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

1227228230232233854

Comments

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,732
    If it was a Chevy, people would be all over it - still doesn't look like a bad deal
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Is that really a hardtop? It looks like 2 door post to me but it could just be the bad angle of the pictures.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    Yeah, it is hard to tell with the angle of those pics and the lighting. I think it is a hardtop though. It's just that the flash of the camera seems to be highlighting the chrome trim that surrounds the door window and the rear quarter window. Back in those early days they tended to surround the windows with a chrome strip. I think it was for safety reasons, the idea being that you might be more likely not to notice un-framed glass, and could bang yourself on it.

    My '57 DeSoto has chrome trim around all the window glass, which rolls down with the window. In later years though, they usually just went for a thin strip on the front part of the rear quarter window.

    It is funny, how well-loved the '55-57 Chevy is, while the '55-57 Pontiac is pretty much overlooked. I think there's just something about the "face" of a '55 Pontiac that's kind of dumpy looking. I think some old road tester, like Tom MacCahill or someone, said it looked like it was born on its face!

    I wonder if the '55 Pontiac got much publicity from being used in "I Love Lucy"?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Pontiac had a very solid reputation as an old lady's car, and it took a while to shake that off...I think by '57 this new image started to work (the fabulous fuel-injected Chieftain convertible!) and once the "wide-tracks" came out, Pontiac was in the game.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,732
    The weird gills above the headlights kind of disturb me
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,734
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2025 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2025 blue Outback (grown kid 1), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (grown kid 2)
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,734
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2025 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2025 blue Outback (grown kid 1), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (grown kid 2)
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    Pontiac had a very solid reputation as an old lady's car, and it took a while to shake that off...I think by '57 this new image started to work (the fabulous fuel-injected Chieftain convertible!) and once the "wide-tracks" came out, Pontiac was in the game.

    Yeah, I'd heard another description of pre-1957 Pontiacs as a car for retired doctors. Seems like Bunkie Knudsen did help them turn around for 1957. I think the '57 Pontiac is one of those rare cars where the facelift looks better than the original design! Usually it's the other way around, with the original looking the best, and then they start mucking it up with half-hearted facelifts.

    How did the '57 Pontiac Bonneville (that was the fuel injected one) perform? It had 310 hp out of a 370 CID engine, but according to my old car book did the quarter mile in about 18 seconds. Almost sounds like the car was more show than go. My book does say that it was mainly a promotional piece for dealers, so they only moved 630 copies.

    Still, it looks like it helped Pontiac's image that year. 1957 was a down year for GM in general. According to my old car book "While Chevy, Olds, and Buick all lost sales to rival 1957 Chrysler products, Pontiac built some 333,500 cars to move within 51,000 units of 5th place Olds."

    As for sales in that timeframe, Pontiacs looked like this...
    1955: 554K
    1956: 405K
    1957: 333K
    1958: 216K (that '58 recession was a killer for middle-priced marques)
    1959: 383K (the year that Pontiac really transformed into a sporty car)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Those fuelie '57s are worth a ton of money today. Pushing up towards 80K--90K. Rare car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    Those fuelie '57s are worth a ton of money today. Pushing up towards 80K--90K. Rare car.

    How do they compare in value these days to a 300C convertible or an Adventurer 'Vert? I guess those two would be its closest competition. For comparison, they made 630 Bonnevilles that year, 484 300C verts, and 300 Adventurer verts.

    Those Bonnevilles were EXPENSIVE, too! $5782. The 300C vert was "only" $5359 and the Adventurer was downright cheap at $4272. I imagine a Bonneville was a hard sell, when it was new. That was a lot of money for a Pontiac. The most expensive "regular" convertible was only around $3100. In contrast, the Adventurer and 300C weren't that much more expensive than the top of the line regular DeSotos and Chryslers.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh a 300C convertible would be very valuable indeed. I think values of these rare cars fluctuates wildly depending on condition and authenticity. I'm sure you could have two of them, same cars, and have a $50,000 to $75,000 difference in value. When it comes to 100 pt cars, you can throw the price guides away---that's unknown territory, trying to predict what someone would pay for the "best in the world".
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    It's either an S420 or an S500...S420s are pretty uncommon, so I would wager on the latter.

    Really? I would have thought the opposite, based on the W140s I see around here. 420s all around.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,732
    Maybe a regional thing? I see W140 S500 probably 10:1 over S420
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    I wish the pics were higher quality on that '68 Satellite. I kinda like that one. And honestly, I'd probably be happier with it just as is, with the 318, then with some brutally hopped-up 440 6-pack or Hemi that makes it unbearable to drive.

    As-is, it would be an easy car to drive, and is more than powerful enough to keep up with modern traffic, tolerable fuel economy, a good daily driver in general. It would be a shame to see it turned into some trailer-queen clone car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    That '67 Catalina's a cool car but yeah, probably overpriced. I wonder what kind of performer it would be with the 3.42 axle and that big 428 engine?
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,174
    Something I've always wondered - I grew up with a 383 police engine in my dad's car, but have never driven a hemi. Other than outright foot to the floor acceleration, what would I notice?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    Something I've always wondered - I grew up with a 383 police engine in my dad's car, but have never driven a hemi. Other than outright foot to the floor acceleration, what would I notice?

