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 uninformed might think you're driving a cheap Chinese knock-off of a Solara convertible.
Looks like a good old beast
Well, damning with faint praise, but yes, not a bad car, but not what you might hope for from a "German" brand. The new Astra shows how far GM/Opel has come.
Over here maybe. I drove a late 60's Opel Kadett over in Germany, and it was a great car.
A lost cause no doubt, but its cool in its own way, I like that writing on the window
Porsche 912 -- well if it's real miles and the car is 'superb', it's a fair price, about right. Not a very exciting car, but pretty.
Packard Ambulance -- worth the money, even for parts.
edit, per Wikipedia: "This lack of sophistication caused the US car magazine Car and Driver to publish an annihilating test of the Kadett in 1968 featuring photos of the car in a car junkyard. Reportedly, GM withdrew any ads from that magazine for several months as a consequence."
I doubt it's worth fixing as an ambulance, since those aren't worth a great deal, but the motor and trans and differential and lots of body parts could go into a convertible or better yet to save a woody. These are not the most attractive Packards.
From the junkyard trips I've made, I've noticed that most cars from the late 40's and early 50's held up better than their later counterparts. With Mopars, for example, the 1949-54 seem like they're downright resistant to rusting. The '55-56 weren't quite as good. '57-58 were downright awful but, surprisingly, the '59 models, which were just a facelift, seemed to hold up much better. And the '60 models, although unitized, seemed to hold up better, but I guess it's possible that they could have been hiding a lot of structural damage underneath.
There's a junkyard down in Culpeper Va that, the last time I was there, had a '58 DeSoto Firedome 2-door hardtop parked next to a '51-52 hardtop coupe. The older one still had a license plate on the front that had the year 1961 or 1962 on it. Yet it almost looked like it could be pulled out of there, washed up, and put back on the road. The '58 was so rusty that it was starting to collapse at the rear and the fins were slowly sinking down, like the Titanic breaking apart.
Seems like the 60's saw a return of sorts to rust resistance, but then by the end of that decade they started to lose it again, and it got real bad in the 70's. Maybe they were actually improving the rustproofing techniques, but fighting a losing battle with thinner sheetmetal, haphazard, rush-job assembly quality, etc?
Neat little trip down memory lane, 210 Del Ray. Here in Salisbury, MD, the covering of choice was/is sand, which is plentiful. But road salt is now frequently used and with it comes vehicle rust. Fortunately, the area gets very little in the way of annual snowfall. But I still cringe every time I see a "salt truck" on the road.
What do you guys think would be a fair price for this car? I have no financial interest in this car whatsoever I am trying to help my friend price it for sale.
Thanks
Jorge
Repairing these cars isn't that expensive. I'd get the engine running well, do the brakes and fix the "steering" whatever that is, and you'd get more for the car. Nobody wants to pay a lot for a car that runs badly and won't stop.
If this were a Porsche, I wouldn't touch it, but a '68 Chevy is dirt cheap to repair. I'd also scrub it clean as a whistle inside, outside and underneath. Invest a thousand, get back another five. What's wrong with that?
If there's rust, dents, ripped top, faded paint and a rod knock, forget what I said and unload it.
Question, though. Does anybody know what transmission GM would have mated up to an Olds Diesel 350 in 1980? Would it be the lightweight THM200C or the better-suited THM350C?
Looks like a nice, comfy old beast.
"Looks like a nice, comfy old beast"
Well, you got the old beast part right.
$1000 minimum and no takers.
james
Tell me again why you think this car is worth $1,500?? :surprise:
Would a leaking exhaust manifold really be that big of a deal to fix? The last time I had one leak was on my '89 Gran Fury. It was minor enough, and the car was in there for other stuff anyway, so they just fixed it and didn't even charge me. I guess though, that you could argue that if it's a simple fix, why didn't the seller fix it?
