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

fintail

I suppose in length or weight per dollar is isn't bad, condition looks nice

Mr_Shiftright

These diesel people are such "inflators" of the truth...Mercedes says 27 mpg at 70 mph under ideal conditions, and I'm betting on Mercedes engineers rather than Ralph in wherever.

Gee, a ground-up resto of a British two-seater for under $10,000. Are MGBs still a bargain or WHAT? Get 'em while you can for this money.

'71 Chevelle---yeah fair enough. Not a "real" car, and not the desirable years.

Not a fan of T-Tops----squeak, leak, squeak, leak.....and turn your back and they're stolen.

qbrozen

Gee, a ground-up resto of a British two-seater for under $10,000. Are MGBs still a bargain or WHAT? Get 'em while you can for this money.

good grief, you ain't kiddin!
If they seriously did a good job, i think that's a steal. Heck, deliver it to BJ next year and watch it hit $15k. ;b

Mr_Shiftright

Heck, you could flip it on Craigslist for $12,500 if it's as nice as it looks. Question is, what is the quality of the work and of the car? If it's been Scheib-ed, or is a patched up rustbucket full of Mr. Plastic, then you got nuthin'. MG buyers are devoted to the cars, but they are traditionally tight-fisted. They will not spend big bucks unless the vehicle is so nice as to overcome their tendency to be tightwads. They also abhor big modifications, such as Volvo engines (or worse). They barely tolerate a Weber carburator. I myself barely tolerate a Weber carburator. I think SUs are one of the most brilliant inventions in pre-war auto history. American monkey mechanics just don't understand them and so bad-mouth them. At least I understand Webers and still bad-mouth them---LOL! (but only for street cars--on the track, I respect them).

texases

Unfortunately that 325i will never have the M3's engine, but it could be fun anyway. And I don't know both Nissan (the NX) and Mazda (the MX-3) came out with what look to me like 'cockroach cars' at the same time - low, rounded, squashable...

andre1969

I'm generally not a big fan of brown cars, but I kinda like the lines of that beast of a Mercury. Looks like it's a true 4-door hardtop too, and not that fake-me-out thin-pillar style that was much more common.

oregonboy

Despite its unappealing/forgetable styling, the NX-2000 has some appeal due to the aluminum twin-cam engine that it shares with the iconic 91-93 Sentra SE-R. (Well, maybe not iconic, but certainly well regarded, pocket rocket).

from Wikipedia:

The NX1600 was based on the standard 1.6L Sentra (engine code GA16DE), and the NX2000 was based on the 2.0 L SE-R model (engine code SR20DE). It was produced from 1991-1993 in the US (mainly competing with the Mazda MX-3 and Honda CR-X del Sol), before being replaced by the 200SX for 1995. Also, it was produced for a few more years in other countries.

The NX2000 model had some mechanical improvements over its SE-R sibling. It had larger brakes and more aggressive tires on wider 6" wheels (195/55VR-14 with 14x6" wheels vs. the 185/60HR-14 with 14x5.5" wheels and tires in the SE-R). The NX2000 brakes are a common aftermarket upgrade for B13 Sentra SE-Rs. The NX2000 also had a center armrest, a larger two core radiator, and slightly stiffer springs compared to the SE-R. However, the T-top roof in the NX2000 along with the mechanical upgrades made it slightly heavier than the SE-R.

The NX2000, with its light weight, stiff chassis, and limited-slip differential, was considered one of the best-handling front-wheel-drive cars of the time. In 1992, Road & Track magazine included the NX2000 in a test of the world's best handling cars against such competition as the Acura NSX, Porsche 911, Nissan 300ZX, Mazda Miata, and Lotus Elan.

james

lemko

Remember the big green Plain Jane 1974 Mercury Monterrey we saw at the Ford Carlisle show? That car even had a radio delete and originally came with blackwall tires and the dog dish hubcaps.

andre1969

Yeah...that thing was actually pretty nice for a stripper, but that guy wanted too much money for it. I think I took a picture of it. I'll have to get those Ford Nationals pics posted...

texases

That engine almost got me to trade in my GTI for an SE-R. It was outstanding.