    I think the main things you'd notice are noise and vibration. The 426 Hemi is an engine that likes to run fast, and isn't happy idling. It's hard to keep in tune, too, so if you do manage to get it tuned down to where it's nice and smooth, don't expect it to stay that way for long. Because it likes to run fast, the Hemi tends to be mated up to shorter gearing than the regular big-blocks. So it's going to sound like it's revving fast even when you're going slow.

    As for weight, I think a 426 Hemi weighs about 100-150 pounds more than a regular big-block. That extra weight might not be too noticeable in regular day-to-day driving, but if you had to steer fast or brake quickly, you might feel a difference. I'd also imagine it would eat up brakes and tires a bit more quickly.

    I think the Hemi tends to run hotter than the regular big blocks as well, so if you were stuck in traffic on a warm day, expect to bake. And forget about turning on the a/c, because AFAIK, you couldn't get a/c with a 426 Hemi. I'd also imagine that it would be easier to overheat, since the engine really wants to run around a racecourse at breakneck speed, and not sit idling in traffic.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    I like that '66 LeMans, although the price seems awfully high for a 326 and a 2-speed auto. I always thought that was a nice style except for one thing...the rear. Almost has sort of an unfinished look to it, and just doesn't "look" like a Pontiac to me. Actually, it makes me think more of a Dodge.

    I never was too crazy about the style of the 1964 or 1965 Chevelle. It's not that it's necessarily bad, but it just doesn't grab me. Still, that blue '64 looks like a nice car, especially for that price.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,174
    I guess 'beauty' is in the eye of the beholder. I'd rather have a '65
    image
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    I agree...while that '64 Comet's not too bad, I think the '65 is pretty hot looking. The '64 looks kinda like a baby Lincoln, but the '65 makes me think of a Pontiac, especially the way that badge in the center gives the grille a split look.

    I sort of lost interest when the Comet went midsize for 1966:
    image

    The overall shape of the body isn't too bad, but there's just something about the front-end I dont like. Maybe it's the way the headlights are recessed a bit more on the '65, give it a more aggressive stance than on the '66. In fact, on the '66, it looks as if the upper headlight is TOO high! Looks a little AMC-ish, too.

    I think that '65 looks good too, with that little Falcon hardtop roofline atop the longer, beefier comet body.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,174
    Yes, maybe that was AMC's 'inspiration'
    image
  • wevkwevk Member Posts: 179
    I had a 1964 Chevell 2 door hardtop back in the day. The body integrity/window fit was such that you needed a raincoat when driving through a carwash.

    WVK
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    AAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!! That Caddy is as pleasant as being sprayed with a two-litre bottle of Orange Crush on a hot, sticky day and then being staked to an ant hill! What is that car riding on - forklift tires? Vomitrocious!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,732
    Weirdo old AMG - lots of this stuff coming into Canada now - I bet it is ex-Japan market, a lot of strange yet LHD Mercedes of debatable taste wound up there.
  • ron528ron528 Member Posts: 5
    The hemi was not that bad to drive. I never noticed the extra weight in my GTX, but I did notice the extra power. Man you only live once and what a ride... If you never experienced going from 70 to 100 in one second that's because you didn't own one of these elephant motors.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,892
    That Chevelle wagon looks nice. I like those old '60s (and some '70s) mid-size wagons. Back then, it seems wagons were built with purpose whereas nowadays most wagons look like they were tossed together as an afterthought (Camry, or Toyota in general, wagons immediately spring to mind!) and look boxy and awkward as a result. Subaru and Volvo still make nicely proportioned wagons.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,174
    Camry wagons were truely odd. Previous generation Passat and Jettas were good, as are Audi wagons. Poster child for bad wagon design would be previous generation Taurus. No new rear doors or windows, just add some metal and a third window sharing no lines or even contours with the door glass :sick:
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    I think the '87-91 Camry wagon was okay looking, but that '92-96 was really odd. Somehow, it ended up looking like they just took the old wagon platform and tried, unsuccessfully, to graft the new sheetmetal on it. One area that it looks odd to me is in the rear doors. They're different from the sedan, and actually look like they came off the '87-91 style.

    And that rear end is just totally oddball. Maybe they were designed all goofy like that to increase interior volume? Sometimes the sleeker shapes aren't as roomy inside, and it's the goofy shapes that are actually more functional.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,732
    Those 92-96 models had dual rear wipers, that was kind of cool in a freakshow way
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,892
    I think it HAD to employ dual wipers, just by virtue of its length-to-height ratio! Like texases wrote, it really just looked like the extra sheet metal was slapped on there! I agree that the Taurus was the worst in this regard - it looked okay except that NOTHING changed forward of the C pillar and the cargo windows just did not work with the rest of the glass. A minor issue, I suppose. ;)
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,174
    Where would our discussions be without 'minor issues'? :D
  • im_brentwoodim_brentwood Member Posts: 4,883
    Weird thing about Japan is that almost all imported cars there are actually LHD.. even Jaguars!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    Weird thing about Japan is that almost all imported cars there are actually LHD.. even Jaguars!

