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

fintail

Something must be wrong here

And Duesies are really based on Mercury Cougars, right?

Mr_Shiftright

Looks like another SCAM car, priced 50% of wholesale book.

boomchek

And Duesies are really based on Mercury Cougars, right?

Well I thought Edsel Ford's twin sons Duce and Berg (who had fetishes for landau roofs and wire hubcaps) who ran Mercury and Merkur Division got their heads together and started Dusenberg as a luxury "offshoot" to replace the ill fated Merkur Division and go head to head with Chrysler TCs (by Maserati) and Cimmaron (by Cadillac).

Because they needed a platform to start off with "quickly" they based their first design off the world class and Autobahn leading Cougar.

:P :P

Mr_Shiftright

How DID you learn so much? :P

I cringe when I hear comparisons like this...it's like when people compare local politicians to Thomas Jefferson. I always remember JFK's great quote, when he addressed an entire room of historians, journalists and politicians at the White House "There is today, in this very room, as much brain power as when Thomas Jefferson worked here".

I guess you all know that our phrase..."It's a DOOZY" comes from the Duesenberg?

I wonder if sometime our grandchildren will use a similar expression "Wow, that's a real Mercury you got there".

qbrozen

Darn! I was a bit short on the OCC benz. Ended at $19,100.

That Allanted hit $7800.

And that Rambler hit a shocking $6850.

The Sebring is up to $3150 and ends tonight. I couldn't make it there last night, but maybe tonight. If not, oh well. The wife can't seem to make up her mind whether she really wants to pursue the idea or not.

Mr_Shiftright

If you want the Allante, you really need to get the Northstar engine. So much better than the 4.1!! And be prepared for a very cheesy interior...but then, you didn't pay MSRP, so no reason to complain about it.

The Rambler was silly money--that is such a tinny little car. I remember how the labeling for the instruments was done with DECALS! Gimme a Dodge Dart convertible over that ANY DAY!

qbrozen

they made a dodge dart convertible? oh man, now that would be sweet! ;b

gimme the slant 6. what years we talking?

Mr_Shiftright

Oh from the Dart's inception through 1969 I believe.

texases

All through the 60s. Here's a '63 and a '69:

fintail

Euro W126, hideous seat covers, noteworthy as it is apparently a 280S, the last MB carb car IIRC, and never officially sold in NA

"COLLECTABLE"

I bet this is fun to drive over bumps

Mr_Shiftright

Scary Cadillac---even the convertibles built by the factory were flexi-flyers....

andre1969

yeah, 1969 was the final year for the convertible Dart. The Valiant convertible was only offered from 1963-66. In 1967 hardtop and vert Valiants were axed so they wouldn't step on the Barracuda's toes. Dart convertibles were pretty rare. I think they only offered them in the GT series (and the GTS in '68-69). By '69, I think they only made 1000 or so.

texases

Here you go:
Dream Dart

Edit-found this crazy $$ Dart, too bad it's not available:
Big$

andre1969

I just looked at that Caddy...it's not even a convertible conversion, just a coupe with the roof hacked off! I'd hate to think of what kind of rigidity problems that's going to cause!

I knew a guy in one of my Mopar clubs who said that, back in the day, they liked to take old '71-76 GM full-sized 4-door hardtops and chop the roof off. It was cool for awhile, driving around in a big, topless 4-door, but eventually somebody would open a door and then wouldn't be able to close it, and that would be the end of it.

texases

Wasn't that a problem with '65-'66 Mustang convertibles? As in having to put in bracing before doing a rotisserie restoration, or they'd bend?

Mr_Shiftright

Really any old American convertible shakes like the devil. People only noticed it more as cars went faster and had greater dynamic stress put on them.

jlflemmons

Our '72 Cutlass Supreme convertible was bought new from the factory. You could sit in the back seat on rough roads and with the top down watch the dash flex up and down about an inch or two. Made for, hmmm, "interesting" handling characteristics.

Still, one of the most beautiful cars my family ever owned.

