouble-free from any of those three, I'm afraid).
Unless it's a Lexus....boring but dead reliable (as a rule).
Maybe that Lexus hybrid SUV would be a good choice. They are no slouches.
The Cayenne would be fun but ouch! they are pricey.
If I had the room, I'd ALWAYS have a beater around, to haul fish, lend to my friends, or take to the Home Depot parking lot, where door dents are guaranteed!
well, my s70 T5 ran for 7 years with no major problems and, as far as I know, the new owner is enjoying it.
Of course, a whole different animal than an XC90.
Believe it or not, all of those that I listed are priced right near each other on the used market, '05 Porsche Cayenne, '05 XC90 V8, '05 E500, and '05 R500 are all right around $40k. The Infiniti falls to about $35k.
The MDX really isn't fast enough for my taste at this point. We had a Pilot, and while it was nimble and quick by SUV standards, it fell far short of "fun."
I never expect "no trouble" from a car for 10 years. As long as the major expensive stuff holds together.
'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 potential problem I see with that (especially if you're looking for used) is those cars making it 7-10 more years without some very costly repairs. Going high end SUV will mean lots of expensive electronics to break. You're also going to have more complex (and expensive to repair) drive train components too. There's a reason that you can get those $90,000+ mercedes for a song after 7 years.
I wouldn't worry as much about a Lexus, but I'd do some serious thinking about future costs of repairs with the Cayennes/Toureg reliability. I've heard enough bad stuff about it that I wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot pole after the warranty period.
Which is why I'm thinking Infiniti (although I have yet to research the FX45 for problem areas).
My personal experience shows me that volvos can be good, too. However, I did have to replace alot of stuff on mine after the 100k mile mark. But nothing major. Its just something I have to keep in mind.
The wife has wanted an XC90 from the first time she saw one. She's also fond of the XC70, too. I'm thinking a V70R would be sweet ... BUT since it is hers, it would have the automatic ... YUCK!
'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 have a friend with one of those International Diesels...one day a few years ago we stated the Diesel Death Race 2005 in San Rafael during a lunch break at his shop....his International against my 300D non-turbo. We mapped out a safe course and a bystander stood by with a 30 second hour-glass at the finish line.
I destroyed him....
RE: Mercedes 280 "SE" --- "needs carb bolts tightened"...oh yeah, right. Not sure what engine he has in there, but any Benz of that era with dual carbs is a nightmare on top of a bad dream on top of a bad acid trip on top of a night in a Mexican prison cell.
Germans just don't seem to have the knack with dual carbs like the Americans and Italians did. Their 190SL was a nuisance, their Bavaria was a nuisance, and so was their mid-70s dual carb setup on the Benzes.
Any "SE" that needs carb work is off, of course, as it should have FI. I know the dual carb fintails could really be troublesome...the FI was a big selling point (or curiosity) when I bought my car.
We (first wife and I) owned a Protege like that - '91, can't remember if it was an LX or an EX. Dark blue, automatic transmission. Ran great, but it got totalled in an accident that wasn't her fault.
In fact, I almost bought an identical car, except it would have been light blue with a stick. But, being the weird guy that I am, I figured having two of the exact same car was kind of silly, so I ended up buying a '91 Sentra SE instead.
That SL is maybe a little low...for a nice one, but who knows if that is nice. Kind of a harsh color. They can take a lot of miles and still look good, so that one probably has 150K+. The wheels are from a later model.
Anyone who'd pay top dollar for a real high miles 500SL is kinda nuts. The price here all depends on miles. If it's over 150K, he's too highalready. This car will kill you on repairs, beat you up and leave you for dead.
I'd say $14K--$15K for a low miles beauty, and hack off at least 35% for high miles.
You can't use up the best part of a luxury car and then ask someone to pay top dollar for what's left on the plate.
Last year a friend of my mom's bought a one owner 40K mile 1995 SL320 (apparently easier to maintain) for something like 19K...certainly a better way to go than a miled up car.
I agree with you all. Unfortunately the ad doesn't mention the miles so we don't know if he's crazy, insane or something in between. Whenever the miles are excluded, I assume that they're high.
Comments
I'm not surprised so few owners drive them around anymore aside from an occasional bit of exercise.
I haven't but I read that a few were produced.
Last night, parked in front of the local watering hole as a car that got my attention and Andre, you would have loved it.