    Isn't that one reason that the domestics had problems entering the Japanese market? Instead of building something that suits their needs, they just tried to force LHD cars onto the market with sort of a "figure out how to deal with it" attitude.

    Even fairly recently, I think GM tried to do this with the Cavalier.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Thats weird you think the Jags at least would be RHD. Is there some kind of tax advantage to having LHD?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    would doing something like this to a slant six seriously work?!

    Slant six engines are usually pretty torquey, but they get most of that power down low. They usually don't like to rev. I'd be kinda curious as to what kind of power this thing would put out.

    Chrysler did offer something called a "Hyper-Pak" in the early 60's for the 225, and it boosted hp from 145 to 197. It consisted of a 4-bbl carb, hotter cam, and I think a dual exhaust. It was more common on the little 170 though, where it boosted it from something like 101 to 145. The 225 has a long stroke, over 4", so I'd think fast revving would not be its strong point.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,804

    '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

  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Well that is the Supercharger from the 3800 series V6 so it is designed to work with medium displacement low reving engines. I bet it works alright with that slant 6. Te 3800 has a redline around 5,500-6,000 rpms.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,174
    I guess it would work, and it's not like they're messing with a classic here, but I would rather try the 'hyper pak' route, I imagine there are some performance parts available (who is/was the '8=6=4' parts company?). I would wonder how long it takes to get the carb set up correctly with the supercharger. Course, you could just put a 318 in it and be done with it, but where's the challenge in that?
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Clifford Inline performance is the company that does all of that.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,174
    Clifford - I forgot. Here's what they could do for that slant 6
    image
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    Well that is the Supercharger from the 3800 series V6 so it is designed to work with medium displacement low reving engines. I bet it works alright with that slant 6. Te 3800 has a redline around 5,500-6,000 rpms.

    I dunno what the redline on a slant six is, but looking at the horsepower/torque chart I found here, it looks like the 225 hit peak hp at 4000 rpm until they started choking them down in the 70's, which dropped it to 3600 rpm. In contrast, I had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme with a 231-2bbl V-6, and I think it hit peak hp at something like 3200 rpm.

    So I guess the slant six isn't THAT low-revving...for the era at least.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,113
    Course, you could just put a 318 in it and be done with it, but where's the challenge in that?

    Yeah, that is kind of the easy way out. :P Funny thing though, a 318 doesn't weight that much more than a slant six (525 versus 475 lb, from sources I've read) so the V-8 itself doesn't add much weight. However, I guess a lot of peripheral stuff that goes along with the V-8 does add weight. I think for my '68 Dart, the base weight with the slant six was listed at 2710 lb, versus 2895 for the V-8. So it looks like the weight goes up by about 50 lb for the engine, and 135 lb for extra stuff.

    I like the idea of hopping up a slant six, though. I have an old Mopar performance catalog from the 90's that describes all the steps you need to take to get a slant six car to do the 1/4 mile in under 14 seconds. One of the things listed, as I recall, was "reduce total vehicle weight to 2600 pounds or less". :surprise:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    A supercharger might really help the Slant Six, since the engine doesn't breath very well normally; however, I sure hope they strenthened the engine internally and added an intercooler, otherwise it's just a matter of time before the pin rattles out of the grenade.

    Actually, driving around without a hood is pretty stupid on a car like this. No wonder there are so few bids. That motor belongs in a Dodge truck or something where it would fit, or maybe an old Power Wagon would be just great.

    Porsche Targa-- buyer beware---those old targas are a real pain in the neck...squeaks, rattles and due to a design defect, incurable rain leaks.(look closely and you'll see that the top of the wing window frame doesn't reach the targa top!!) Get the coupe with a sunroof and be happy.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Member Posts: 6,734
    On ebay, in terrific shape. Just for fun, I was the first bidder on this car. It started at $1 dollar and I put in a very low bid. I did it with my son, and then he told Mom: "Dad just bid on a car on ebay!" It was fun to see her expression. I was outbid in about 10 minutes.It is now up to 35k, but the reserve has not been met. How much is one of these things in mint condition worth? I didn't think it would go this high this fast. There are still 5 days left...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160152462419
    2018 Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 4WS (mine), 2025 Subaru Outback (wife's), 2025 blue Outback (grown kid 1), 2018 Honda CR-V EX (grown kid 2)
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,174
    You might take a look at this old thread, lots of comments on a '65.
    '65 Lincoln Converible Thread
    edit-as for prices, I have no idea - I wonder if the JFK factor is at work?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.