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

texases

At least it's a 2 door, body (looks) OK, and it may have a V8 (at least at that price, it better have-did Pontiac have V8s in '55?). But who's buying? Maybe someone needs to start a 'Tri-Poncho' club.

210delray

Yes, Pontiac started offering a V8 in '55; before that it was a straight 8.

hpmctorque

Pontiac offered only V8s in '55. The I-6 and I-8 were dropped with the introduction of the new V8 that year.

lokki

Is this worth restoring?

link 68 Toronado

isellhondas

When we were kids, a friend bought a 1953 Chevy that had a ton of surface rust. Unusual for So. Calif. We were going to sand it down and primer it but we never did. I think he paid 75.00 for that car because of it's apperance. It was a low mileage car that ran like a top.

He kept it for three or four troublefree years and sold it for what he paid. As I recall, the surface rust never got any worse than it was when he bought it.

MAybe just a lousy paint job from the factory?

andre1969

1955 was the first year for the Pontiac V-8, and it was standard across the line. I think it was initially a 287 CID unit, and offered 180 hp in 2-bbl guise or 200 with a 4-bbl.

isellhondas

No way! The 66-67's looked a lot better than the bloated 68's. I'll bet loves the 10 MPG on premium fuel that pig requires!

isellhondas

The 55 Pontiacs had a problem with cam bearings that somehow got corrected the next year.

Funny how we remember things we overheard in a machine shop so many years ago!

andre1969

He kept it for three or four troublefree years and sold it for what he paid. As I recall, the surface rust never got any worse than it was when he bought it.

I think as long as something with surface rust on it doesn't stay constantly wet, it should last for quite awhile. My Granddad bought a little utility trailer to pull with his tractor back in the late 70's or early 80's. We still have the thing, although I think we lost the tailgate. Anyway, it got scuffed and scratched and banged up, down to the bare metal, ages ago, but never really got anything beyond surface rust. Heck, sometimes it would even sit outside, resting on its hitch, and the bed would fill up with water and just sit there until somebody dumped it out, but it never really got any serious rust on it.

In a similar vein, my '85 Silverado has spots in the bed where the paint has been scraped off down to bare metal, but it just won't rust. But then in spots that tend to stay wetter, and collect dirt and debris and such, it's rusting. Areas like the rocker panels, lower parts of the door, and a spot in the wheel well.

I'd imagine that in southern Cali, the sun would wear the paint off a car pretty quickly, wouldn't it?

andre1969

I like all of the first-generation models, except for the 1970 models, which just looked kinda odd with their exposed headlights. Even though they started plumping up for '68, I thought it was a nice, clean style.

Seems like GM muffed up all three of those personal luxury coupes for '70. The Toro lost its good looks, the Riviera went from being sleek and suave to looking like a pimped up Skylark, and even the Eldorado somehow looked a bit awkward compared to the earlier models.

isellhondas

Andre,

I don't remember paint wearing off.

We lived by the ocean and about the worst thing that would happen would be some pitting of the chrome.

isellhondas

GM ruined the Riviera in 1970. The 69's were a classy looking car. It was almost like they figured they HAD to change some things and they sure did.

Those were great cars. I've had two '65 Rivieras and a '69.

lilengineerboy

We lived by the ocean and about the worst thing that would happen would be some pitting of the chrome.

Living on the coast (~5 min from Ocean) ate the clearcoat on a 70s Nova, 80 Caravan (had paint issues of its own), 80s Galant, 90s Accords, and the jury is still out on the Sienna.

The paint gets these clouds in it where the clearcoat is failing. Chrysler split the paint job, IIRC.

I have never seen anything rust beyond surface rust though, in recent memory. This is a town where 914s, 2002s and MGBs are still used for daily drivers.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, 2002s are the litmus test for rust conditions...you can make a 2002 rust by showing it a picture of water.

68 TORO -- not my favorite year for these cars....a '66 is sweet though. Only real downside is that these cars suck gas like a whale eats brine shrimp. Staggering gas appetite, mind-blowing....

66 TORO is one of the few big American cars I really really like. I had one in Colorado, equipped with big luggy snow tires and chains.

What that car could not climb over, it could destroy.

Is a '68 worth restoring? I think it would be foolish to do so. A 66? Definitely. Worth 2X the money.

fintail

Another local "classic"

andre1969

is the fuel mileage of a '66 Toronado? I've been able to attain single digits with many of my cars, so I might actually not be too shocked.