A yellow 1967 Bonneville Convertable in mint condition! It even had those beautiful finned aluminum brake drums that comprised must of the "wheel".
After the drums had been turned a couple of times, these EXPENSIVE drums would have to be replaced. In the mid seventies, they were still available from the dealer and they were over 100.00 each back then! Today, they would be hard pressed to find at ANY price I would think.
Those old Pontiacs had weak front ends. They used tiny ball joints that would quickly wear out. On some of the big Pontiacs you had to replace the entire lower control arm when the ball joints went bad.
Still, nice cars! I had forgotten how big they were!
Dumb errors in ad, but car doesn't look awful
Cool for a beater
nice wagon?
merc or kia - read the ad
is this cheap?
is this 911 priced like a 3644?
expensive and a bad color
shweet!
we all know better by now
seems like not a lot of money
'96 Porsche price is sheer utter total, complete certifiable lunacy. Let's give the car every benefit of the doubt and call it the best one in the Milky Way Region----ask $65,000, take $60K and run with it.
Jaguar XJ8 price is high retail (think of the resale of a Jaguar as a man dropping a bowling ball from a railroad bridge). Try $10-$11K and be happy Mr. Dealer.
Mercedes 4Matic -- nice car, nice price, not so nice repair bills. 4Matic doesn't have a good reputation---this is a car you want to drive for a week before you buy it.
aw, man. don't tell me that. first you crush all my jag dreams and now this??
well, ok, 4matic isn't really my benz dream ... but my wife's. and as we know, the wife's dreams outrank one's own and therefore her potential benz may be the only benz i ever get. so are you saying we should scrap the R320cdi or E500 wagon dreams?
'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
Here's what Wikipedia says:
"In 1998, Mercedes-Benz reintroduced the 4MATIC all-wheel drive system. Although this 4Matic system shares its name with the notoriously problematic early '90s 4-MATICsystem of the W124 300TE, the system was totally redesigned and simplified. Abandoning complicated clutches and couplings, Mercedes opted to use three open differentials: front, center, and rear. The system has no known design defects, and incurs very limited, if any, additional direct maintenance costs. The unique front suspension design of the 4MATIC-equipped models make some replacement parts, such as shock absorbers, somewhat more expensive than that of rear-wheel drive counterparts."
There's a guy in one of my internet Mopar clubs that bought an aluminum slant six to put in a Canadian '66 or so Valiant (actually based on the longer Dart). I remember he tried to rebuild it and when he was done it made a mess and spewed oil all over the place. I don't know if he went back and rebuilt it again, or gave up and just put a normal one in.
I think they only made a couple thousand of those aluminum slant sixes. IIRC, they had a high scrappage rate on the assembly line, and out in the real world tended to have problems as well.
Those old Pontiacs had weak front ends. They used tiny ball joints that would quickly wear out. On some of the big Pontiacs you had to replace the entire lower control arm when the ball joints went bad.
I had to have the front-end rebuilt on my '67 Catalina back in 1995, about a year after I bought it. I remember one thing that irritated me was how product specific GM parts were, compared to Mopar. I think the only parts that would interchange were from a 1967-68 full-size Pontiac. Forget about using something from a '66 or '69. Or from a '67-68 Chevy, Olds, or Buick! In contrast, I think the ball joint on my '57 DeSoto is the same part that's on my '68 Dart! But then, I guess that's not a good thing either, because I guess that would imply that either the part is oversized for the Dart, or undersized for the DeSoto!
Still, nice cars! I had forgotten how big they were!
One thing that's impressed me about the two big Pontiacs I've had, is that they feel much more nimble and maneuverable than their size might suggest. My '67 Catalina has a 121" wheelbase, and I think it's about 215" long overall, but the only time it really lets its size be known is in tight maneuvering situations, such as squeezing into a tight parking spot.
My old '69 Bonneville had a 125" wb, and I think I saw some specs that put it at 225" long overall! But I swear, it handled even better than the Catalina! It had 225/75/R15 tires though, while the Catalina only has 215/75/R14, so that might make most of the difference.
Back in the 60's, Pontiac really tried hard to stretch out the Bonneville to make it look bigger than the Catalina. I think in some years, it was almost as long as an Electra or Ninety-Eight!
Oh, as for the suspensions, another annoying thing I noticed, at least on my '67, is that there's very little clearance between the tire and the upper control arm. Barely enough to squeeze your finger in. I want to get bigger tires for it, but I'm worried about having it rub. I did see a '68 Bonneville with 225/75/R14's on it though, so maybe at least the next size up wouldn't be too much.
