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 914 with a 2.7 hipo engine is probably a death wish. You can punch out the 914 to 2.2 liters and add some other go-fast stuff and it's more than okay. Why have a Porsche engine that's worth worth twice the price of the car?
A 190 SL needs more power but the best conversion I ever saw was a Chevy V-6. Just right amount of power. Of course, adding an automatic kills everything. Maybe some kind of paddle shifter would be okay. Not sure anything could make a 190SL fun to drive. Well, the top goes down anyway.
'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
I may need a copy, too
Nor these
Nor these odd things
It's a shame they didn't just go ahead and make hatchbacks out of these things. I mean, it looks like one, so why not go all the way? Although, I wonder if doing that would have compromised the body integrity on these cars, and made them more prone to flexing, squeaking, rattling, etc?
If you got the upper trim level, these cars were pretty nice inside. Still, for a base model, that '79 doesn't look bad. I always hated those stationary rear door windows, though.
"1 of a kind" ...I'd think so
"... least it doesn't have a vinyl roof!"
The vinyl roof would look, well, vile, but the vinyl seats that I believe came with the upper trim level looked better, and were more durable, than the cloth upholstery in the base model. I guess that's one of the things you were alluding to in your comment about the upper trim level.
"I always hated those stationary rear door windows..."
Yes, me too, but partial relief could be purchased in the form of an optional electric opening rear vent window (the one between the rear window and the "C" post). Strange, but opening that vent window improved interior ventilation.
I regretted not having that option on my '78 LeMans, because opening and closing those vents manually was inconvenient, as you can imagine. However, I can attest to the fact that, small as they were, they did improve the air circulation, and were useful on those days when it wasn't quite warm enough to use the A/C. It's funny how those details stick in your mind.
Andre, you said you recently spent some money on your Intrepid. Invest a little more and you too can have one that looks like that tricked out "one of a kind", only in a different color. Whaddayathink?
kewl - needs a bigger wing though :P
I just checked my old car book, and it looks like the Century was available in three trim levels that year: Special, Custom, and Limited. None of them were very popular: 7363 Specials, 9681 Customs, and 2694 Limited sedans were sold. In a rare occurence, the wagon was actually the most popular bodystyle, with 10,413 Specials and 21,100 Customs sold. And I guess that would make sense, as the wagon was a pretty good looking ride, as far as wagons go. And pretty roomy, comfy, and versatile.
I've seen these Aeroback Centurys in a style that was cloth, but pretty ritzy and plush looking. I'm guessing it was the Limited style. I always thought that cloth was an uplevel material from vinyl, but back in those days, sometimes cloth was actually the cheaper material! I discovered this when I found a 1979 Malibu brochure that listed vinyl as being the option. And to be fair, the cloth in the base Malibu was pretty cheap looking, so maybe the vinyl WAS nicer. However, I always thought the cloth in the Malibu Classic was pretty nice.
Yes, me too, but partial relief could be purchased in the form of an optional electric opening rear vent window (the one between the rear window and the "C" post). Strange, but opening that vent window improved interior ventilation.
I remember Consumer Reports doing a test of one of these cars in 1978. In fact, it might have been a LeMans. They said that GM claimed that having a vent window that could open actually gave better ventillation when driving than it would have if it had a roll-down window. However, I don't know if they were comparing that to a window that rolled down all the way or even half-way, or the windows as they were, which were huge without a spacer window (which the wagons had), and would not have rolled down very far.
Elbow room isn't a measurement that tends to get listed in the specs, but with the recessed armrests, I'd imagine that these downsized intermediates were actually better than some full-sized cars in that respect, in the back seat. Possibly in hiproom too, since they didn't have armrests that jut out, like most cars do.
My grandparents had a 1982 Malibu wagon, with those stationary rear door windows. They bought it in February 1982, and didn't even think to try out the windows. I went to church with them one day in April, when it was kind of warm. Grandmom sat in the back seat. She started fumbling around, and finally said something along the lines of "how the hell do you roll the window down?!" Once we figured out that you DIDN'T roll down the window, and only had that vent to flip open, well let's just say that if we were Catholic, she probably would have gone to confession for some of the words she used!
She also started referring to that Malibu as "the most expensive cheap car we've ever owned". Which is really saying something, considering they'd had a few cars handed down to them over the years, and bought a clunker or two that was on its last legs. And I think Granddad's first "pickup truck" was a 1939 or so Plymouth that he sawed the back half off of and then built a bed, Beverly Hillbillies style!
I guess once you were out on the highway and moving, if you opened the front windows and the rear vents, you could get a pretty good airflow going. I don't remember how that Malibu did, though. All I remember is that Grandmom and Granddad hated it after they bought it. They were going through horsepower withdrawal, going from a 1972 Impala with a 165 hp 350-2bbl that, while not a powerhouse, was more than adequate, to a 110 hp 229-2bbl that could barely get out of its own way. And when the ECU went bad for the second time, they ditched it for a 1985 LeSabre with a 307 that turned out to be one of the best cars they ever owned.
I see a ton of Intrepids that are starched up at the Mopar Nationals in Carlisle, PA. Kinda interesting that the tuners and enthusiasts take to that car, but I guess it lends itself a bit better to it than a Lumina/Impala or Taurus. A Taurus or W-body would be a pretty rare sight at the Ford or GM show, but there's usually 25+ Intrepids.
The guy paid $15K less three years ago, and says he won't take a penny less now. He is willing to trade, so if he was to similarly overinflate the value my car...
For a few thousand dollars more, you can buy a 1978-83 SC which is superior in every way.
Keep in mind that a rebuild for these engines is $12,000. Anything less is a "patch job".