Mr_Shiftright

I think 8 or 9 mpg is achievable, with skill and determination.

isellhondas

The one time I checked gas mileage on my 65 Riviera is was 9 MPG. It also liked Super Premimum.

hpmctorque

I once had a '72 Olds with the 455 engine. On trips with two adults and two children, plus luggage, it got 14 mpg, when the weather didn't require the A/C. In mixed city-highway, with the A/C on, it got less, of course, but it wasn't too bad for its day, IF you accelerated moderately. Mileage deteriorated a lot when all 4 barrels were used repeatedly... was going to say "when driving in a spirited manner", but spirited just doesn't apply to piloting the (Queen) Merry Oldsmobile.

fintail

One of the better looking examples of these left

This looks really nice, probably my favorite color combo for this car too. I have to say, I like this

andre1969

In retrospect, 14 mpg out of a behemoth like a '72 Ninety Eight doesn't sound too bad. Heck, the best I've been able to get out of my '76 LeMans, a lightweight in comparison to the C-body, with its comparatively tiny 350-2bbl, is maybe 15-16 on the highway.

One of the biggest surprises I've had with regards to fuel economy is my '67 Catalina convertible. 400-4bbl, can chirp the tires on the 1-2 upshift with little effort, yet if I don't push it too hard, it's gotten 17-18 on the highway. Now around town is more like 9-10, but I'm impressed that something that size from that era would do so well on the highway. In comparison, my '68 Dart 318 would only get around 17 on the highway. Around town though it was more like 13.

bumpy

the beginning of Cadillac's decline

good car, bad wheels

Shifty's dream hand grenade

unrealistic expectations

Mister Two-tone

lemko

The 1971-76 Cadillacs definately were the beginning of Cadillac's decline, but I like the unusual looks of the 1971-73 models. I had a 1975 Cadillac. I think Cadillac got better in 1977-79 and then went into a steep decline.

I can't tell by the picture, but is the vinyl top rotted or is that a shadow from the trees? The car also has the wrong hubcaps - those are from an early 1980s Eldorado or Seville.

lilengineerboy

I like the NSX although I think he is a little high. I think '94 was an upgrade/refinement year, and I think '96 or 7 was the next upgrade. If he wanted, getting something sub-20k with stock rims would be a better bet.
I have a soft spot in my heart for 3rd gen RX7s, even though they can be a PITA. My buddy got one, and we dominated an autocross with it (3 guys, 1 RX7, 1st, 2nd, 3rd in the novice class). Apparently, the plan for those now is to drive it until it pops and then put a 'Vette engine in it (which apparently doesn't weight a whole lot more than a rotary with a few turbos). Also, a stock RX7 is about as fast and tossible as an E36 M3 which is comfortable and holds 4.

Mr_Shiftright

'72 Cadillac---nasty looking thing

NSX -- ouch! Those wheels are ugly. Price is....okay...but 115K miles is a lot for a hi-po car. Might be a good buy if you could ditch the wheels and get the price down to $19.9K. Great performer, easy to drive.

Mazda RX-7 TT --ooooh, in my favorite colors, too! Now where you gonna find a 5.2 second true sports car for a measly $14,000?!! And with a new motor, you'll get at least 50,000 miles out of it. Good buy on this one!

Falcon wagon---okay, we won't "insult" you will low-ball offers, but then you don't insult us by asking $1,000 for a rusted out flower pot.....fair enough.

MR2---shoot, if it runs okay, that's a great buy---add a Miracle paint job (get the more expensive fine-brush broom job) and for under $2K you have a fun sports car to drive.

Couple good deals in this batch!!(among the turkeys).

andre1969

I can't tell by the picture, but is the vinyl top rotted or is that a shadow from the trees?

It looks like the top is pretty much shot to me. Looks like someone tried to peel it off on both sides, but just left a strip down the middle, kinda like a mowhawk.

I don't really like the widely spaced headlights on these, but in the right color, they could be pretty sharp. And at least the '71-73 coupe was still a true hardtop. I prefer the look of the '75-76, with its rectangular quad headlights, but I don't like the landau opera window treatment they forced onto the coupes.

qbrozen

too bad the mr2 owner doesn't say what type of tranny cost him all that money. seems like automatic pricing ... which makes the car worthless, IMHO.

anyone else a bit suspicious that the NSX and RX7 are from the same seller?

And just what the heck was done to the RX to require a new engine in 50k miles? makes me worry about what was done within the first 1200 on the new engine.

Mr_Shiftright

They all blow up at around 50,000 miles. It's just part of the deal, like with Ferraris or Vipers....you just include engine rebuilds as part of your expenses at the 50-60K plateau. In the Mazda's case, I'm told it has to do with detonation issues in the engine.

qbrozen

i've seen plenty go longer than that. well... ok, that includes older models.

I only knew a couple of the last-gen turbos, but they had 70-80k on them.