The ball joints in your Pontiac are smaller than the ones Chevy used at the time and they didn't last long. The aftermarket ones made by Moog were much better.
[if that is a good thing or bad, i don't know]
'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
Free tow within 100 miles of Bellevue. :P
And it's only eleven hundred bucks!!! Whoo-hoo! Where'd I leave my checkbook???
james
RE: 4-Matic -- well, fair's fair...we can't go on punishing a vehicle that took the time to fix its worst characteristics.
I have searched for one of these my whole life!
We were thinking, rather than 2 payments on decent vehicles, we'd have 1 payment on a high-end vehicle that we'd hopefully like to keep for 7-10 years. Its probably nothing more than a pipe dream, but at least it is something different to entertain for a while.
So far I've thought about the Cayenne, E500 wagon, FX45, XC90 V8, R500, and then maybe the R320cdi, depending on how "sporty" that might be. I think the FX45 might be the best idea, although one of the smallest.
'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
Maybe that Lexus hybrid SUV would be a good choice. They are no slouches.
The Cayenne would be fun but ouch! they are pricey.
If I had the room, I'd ALWAYS have a beater around, to haul fish, lend to my friends, or take to the Home Depot parking lot, where door dents are guaranteed!
'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
Of course, a whole different animal than an XC90.
Believe it or not, all of those that I listed are priced right near each other on the used market, '05 Porsche Cayenne, '05 XC90 V8, '05 E500, and '05 R500 are all right around $40k. The Infiniti falls to about $35k.
The MDX really isn't fast enough for my taste at this point. We had a Pilot, and while it was nimble and quick by SUV standards, it fell far short of "fun."
I never expect "no trouble" from a car for 10 years. As long as the major expensive stuff holds together.
'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
'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
YES! A Red Green Fan!
:shades:
james
"I'm a man, but I can change. If I have too. I guess."
If it ain't broke, you're not trying.
I wouldn't worry as much about a Lexus, but I'd do some serious thinking about future costs of repairs with the Cayennes/Toureg reliability. I've heard enough bad stuff about it that I wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot pole after the warranty period.
Which is why I'm thinking Infiniti (although I have yet to research the FX45 for problem areas).
My personal experience shows me that volvos can be good, too. However, I did have to replace alot of stuff on mine after the 100k mile mark. But nothing major. Its just something I have to keep in mind.
The wife has wanted an XC90 from the first time she saw one. She's also fond of the XC70, too. I'm thinking a V70R would be sweet ... BUT since it is hers, it would have the automatic ... YUCK!
'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
A bit of a freakshow, engine probably the same high tech as a 1936 MB diesel
Interesting for a beater/driver...a real "SE" car should need no carb work...
I destroyed him....
RE: Mercedes 280 "SE" --- "needs carb bolts tightened"...oh yeah, right. Not sure what engine he has in there, but any Benz of that era with dual carbs is a nightmare on top of a bad dream on top of a bad acid trip on top of a night in a Mexican prison cell.
Germans just don't seem to have the knack with dual carbs like the Americans and Italians did. Their 190SL was a nuisance, their Bavaria was a nuisance, and so was their mid-70s dual carb setup on the Benzes.
Any "SE" that needs carb work is off, of course, as it should have FI. I know the dual carb fintails could really be troublesome...the FI was a big selling point (or curiosity) when I bought my car.
Not the best color but a desirable car that was ridiculously expensive when new I don't know if this price is good or not. When the miles aren't mentioned, assume that it's in the 500k to 1 million range
Probably a good work truck Plan on it needing repairs but probably will keep running
Probably a decent little beater After the new tranny how much could he be clearing selling it for $925? Does midas even do trannies?
Since it has the right transmission, why not? Does anyone list the miles on the car anymore?
"Price may be negotiable" Is it or ins't it? I think it should be
Looks clean but needing an engine the price is doulbe what it should be
In fact, I almost bought an identical car, except it would have been light blue with a stick. But, being the weird guy that I am, I figured having two of the exact same car was kind of silly, so I ended up buying a '91 Sentra SE instead.
I'd say $14K--$15K for a low miles beauty, and hack off at least 35% for high miles.
You can't use up the best part of a luxury car and then ask someone to pay top dollar for what's left on the plate.
No fair.