Mr_Shiftright

You can always weld in (not bolt in) frame stiffeners.

jlflemmons

That Cutlass had a massive frame specially designed for the convertible. It was just a very big car for a topless. The windshield frame itself was impressive.

fintail

Gallons per mile, no doubt

andre1969

the only convertible that I've had any extensive experience with is my '67 Catalina. I always thought it was pretty good with respect to rigidity. On rough roads, I can tell that the part of the car behind the doors will flex and twist a bit, out of sync with the rest of the car. I never thought it was all that bad, though. The only thing that annoys me about the car is that there's something loose up front, maybe in the grille, that rattles. It's especially noticeable when I close the door or hood.

BTW, where exactly, DID they beef up the convertible version of the '67 big cars, compared to their closed counterparts? I've looked up under my Catalina, and it looks like it has the same perimeter frame as any other big GM car of the era. No boxed frame rails, X-member, or anything exotic like that.

I've heard that GM's '68-72 intermediates were a bit flexible to begin with, regardless of whether they were convertible or not. One of my friends said that if you jacked one up the wrong way, it could flex and break the windshield. Although I wonder if that might apply to any number of other models?

Mr_Shiftright

Sometimes....some...times...a 4 barrel will give better mileage than a 2 barrel, especially if the secondaries are vacuum operated.

qbrozen

so i took the drive over to the dealer with the ebay sebring (and many more, according to the website ... then again). website says the store hours are till 6 pm. I get there at 5:20 and the yard is gated off and the office all locked up. hmmmm... give a call to the office phone, no answer. Give a call to the listed cell phone, it goes straight to voicemail and I'm told by the system that the voicemailbox is full. hmmmm... again. Guess who won't be selling me a car?

xwesx

Granted, it is a pickup, but I drove over my "house ditch" at home a couple years back with a load of sand in the back of my '69 C20. At one point, in order to miss my fuel tank, I have to transition from one side of the ditch to the other. Well, it was spring time, the ground was soft, and I managed to get stuck. A friend of mine with an M37 was at our place to help with the concrete mixing/pouring, so he winched me out, but as we were hooking it up he said, "I have never seen a vehicle flex that much. Do you think it will stay that way after I pull it out?" I looked back and I swear that thing was twisted 12" off center. :surprise: Snapped back just fine after we pulled it out though...

jlflemmons

I never heard of breaking the windshield, and we did some pretty stupid stuff in those things as a kid. I got a '73 Cutlass coupe several feet in the air and plowed asphalt on landing. Sudden pavement buckle in summer heat of Houston. All I had to do was replace the front springs.

What was weird on the convertible was putting it into a really hard turn with the top down. If you were in the back seat you could easily tell that the top of the dash was not parallel with the back of the car. :shades:

andre1969

Sometimes....some...times...a 4 barrel will give better mileage than a 2 barrel, especially if the secondaries are vacuum operated.

My former dentist (now retired) used to buy full-sized Chevies back in the day. He said he'd always get the 4-bbl instead of the 2-bbl setup for better economy, because the primaries are smaller on the 4-bbl. So as long as you keep your foot out of it and the secondaries don't open up, I guess you could get better economy out of a 4-bbl.

On a somewhat related note, here's something I never understood. How come, with some engines, the 2-bbl version ends up putting out more torque than the 4-bbl? Now granted, it usually comes at a lower rpm on the 2-bbl, but I just never understood it. I know it has something to do with backpressure, and I've heard that sometimes a dual exhaust will reduce your peak torque as well. But I guess I just never understood how choking down an engine with a small carb or restrictive exhaust will actually boost its torque?

qbrozen

This one caught my eye.

I've always liked these. Drove a buddy's down from Hunter Mountain in NY back to central Jersey. I found it nice enough (of course, this was back when I believe I was driving a '79 Zephyr).