Mr_Shiftright

I remember when these two cars first came out. I thought the GTI was a lot more fun to drive. The SE-R was rather dull-looking and reeked of 1990s Japanese-osity at the time. I think right out of the box the GTI was better but one could build up the SE-R into something nice, that's true.

texases

That's what finally kept me out of the SE-R - great engine, rest of car OK.

michaellno

...but couldn't afford it, so I ended up with an SE instead. '91 model year, red with black interior.

For 1.6 litres, that was a nice engine .. 110HP, IIRC. Slick 5-speed transmission. Mine was a stripper -- no options at all, not even A/C. Drove it from California to Colorado when I moved here in 1993. About the only thing that drove me crazy were the door mounted seat belts.

Shoulda kept it longer ....

lilengineerboy

I remember when these two cars first came out. I thought the GTI was a lot more fun to drive. The SE-R was rather dull-looking and reeked of 1990s Japanese-osity at the time. I think right out of the box the GTI was better but one could build up the SE-R into something nice, that's true.

I always felt it was more the opposite, the Sentra/NX2000 with a real limited slip differential and good power for the day (140 I think), it kind of laid the smack down on the GTI (the 8v version wasn't even on the chart, and it made pretty short work of the 16v).

The SR20 was a better motor than the VW and the differential was better than the VW, but it had a weaker transmission and like 1/4 the suspension travel. If you wanted something more upscale there was always the Infiniti G20, which was basically a Sentra (like the Integra was a Civic).

Ms LilEngineeringBoy had a Isuzu Impulse XS wagonback when we were in HS. I always thought it looked kind of like a stoned snail given the droopy headlamps and the wagon back end (think 2 dr pinto/vega wagon)

It lead a full but rough life (SB Honda didn't put the drain plug back in the oil and it got driven to San Jose...) until it met a bus and the body shop couldn't find any parts to repair it. I think it redlined at like 8500 but stopped making anything resembling power in the low 7ks.

fintail

Low miles?

gsemike

Is 124k low for an 8 year old car? The about 15k a year.

jlflemmons

About $6500 over market

jlflemmons

Why would a dang near bullet-proof Olds 455 need this much work if it only has 27K miles???

Okay, you German fans, is this one a winner or loser?

A classic??!!! I am laughing so hard it hurts.

andre1969

I wonder if a lot of the issues with that '69 Delta came from just sitting too long and being neglected? That's what a lot of that stuff sounds like. As for the upgrade to electronic ignition, maybe the seller just did that because he hated messing around with the points and condensor? As for the timing chain, Oldsmobile was using some kind of nylon mesh thingie by this time, which was supposed to make the engine quieter, but it was prone to early failure. Maybe they swapped it with a sturdier type of traditional timing chain?

As for the '76 Omega, all I can say is wow! In addition to having the rare V-6/3-speed manual drivetrain, it's decked out in Brougham trim! :P I remember looking at one of these at a local park and sell lot about 11 years ago, although it had the 260 V-8 and an automatic. It was a nicely trimmed little car and, considering the time, not a bad effort at a luxury compact in the Granada vein. I'd be afraid of a 231 from that era though. Those older ones tended to go poop around 70-90,000 miles, whereas a 260 V-8 was almost indestructible. Lord knows, it wasn't powerful enough to hurt itself!

stickguy

Damn, that could have been my sons first car, if it wasn't 2,000 miles away!

fintail

Nobody will restore a SWB US-market early 80s W126, not when W108s and fintails are still not worth restoration. I am very skeptical about that car. It looks clean, but those seats look saggy, so not a "total" restoration. If the car was immaculate and had zero needs cosmetic or mechanical, his price would be fair. Not for a non-runner.

jlflemmons

I think that was a 250CI straight six, ala Chevy. A buddy bought a '73 model two door with the six-banger and column shift. What a dog.

jlflemmons

Was the one with the Chevy 350. Same as the Nova, but no one expected it to run.

And, what had to be the strangest option of all time for an Olds, you could get a hatch back Omega with a custom fitted tent that attached to the open hatch and went down the sides. Sort of a poor man's Westfalia? :shades:

Mr_Shiftright

Mercedes--that car is only worth $4,500 if it's in top running condition (maybe). Certainly I wouldn't give a dime over $1,500 for a money-pit that's running badly for a yet unknown reason. What if it has a head gasket or valve issue? You can just kiss your $4,500 goodbye in one roll of the dice.

