By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The S-class coupe of the 90s is a good example to use for showing the messy Mercedes naming conventions of the period. When it was introduced in 1992, it was a 500/600SEC. Then in 1994 it became the S500/S600. Then in 1998 the CL500/600. All the same basic car. Those big 90s coupes are pretty odd cars too.
four on the floor, six in the frame
rare, even for a Benz
relive the bad old days
good engine, wrong body
"I was planning on putting a 4.3L v-6 in it" LOL
You could maybe give a ballpark estimate?
The Chevette. Oh Lordy that would be a hoot with a 4.3L. Right up until the torque ripped the body in half. A 2.8L would be a lot easier and more appropriate. As long as you didn't have to go around a corner at better than a walking pace!
As for the Chevette, assuming that it's possible to make a silk purse from a sow's ear, the GM Quad 4 or current OHC Ecotec 2.2 might be a better choice than the V6.
Would something like a Chevy 4.3 V-6, or a smallblock Chevy or Ford V-8 fit in a Chevette without too much cutting in the engine bay area?
For their time, X-11's were pretty quick. Well, when they were running, at least!
Incredible acceleration, but a bit tail heavy. The company that did the work also offered a Northstar V8 option. That version required wheelie bars.
High powered Chevettes are great for "beer talk" but you wouldn't really want to do it. :P Well at least I wouldn't.
Small+fast? Get an original MINI or a Honda CRX
VTEC powered Old mini
They were using a Type-R engine B18. I think those were 195 hp stock and this one was tweaked to do about 220 hp at about 8,000 rpm.
I do know, though, that some people hop up and race Pintos on quarter mile tracks. Could it be that, once you've modified the gas tank so that it's less vulnerable to blowing up, Pintos are stronger, structurally, than Chevettes?
I'm no Lexus fan, but you should bite your tongue for using Pinto and Lexus in the same sentence. LOL.
Just remember, "if you don't break traction, you'll break something else."
I think I could see Andre in this
Enthusiast owner
So I did, and came up with any number of very nice 530 4-doors for $4000--$5,000. And THEY don't need paint.
Get real on the price, man!
And we won't even talk about gas mileage. Okay, we will. Figure absolute best around 18MPG on highway under 70MPH.
I still wonder what that motor would have been like with a tuned MPI and full electronic control. Could've been one of the best V8's in history.
I have no idea why someone would restore an old 530i. Very odd choice.
The engine sure does look purdy now, though.
'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
Heck, I'd sacrifice a couple of my co-workers if I could get that kind of fuel economy out of my '76 LeMans! It has a 350-2bbl, and I think about the best I ever got out of it was maybe 15.6. But then, it's a Pontiac 350 and not an Olds 350, and I think the Olds engines were a bit more economical. At least, they tended to adapt much better to emissions controls than Pontiac engines did, partly because Pontiac engines tended to run cool.
I guess the cooler-running aspect of it may have played a hand in poorer fuel economy, as well. And I've also heard that, if driven gently, a 4-bbl can return better economy than a 2-bbl, because the primaries are smaller?
It was also pointed out to me at a GM show that my LeMans's 350 was also an early smogger engine, originally equipped with a smog pump. The pump is long gone, but you can see where the pulley is for the 4th belt. And there are also some metal air tubes that, at first, looked like part of the air conditioning system, but upon closer inspection were attached to nothing. I know back in those days, when emissions crap got removed, *usually* it would make the car run better and get better fuel economy, although actual emissions would go up. But I wonder if some things, when removed, could cause economy to suffer a bit?
All I know is that it really shows how far downhill cars went in the 70's. My '67 Catalina convertible, with its 400-4bbl, will blow the doors off my LeMans, yet it gets better economy. I've gotten close to 18 on the highway, and I'm sure the Catalina outweighs the LeMans by a few hundred pounds, as well.
I do kinda like that Cutlass sedan, though. Good looking car, and I've always liked that shade of green. I know most people prefer the coupes, but I even like the 4-doors on these, I think partly because the greenhouse was so open and airy...downright futuristic compared to Ford and Mopar rivals. In contrast, the coupes are kind of claustrophobic, especially with the opera windows like my LeMans has. Plus, you could still roll down the back windows on the 4-doors. Although GM tried eliminating that for 1978. :sick:
BTW, when DID GM finally switch everything over to electronic igntion? Were '73-74 Olds 350's still running around with points and a condenser?