I hate hidden reserves. Well, trade-in seems to be in the $2500 zip code, so $4k would be all the money. His Buy It Now is atrocious.

texases

Two things are going on. As far as the better torque on the 2-bbl, it could be the 2-bbl has a different cam, tuned for better response at lower rpms where the restrictive carb and exhaust won't hurt it, while the 4-bbl might have a 'hotter' cam, tuned for max power at high rpms. Another reason your former dentist might have gotten better mileage w/the 4-bbl, besides having the small primaries, is that the compression ratio on the 4-bbl might have been higher. Higher compression ratios lead directly to better engine efficiency and higher mileage (as long as you keep your foot out of it ).

Mr_Shiftright

Also the type of intake manifold installed can affect torque....I agree, I think the 2 bbl engine might have just been built for delivering power at a lower RPM.

And that's true...you can raise fuel efficiency quite a bit even on large displacement engines by installing an "RV" cam grind (often used for towing, etc) and bumping compression up....again, as long as you keep your foot out of it.

bumpy

old-school SUV

"it is the 6cyl" Duh.

Ugly and expensive- a winning team.

a truck for Andre

get a piece of automotive history

overpriced parts bin

Lemko-mobile

bad paint, and bad tranny too!

british_rover

Hmhh that Land Rover is a good price for all the stuff on it.

That is the last year they had the head lights mounted by the radiator and the upgraded fully synchronized Transmission with the extra overdrive box means you could actually drive it on the highway. Assuming you don't value your own life. Ours is scary at anything over 45 mph even with the overdrive.

qbrozen

i agree, that seems cheap.
although it is an old resto. the rust demons may be back by now.

it IS a convertible ... wonder what the wife would think.

too bad the stickshift would really hamper my argument.

british_rover

Maybe Norfolk is by the ocean but if the resto was done right it is probably ok. He didn't mention a frame replacment which is almost SOP for restos of old Series Rovers. That would back up your case for rust to be back.

Dude it has Synchros in the transmission that is like driving an automatic compared to the 1959 we have.

Aren't you kind of tall though? At 5 foot 11 I barely fit in the 59 series II so if you are much taller then that you would have no chance.

fintail

I could see Lemko in this

Beater money pit

Nice W109, risky

andre1969

I just found one example where the 2-bbl sometimes put out more hp than its 4-bbl counterpart...the Mopar 318.

In 1979, according to my copcar book at least, the 318-2bbl put out 135 hp@ 4000 rpm and 250 ft-lb of torque@ 1600. There was a 4-bbl version that I think was California-only, which put out 155 hp@ 4000 rpm, but 245 ft-lb of torque @1600.

In 1984, the 318-2bbl put out 130 hp@4000 rpm and 235 ft-lb@ 1600, while the 4-bbl put out 165 hp@4000 and 240 ft-lb@1600, so in this case, the 4-bbl was a bit torquier.

In 1985 though, the 318-2bbl put out 140 hp@3600 rpm and 265 ft-lb@2000, while the 4-bbl put out 175hp@4000 rpm and 250 ft-lb@3200 rpm.

Interestingly, despite the increased hp/torque, performance for the most part actually suffered on the 1985 models, because the engines were peakier, I guess the word is. They got higher peak #'s, but hurt the broader range. The 318-2bbl was slower in 0-60 and quarter mile, although it had a higher top speed, 116 mph versus 106. And while the 1/4 mile was slower, oddly, 0-100 was faster!

The 318-4bbl for 1985 was slower in every regard, although top speed didn't suffer TOO much, 119.4 mph, down from 121.4.

BTW, does anybody know how much torque a 1979 360-2bbl would have? I know the 4-bbl had 280 ft-lb (federal) and 275 ft-lb (California)

jlflemmons

On the Olds 350 you could always get better mileage from the 4bbl. The 2bbl had lower compression in the pre-EPA version (10.0:1 vs 9.25:1, as I recall). As long as the 4bbl version was running on it's primaries, a Cutlass in good tune would get ~18-19mpg at 70. Open up those big secondaries, and you rapidly dropped toward single digits.