No thanks.

hpmctorque

"I wouldn't give a dime over $1,500 for a money-pit that's running badly for a yet unknown reason."

Why would a car in such condition be worth even $1,500? If it's not really driveable, I would think it's only worth the price of scrap. I'm assuming that if it were relatively easy and cheap (say no more than $3,000 to make it perfect) to repair, that the seller would have probably done it. I suppose you could justify $1,500 on a roll of the dice that the seller overestimated what it would cost to bring it up to snuff, or just didn't want to be bothered, but I think that's a long shot. You might also justify $1,500 on the basis that if the long shot didn't pan out, you could recoup the price by parting it out, but that would be a real hassle.

I'm also bothered by the fact that neither the exact year nor the mileage of the car is disclosed.

andre1969

I think that was a 250CI straight six, ala Chevy. A buddy bought a '73 model two door with the six-banger and column shift. What a dog.

Yeah, back in '73 it would've been the 250 Chevy six. But once Buick got their V-6 back, GM started using the 231 in the Ventura/Phoenix, Omega, and Skylark. The Nova carried on with the straight six through the end in 1979.

About 6 years ago, a local park and sell lot had a brown '76 LeMans coupe on their lot. I stopped off to look at it, very interested. Until the guy gave me the key and let me go start it up. I fired it up and my first thought was "that doesn't SOUND like a V-8"! Sure enough, I popped the hood, and there was a Chevy 250! In a car that must have weighed about 3800 pounds. Now my '76 with a Pontiac 350 really isn't all that fast. My '79 New Yorkers, which have 360-2bbls, or even my pickup, with a Chevy 305-4bbl, take off faster. So I hate to think of how slow something like this would be with a 6-cyl!

I remember seeing an old Consumer Reports test from 1977, where they pitted a downsized Impala with a 305 against an LTD-II with a 302, a Fury or Coronet with a 318, and a Cutlass Supreme that was saddled with a 260 V-8. They were comparing the Impala to existing midsizes because it was about the same size on the outside, and their reasoning was that by 1977, nobody needed anything bigger. Anyway, the 300+CID engines all turned 0-60 times around 12-13 seconds, but the poor Cutlass struggled to make about 20-21! So I guess a 6-cyl 76 Lemans would be close to that?

hpmctorque

"Sure enough, I popped the hood, and there was a Chevy 250!"

And I imagine that 250 was hooked up to a Powerglide tranny, which, while durable, didn't help acceleration. Yet, 250 ci converts to ~4000 cc, which is not unreasonable for a compact or intermediate of that era. I drove full size Chevys with both the 230 ci ('65) and 250 ('66) engines, and the extra 20 cubes made the '66 much more pleasant to drive. Although it certainly wasn't what an enthusiast would choose, it had adequate power for a family hauler. The 230, on the other hand, was marginal, and was more suitable for the Nova.

andre1969

No, this '76 LeMans had a three speed Turbo Hydramatic 350. I don't know when the Powerglide finally got phased out, but I don't think GM was putting it in any of their intermediates by the time of the 1973 restyle.

hpmctorque

Well, then it may not have been a dog. Depending on gearing and torque, it's possible that it could have been quicker than the 260 V8, since the dispacement difference isn't too significant.

lilengineerboy

In the late 80s/early 90s, my '76 Nova standard coupe was a 250 straight six/TH350 combo. I never felt like that car was underpowered at all (of course the other car was an '83 Reliant, so everything is relative).

Its funny, that Nova was the BASE model, it had base vinyl, a bunch of cheesy covers on the dash for things it didn't have (and a circle with lines around it where the clock should've been), it had PS and PB and aftermarket AC (which sucked). Now I don't think you can even get a midsized car with crank windows...

That car was dead nuts simple though. I can't think of a repair that car had over $100.

jlflemmons

Olds was using the same block for the 260, 307, and 403. Just a matter of bore and stroke. While the 260 was a pig in a poke (with a 2bbl, no less) it was practically indestructable. The 307 w/4bbl wasn't too bad in the Cutlass, even with the tall gearing they were running. The 403 was pushing the limits for the block, but still a solid engine.