Only problem is, my buddy's mechanic, who has a thing for Forward Look Mopars, sort of read me the riot act about letting my '57 DeSoto sit while I fool around with this 70's stuff. And my roommate promised to rat me out to him if I even THINK about getting any more of these $500 cars!
Would that make much difference though, since the original block was used in both transverse and longitudinal applications?
I always thought it was a shame that Caddy didn't go with the more powerful 4.5/4.9, and then the Northstar in these cars in later years. While the 307 is a good, durable engine, with 140 hp it's a little overmatched in a ~4200 lb car. The 4.5/4.9, IMO, would have made the car a bit more prestigious, but I guess most people who wanted a car like this mainly wanted it for its size and comfort, and weren't that concerned about what was under the hood.
What would be a better swap for a car like this? Northstar or the LT-1 350 that was used in 1994-96? The Northstar has more hp, but the LT-1 has more torque.
That was my thought; that is, what would be the simplest, cheapest way to correct the problems associated with the 4.1 (durability), while maintaining the original character of this car? The 4.5 and 4.9 were solid engines, and while obviously not as powerful as the LT-1 350 or Northstar, they were lighter (aluminum block, like Northstar, but smaller and more compact; lighter than the cast iron 350), which would be a bonus for balance and handling. The 4.5/4.9 were also more fuel efficient than the 350 or Northstar. The 4.5 generated reasonable power and torque, and the 4.9 was fairly quick, so, unless one of our goals is to convert this Caddy into a muscle car (okay, I'm exaggerating a little), either the 4.5 or the 4.9 would work fine. They would be my choice, if they were the easiest swap for the 4.1.
It would be interesting to hear lemko's opinion on this.
I happen to like the styling of the '77=?? generation RWD Cadillac better than the next generation. In fact, rather than the post '77-??, I'd try to find a nice '75-'76, but I'm getting off the subject of what to do with that nice '83. I guess, before swapping any engine for the 4.1, I'd just drive the car as it is until the 4.1 failed. Didn't many/most of them fail at around 60,000-70,000 miles?
I'm not sure about the 1983 model, but my Consumer Guide has a test of a 1985 Brougham with the 4.1. 135 hp. 4-speed automatic, 3.42:1 rear end. It did 0-60 in 14.8 seconds. That would be pretty aggravating for merging onto highways and high-speed passing, but in most situations, it would probably be passable.
My '76 LeMans, '79 NYers, and '85 Silverado all do 0-60 in around 11-12 seconds, which is nothing to get hot and bothered over, but it's fairly rare that I ever need to push any of them to anywhere near their full potential. I'll do it sometimes just to "blow the cobwebs out". Plus, with no muffler on one of my NYer's, it sounds really cool. :P
It might, depending on what changed in the transition to FWD. The accessories might not be in the same relative places, the motor mounts may not line up right, and the starter may be positioned differently. Someone would have to sit down with both and look them over carefully.
I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme with the Buick 3.8 2-bbl. Beautiful, comfy car, but crappy engine. Not very durable, not very powerful. Pretty much self-destructed around 73,000 miles. I always wondered how hard it would've been to put in one of the newer, more reliable, more powerful Buick 3.8's. Even the late 80's model out of an Electra, LeSabre, etc, that put out 150-165 hp would've been a quantum leap in performance, I'm sure.
Of course, with cars like my Cutlass, it's cheaper in the long run to just dump them when something that major goes and get something else.
If I had unlimited funds, I think I'd be tempted to buy up a bunch of these unloved 70's and 80's cars, and have improvements done to them, like say a 4.5/4.9 or Northstar in that '83 Brougham, or a newer 231 in my '82 Cutlass. Hey, I've seen a 351 in a Focus, a 426 Hemi in a PT Cruiser, and a 440 in a 70's Colt hardtop. So I guess anything is possible, if you have the talent and/or the money!
Besides 350 crates are cheap cheap cheap and conversion shouldn't be that hard. You can buy lightweight fiberglass replicas of the 350 block that you can use to figure out all your measurements and line-ups. You'd probably want to upgrade the transmission to a TH400 if you don't have one. You can had an RV camshaft and better carburation and even get decent gas mileage out of a 350.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
james
and not likely any buyers, either...
He really needs to tape the numbers "$2,500" to his bathroom mirror and then dump some cold water on his head.
james
Most people who have jobs and families end up buying pump biodiesel and that's expensive, so the whole concept goes up in smoke, no pun intended. A few days of hauling peanut oil from Chinese restaurants and working with vile chemicals in your garage is enough to discourage all but the bravest.
Yeah, sure, for a 1981 small pickup?
The show Dirty Jobs had one of these guys on showing how he made biodiesel. Way more work than I would do for a gallon of gas..er diesel.
Bleh.
It's a whole lot easier that way. There are some versions of the Nissan SR20 that were FWD-only (GTi-R, VVL) which would be buckets of fun in a 240SX, but it's a ton of work to make them fit a RWD application.
Well, with a Caddy like that '83, I guess you could work your way backwards, and get pull a 368 or 425, or even a 500 out of an older model. Just make sure you get the transmission too, because the THM200C and the 4-speed variant of it tend to shred pretty quickly once you get much above 5 liters. Unless it's something really wimpy like an Olds Diesel.
If you put the right mufflers on, could you get a crate 350 or whatever to sound as good as an old 472 or 500? I know those old 70's engines were dogs, given their displacement, but those Caddies had a distinctive sound to them. Nice and deep, almost quiet, but powerful sounding (even if they weren't that strong). There's just something about the sound of a Chevy engine that's not the same. They're either powerful-sounding in that boy-racer sort of way, or they're just kinda generic sounding, like the 305 in my Silverado, or my old '86 Monte Carlo.