"collector" cars
james
That is hardly saying anything, Andre! Sounds like a win-win to me! :P
True. In fact, I just ran into one of said cow-irkers at lunch. But that didn't finish her off so I threw it into reverse and ran into her again! :shades:
Now that I think about it, I vaguely remember as a kid, Mom complaining about her '75 LeMans coupe, with a 350-2bbl, only getting around 15 mpg in mixed driving. I remember it was such a big deal because the '80 Malibu she replaced it with averaged in the low 20's.
My grandparents had a '72 Impala 4-door hardtop with a 350-2bbl, and I remember Granddad saying it would get around 13-14 in local driving, and maybe up to 19 on a trip. But, that was before they started really choking them down with emissions controls.
I dunno if this is true or not, but I heard that once they started putting catalytic converters on the cars in 1975, many of them ran better and got better economy than their 1973-74 counterparts. I guess maybe once they started putting converters on, they were able to get rid of a lot of other more rudimentary junk?
My '68 Dart would usually get around 13-14 around town, 17 on the highway, and almost 18 if I really went gentle on it. It had been rebuilt though, and hopped up a bit in the process. Still, it was no faster than my '67 Catalina. Kinda sad to think that a compact car with a 318-2bbl would only get about the same highway economy as a full-size with a 400-4bbl!
First electronic ignition and cat on Olds was in '75, first computer control '80. I think... May have been '81.
Wife had a '78 Regal 2dr w/ 231 V6 2bbl. I had a '79 Cutlass 2dr w/ Chev 305 V8 4bbl. Town or highway driving either one I would get 2-3 MPG better mileage.
And our '84 Cutlass 2dr w/ 307 Olds 4bbl did better than either one. Got about 22mpg on the highway and 16-18 in town. Had tall gears and didn't really get it's legs until running around 80. But the 22mpg was down around 60-65MPH
In 1993 I got an '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe, 231-2bbl. 110 hp, 190-ft-lb of torque. I think the Malibu was actually quicker at lower speeds, like 0-50, but the Cutlass seemed a much better highway cruiser, and was better in passing situations. It got around the same economy as the Malibu.
In 1998, my Mom gave me her '86 Monte. It had a 305-4bbl, 150 hp, ~245 ft-lb of torque. It also got around the same economy, as the other two, but it was a helluva lot faster. It also had the 4-speed automatic, whereas the others only had 3-speeds. It also had 179,000 miles on it when she gave it to me, so I guess it's possible that it got better economy when it was newer.
Did your '84 Cutlass have the 4-speed or 3-speed automatic? There's an Cutlass in my 1985 Consumer Guide with a 307/3-speed, and it was geared really tall, something like 2.14:1!
That 1964 Special at Macungie had a 300 V-8. Would've it been mated to the same transmission as in my '68 model? It wouldn't have been the dreaded Slim Jim? How bad is the Slim Jim in reality?
I could be wrong, but I think the slim-jim only went in 1961-64 Oldsmobiles, and 1961-64 Pontiac Catalinas and Grand Prixes. Bonnevilles and Star Chief/Executives held onto the older, stronger, but physically larger 4-speed Hydramatic.
I'm guessing that most intermediate GM cars in '64 were using 2-speed automatics.
I dunno much about the Slim Jim, but I've always heard that it's best to avoid if at all possible. The older 4-speed Hydramatic won't easily fit as a replacement because it's too big, and would require cutting up the floorpan, but maybe it wouldn't be too hard to swap in a later THM400 or 350?
That 1984-85 period was kind of an interim period for overdrive transmissions. You could only get the V-6 with the 3-speed, but the V-8 could be had with a 3- or 4-speed automatic. I think for 1986-88 they made the 4-speed mandatory when you ordered the V-8, and at some point (maybe 1986, they did start offering the 4-speed with the V-6.
On the 3-speed V-8, to compensate for lack of an overdrive gear, they gave it a taller 2.14:1 axle, although I'd imagine that you could order a quicker axle. With the 4-speed V-8, they changed the axle to a 2.41:1, which in overdrive would give you an effective ratio of something crazy like 1.6:1!
A buddy of mine had an '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan with a 3-speed automatic and the small 260 CID V-8. I dunno what axle ratio it had, but for only having 100-110 hp, that sucker seemed pretty gutsy. I'm guessing it had a pretty good torque curve.
almost complete
This one looks better:
complete
james
MG TD?, TC?, TVW?
insane (non)seller
Last of the chrome bumpers
You won't see it every day
Gas-saver
It's nice, but come on
Andre-mobile
"With Factory Euro Stainless Steel Delorian Roof"
Quite a pair
PRetty fintail in my color, but no to those tires
Craigslist car on ebay