Mr_Shiftright

yeah the twin turbo motor is rather short-lived. I can't imagine a Corvette motor being as light as the little rotary engine. I would think it would ruin the car, like those Miata/Mustangs. I hate those things....turns a nice light car into a belching beast. Don't we have enough of those already?

british_rover

I spent an entire thread on finalgear aruging with a bunch of people, and I use that term loosely as their average age is probably around 15, about why putting a Corvette motor in a RX7 or a mustang motor in a Miata was stupid.

I HATE fan boys.

texases

Waste of time - go find a good rock to talk to instead...

Mr_Shiftright

I got NOOOOO problem with a 15 year old wanting to put a V8 motor in a nearly perfect little sports car. It's the 40 year olds I need to talk to.

True, Shelby did this with the AC Ace, but that was a car that needed something. And even Shelby then went over the top with the 427, turning the sweet little Cobra 289 into an unpleasant brute that even Cobra freaks don't enjoy driving that much.

Sometimes, enough is just right.

bumpy

The aluminum-block LS motors aren't too horrible in the weight department, but a big sluggy pushrod is the worst thing to put in a rotary car. Go get a F20C or a CA18DET if you're scared of Wankels, or a built 20B if you're not.

xwesx

I have always thought those older MBs (70s/80s) were clunky and awkward-looking. But, I agree with you - this one looks very very nice. The colors go quite well together (and on the car) and it is obviously well-kept.

gsemike

"Do not insult me with a ridiculous low ball bid."

What exactly does he think the Falcon is worth after sitting 8 years rotting to crap? If he thinks it's so precious maybe he should invest the 5 figures into restoring it. That hunk is worth a couple hundred bucks.

I don't mind the wheels on the NSX

seminole_kev

Normally I'm against engine swaps of this nature, but I will say that the 3rd generation RX7 with a Corvette engine sounds like a lot of fun.

fintail

Heh funny...I've always thought the MB W126 and W124 (period S and E class) are some of the best sedan designs they have made. Very homogenous, kind of conservative, but great proportions and they aged very well. Bruno Sacco has a good eye.

fintail

Might be good for someone who likes this kind of thing

This looks like a great idea

"sporty little ride"???

xwesx

I agree with you that they DO age very well. Better than most other sedans of the time, for sure. They just look very... brick-ish. I mean to say that my eye has a strong appreciation for well-placed curves and these vehicles just do not flow very well. They are proportioned well, but they do not send my eyes sweeping over them. Oddly, I think the fintails of old do a much better job in that area - call me crazy as I deserve such censure!

Look at the old cars I own, though. '69 Econoline, '69 C20 pickup. They are not necessarily pretty, but they curve very well in my opinion. My wife looks at my van and sees an ugly yellow, mottled mess. I see it and my eyes sweep front-to-back-to-front, appreciating every line and curve that gives leads into the next.

:confuse: :shades:

oregonboy

Lamborghini Countach Rep. What the heck is a "Rep."? Does that perhaps stand for "replica"? Are those skinny little exhaust pipes poking out the back, attached to an air-cooled VW engine? What is it about this "rare" vehicle that makes the seller dream of $30k? :P

james

fintail

I like those 80s cars because they are so no-nonsense...although a styling team was involved, you can tell it was more about engineering than looks. It's a masculine somewhat harsh look...I think one that MB should have retained a little more. MBs have been bricks for much of its history...bricks, then rounded bricks, then they tried for styling with the fintail - it was dated by the time it was introduced, so they went back to bricks, and have only been softened in the past 10 years or so. I will say even the modern stuff ages well, it's not too trendy, although that seems to be changing with the bustled flared fender S class.

I actually see most old trucks and vans as being the same way as old MB - form follows function.

fintail

I don't know, but another one has hit the market here

Mr_Shiftright

90K invested? GEEZ LOUISE, he could have bought the real thing!!

xwesx

Yeah, but it would not have been as "original." Is there not value in one-of-a-kind? :sick:

Mr_Shiftright

Perhaps to the creator but I doubt to anyone else. Lamborghini lovers don't want fake ones and for 55K, you can buy some pretty flashy machinery that will actually retain value.

Value of a fake Lambo? Maybe $30,000 if you can even find a buyer.

lokki

Fake Lamborghini

90% of the expense;

100% of the headaches;

None of the sophisticated engineering or status.

Gee, where do I sign up????? :sick:

qbrozen

either its the same seller or the 2 guys in seattle with fake lambos formed their own little club and got together to take that last pic.

i like that '52 chevy sedan, by the way. other than the color, it looks just like the red one on ebay i posted a week or so ago. i think that car has alot of style for apparently not much $$.

Mr_Shiftright

I see the '52 Chevy but I don't see the style part :P Kinda looks like a lump to me....the "dreary years" before Eisenhower got his Eldorado!

qbrozen

i love it. its got '40s lines and size with some '50s chrome thrown in. kind of like a transition piece.