Oh, but the things you could do with the 455 ... :shades:

hpmctorque

I imagine that, as a derivative of the 455, the 260 V8 was considerably heavier than the 250 I-6.

andre1969

My grandmother had a 1985 LeSabre with an Olds 307. I had this car for the final few years of its life. I thought it had adequate power. It had 140 hp and 255 ft-lb of torque, whereas a Chevy 305 in something like a Caprice had more hp (165) but a bit less torque (245) The 307 also peaked out in both at a slightly lower rpm. I dunno if these differences in engines were noticeable to most people or not.

IIRC, Chevy 305's in these big cars usually had a 2.56:1 axle, whereas the 307's used a 2.73. The Deltas and LeSabres with the 307's also averaged about 100-150 pounds lighter than the Caprices and Parisiennes with the 305, because Olds and Buick used a few little weight saving tricks here and there in their versions of the B-body. For instance, the LeSabre used those little gas struts to hold the hood open, whereas the Chevy/Pontiac used regular hinges. However, I think the Delta used hinges, too.

My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Cutlass Supreme coupe with a 307. But instead of having a 4-speed automatic, it used a 3-speed. To compensate for the lack of the overdrive gear, the car had a tall 2.14:1 axle. It didn't seem to hurt performance too much, though. They didn't actually list its 0-60 time, but they gave it a "4", out of a possible 5, which at that time, I think meant that it would do 0-60 anywhere between ~9.6-12.9 seconds. In contrast, the 1985 T-bird they tested, which had an overdrive automatic, quicker gearing, but only a 120 hp 3.8 V-6, was given a "3".

andre1969

The 260/307/350/403 wasn't the same block as the 455, which was a big-block. It was essentially the same engine as the old "Rocket" V-8 that debuted in 1949 as what? A 303 CID or so? It's a little bit bigger, physically, than a Chevy smallblock, but I think it may actually be a bit lighter. Olds used a lot more nickle in their iron blocks, which made them stronger without having to add a lot of weight. In contrast, the Chevy smallblock, while it had low reciprocating mass, wasn't a very strong block, and had to be beefed up. But it was more of an after-the-fact beefing up, rather than just redesigning it, so it ended up being heavier than it really should have been.

Still, I'd imagine that a 260 V-8 might've weighed at least 100 pounds more than a 250 inline 6. I think I've seen the 250 listed at 450 pounds, and a Chevy smallblock at 575. For some other comparisons, the Mopar 225 slant six was 475 pounds, while the 273/318 was 525 pounds, and the 360 was 550. The Buick 231 V-6 was a real lightweight at 375 pounds, whereas the Chevy 200/229/262 V-6 was about 425. Pontiac's 301 V-8 was 452 pounds, but was really cast too thin, and as a result was pretty problematic.

These numbers are off the top of my head, and taken from an engine weight chart that I've seen floating around on the internet, so take them with a grain of salt.

Mr_Shiftright

"Why would a car (Benz V-8 sedan) in such condition be worth even $1,500?

Good question. It's not worth even $500 to me, and then only if I could strip parts and tires off it for my own car, but there are always these reckless risk-takers who drive the price up of even disabled luxury cars, as long as they look nice. You see this all the time with crippled Jaguar XJ6s, some of which I wouldn't give you $100 for and which sell for $1,500. It's the "look rich for cheap" syndrome, and it's a compelling one.

hpmctorque

I guess if your purpose is to pull up to a restaurant or some other establishment, or someone's house, looking successful, it would serve that purpose. It wouldn't matter how well it runs, just that it runs. That assumes you don't give a ride to whomever you want to impress. Well, maybe you could pull that off too, for a short distance, if you cranked up the radio...hoping that it works. In fact, if you want to be a real poseur, why not add a crippled XJ6 to your Benz V8, so you could alternate luxury cars, all for $3,000. Imagine, two fine motor cars for the price of one new subcompact bottom feeder. How could you possibly go wrong?

fintail

"RARE RARE RARE"

They'd go nuts over it in England

Only in Seattle

I bet this is reliable

Real G-Wagen

jlflemmons

Ah, someone else who knows Olds. You are right on the 455 big block. My comment was directed at the performance enhancements for the big block as opposed to the small block. And yes, the Olds "small block" was bigger than the Chevy, and a LOT stronger because of the high nickel content. A lot of racers looked for the Olds blocks for a good base.

andre1969

IIRC, Pontiac did not have a big-block. They were able to make do with one basic block that started off as something like a 287.2 in 1955, and ultimately work it all the way up to a 455. I think the bigger displacements, like the 421/428/455, had raised decks, but otherwise, it was the same basic design.