By comparison, the W30 455 in proper tune would do about 11-13 on the highway if you babied it. Used as intended and it was not unheard of to see 6mpg, and that was on 102 octane leaded. And figure a set of points and plugs every 6K. :surprise:

qbrozen

i'm 6'5"
i had no idea fitting was a problem. i never did actually drive my '64, but it never occurred to me i wouldn't fit.

keep in mind, i do drive an alfa spider. nobody believes i can fit and i always get surprised looks when i climb out. not that i'm COMFY in there, but i manage for about 45 mins at a time.

Mr_Shiftright

I found the Alfa Spider very comfortable, although after a long while the console pinches my right calf.

The MGB is even more spacious

british_rover

In order to push the clutch in on the 59 I have to hold my leg at an angle or my knee hits the bottom of the steering wheel. Even then my knee hits the door panel as I release the clutch.

Imagine ever bad cliche about British Ergonomics and then compress them into a 3 cubic foot volume.

My boss is about 6 foot 1 and he can fit in it but he can't actually drive it because there is not room for him to work the pedals.

Only two of our techs can drive it because all the others are over six feet tall. :surprise:

qbrozen

my only real restrictions in the alfa are that I have to scrunch down if I need to put the top up and that I can't use the bottom third of the steering wheel because my hand can't get past my legs. Other than that, no problems.

bumpy

"low-ballers need not apply, and will be responded to rudely"

Wow, that makes it almost worth the trouble. I wonder if I could get some cussing if I insult the car?

Mr_Shiftright

His low-baller comment must mean that he really does know what that old lump is worth....about $4,500. A "restored 4.5 on eBay for $25,000"?????? Yeah, right....maybe that was the "buy it now please" price?

It's rare because nobody wanted one in the first place, is the sad truth.

fintail

I don't think it could be worse

I could see Andre in this, maybe

The bigger they are, the harder they fall

Lots of looks for the money

andre1969

I used to really love the Mark V, until a buddy of mine bought one and I got a chance to drive it and ride in it. I think they're very pretty cars to look at, but they're just too big and ponderous. I guess I still wouldn't mind having one. In fact, when my buddy bought a second one he thought about selling his first one pretty cheap, and I've occasionally played around with the idea. But after experiencing one, first-hand, I guess it knocked it off whatever pedestal my mind had put it up on. That '78 doesn't look like a bad car, though. And the 460 is the engine to have. I can't imagine a 159-166 hp 400 being able to move one of these with much authority.

In a way, I almost feel kinda sorry for that poor Skylark. Not sorry enough to rescue it, though. I hate to say it, but I've probably rescued more than my fair share of automotive crap over the years. :shades:

Mr_Shiftright

The old, the rusted, the shameless:

Did He Say Sports Car?

Prepare the Prisoner for Execution

WEll, maybe That and a few thousand other things

jlflemmons

"it is not a viable candidate for a return to stock restoration."

After I read the entire detail, I understand what he meant. The only thing that is an MGTC in the offering is the name. Otherwise, just a rolling pile of assorted garbage.

Now, if that had been a REAL MGTC ... :shades:

Mr_Shiftright

Further Abominations. Round Up the Usual Suspects

Stop This Man Before He Kills Again

Your Typical 164's Sad Fate

No Problem---1,500 hours of brutal hard work and you're done!!

Pick a Color...ANY Color...

Oh, A Gem Straight from the Ferrous Oxide Mine

Mr_Shiftright

And you thought you knew the English Language? Well, think again!

Define "Clean"

A Steal? For Which Side? I didn't see Tii

Define "Classic"

toomanyfumes

What the heck could you do with a 40 year old water truck? Worlds biggest kegger party? We had to laugh yesterday, there's an old Triumph GT6? The Spitfire with a roof. Every year he drags it to the end of the driveway and puts a for sale sign on it. The thing is so pathetic, rotted and sagging on it's half flat tires, it looks like it just wants to be put out of it's misery. The sign this year reads "best offer by June 3rd", so when he gets no offers, maybe he'll have it hauled away and we'll never have to look at it again.

urnews

Funny story.