I think because of this, the Pontiac 455 was more prone to failure than an Olds or Buick 455, or a chevy 454, all engines that were designed as big-blocks to begin with. I don't think the lower-output versions were too much of a problem, but supposedly if you tried to build up the hp too much, you'd run into problems quicker than you would with the other 455's.

I've heard that the main reason that the Chevy smallblock ultimately "won" out, as the others got phased out, wasn't so much that it was the best engine, but simply the fact that it was the cheapest to build! The Olds V-8, while durable, was more expensive to produce. Pontiac V-8's tended to run cool, and had problems adapting to emissions controls. And I forget what the reasoning was for Buick dropping their V-8. From 1977-79 they were down to just a single 350. Maybe Buick was trying to push turbo technology back then, and looking for that to be the wave of the future?

Mr_Shiftright

Fintail's latest list: Boy, every car I've always hoped I'd never have the misfortune of owning!

Benz V8/Jaguar XJ6 -- the tragic part of throwing money away on these old beaters is that the cars don't fool anybody who has real money--they might impress someone who doesn't know a $3,000 Benz from a $75,000 one, but then, what is the wisdom of trying to rub it in the noses of one's peers? It would probably backfire anyway as they'd stick it to the poseur the minute the car broke down---which will be soon enough. I just find the whole thing pathetic in some vague way. Drive what you can afford to fix.

boomchek

RARE RARE RARE: The fake Lambo. If you can't have the real thing then what's the point?

The MB Wagon diesel seller is nuts. For that money I'd go with a newer E Class Wagon (maybe even a 4matic one0, even though I don't think they ever came in diesels.

Mr_Shiftright

He is nuts. Well again, First Amendment Rights. Nobody's going to buy that thing at 4X retail value. Okay best one in the world, maybe $5,500--$6,000.

Or maybe a 17 year old trust-funder drunk on bio-diesel might make a bad purchase....but that's not a market.

fintail

Yep, no diesel 4Matic, no diesel W210 wagons in NA either.

Speaking of 4Matic, I saw a W210 E430 4Matic yesterday, odd as most were 6cyl.

fintail

Could be a good cruiser

Not many of these survived so well

This looks pretty nice

british_rover

I like the SWB Gwaggen that is the only one I would buy.

Anyone seen the news on the buried Plymouth in Tulsa?

http://www.kotv.com/e-clips/?id=6708

lemko

My Dad bought a beige-colored 1981 Ford Thunderbird Town Landau new. His car had a 255 cid V-8 which I believe had all of 115 hp. You had to floor it to get it to go uphill.

stevedebi

"My Dad bought a beige-colored 1981 Ford Thunderbird Town Landau new. His car had a 255 cid V-8 which I believe had all of 115 hp. You had to floor it to get it to go uphill."

I had the 302 V8 in a '78 Fairmont. I kept that car for 13 years (a record for a Ford), and it was the body that went first. Great engine.

hpmctorque

"Benz V8/Jaguar XJ6 -- the tragic part of throwing money away on these old beaters is that the cars don't fool anybody who has real money--they might impress someone who doesn't know a $3,000 Benz from a $75,000 one, but then, what is the wisdom of trying to rub it in the noses of one's peers? It would probably backfire anyway as they'd stick it to the poseur the minute the car broke down---which will be soon enough. I just find the whole thing pathetic in some vague way. Drive what you can afford to fix."

I agree with you completely, Shifty. I'm sure you realize I was joking about the wisdom of buying a beater Benz 8 AND a crippled Jag XJ6. Truth be told, I would buy NEITHER, precisely because the repair costs would make no economic sense. That said, I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't know the difference between an old Benz or Jag with needs, but with decent bodies and interiors, and newer ones. They're not Edmunds participants, but they're out there.

fintail

When I bought an immaculate 1989 MB W126 about 5 and a half years ago, some of my coworkers thought it was a new car. No kidding.

Mr_Shiftright

Well that speaks not only to your good fortune but to Mercedes dated styling