Also, I could register the thing with historic tags, so I wouldn't have to get it inspected/emissions tested, so the lack of emissions equipment is no big deal to me...if anything, it's a bit of a bonus. I guess I look at this as having the comfort of a 1980 Bonneville Brougham combined with the performance of a 1972 Buick. I could see that car being a hassle though, for someone who wanted to get it tagged as a daily driver and living in an area with emissions testing.
So realistically, what's it worth? Gas money for one final trip to the junkyard? :shades:
RE: emissions---doesn't matter if you don't have smog tests, you can't remove emissions equipment from any vehicle that's used on public roads.
" The federal tampering prohibition is contained in section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from removing or rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in any motor vehicle in compliance with regulations under Title II of the Act (i.e., regulations requiring certification that vehicles meet federal emissions standards). The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section by a manufacturer or dealer is $25,000; for any other person, $2,500. Accordingly, any change from the original certified configuration of a vehicle or engine, or the manufacture or sale of a non-original equipment aftermarket part or system could be considered a violation of section 203(a)(3) of the Act."
It would take some really bad luck to get busted, BUT......
RE: VALUE -- probably no more than $750 tops. You'll need 4 tires = $350, exhaust leak fixed--let's say you get real lucky at $100, or very unlucky at $300, and really these cars, turn-key in 'fair' condition, is about $1,250. So there you go.
I wonder how, exactly, they would determine "tampering"? For instance, if your entire exhaust system rusted out and had to be replaced, but when you did it you conveniently "forgot" to put converters back on, well technically you didn't tamper with it! :P Yeah, I know, that's pushing it a bit, but politicians and lawyers often get by on fuzzier logic than that!
Just out of curiosity, how do people get by with all these fart cans and customized exhaust systems and such?
Yeah, but aren't there a lot of aftermarket systems that basically replace everything? Or are ALL of them (the legal ones at least) aft of the catalytic converter?
As for the emission equipment, the car started life as a diesel so it doesn't have a cat or any of that stuff. It might have had a smog pump, but otherwise the old Buick engine should meet the letter of the law.
Aftermarket exhausts are almost always designed to bolt in behind the cat, and aftermarket headers typically replace everything ahead of the cat. What some people do is replace the cat with a "test pipe" (a straight pipe with two flanges, or sometimes a short resonator). The "test" seems to be how long you can go without getting busted for running it.
Personally, if you drove such a car, then the consequence is that you have no right to criticize anyone else on the road who are driving a smoking, loud, or conspicuously dangerous vehicle. All they are doing is violating their own set of laws. I'd find it an uncomfortable position as an advice-giver.
However, UPGRADING a car, that is, putting a modern fuel-injected engine into a '65 Mustang would be applauded by the state I'd guess.
I looked up Maryland's emissions info, and it looks like Diesel vehicles are exempt here, too. So, since that car's VIN is showing it as a Diesel, I guess if I was to buy it, it would most likely slip through the cracks here?
One thing I just thought about...what about those 350 Diesel conversions that were popular back in the 80's? You know, where they'd take the Olds Diesel and convert it back to a gasoline engine. Would they have had to put a catalytic converter on the car then? Or were those conversions technically illegal?
Also, how do they classify the year of manufacture for a crate engine? You know, like those Mopar Crate 360's and Crate Hemis, or the Chevy Crate 350? If, in a more dollars than sense moment, I decided it would be fun to put a new Crate Hemi in my 1979 New Yorker, would that be legal, as long as I kept the catalytic converter on it? Heck, stranger things have happened. I've seen PT Cruisers with 426 Hemis, and Ford Focuses with 351Ws. As far as I know, neither engine was a factory option. :P
Personally, if you drove such a car, then the consequence is that you have no right to criticize anyone else on the road who are driving a smoking, loud, or conspicuously dangerous vehicle. All they are doing is violating their own set of laws. I'd find it an uncomfortable position as an advice-giver.
I'd say it would depend. After all, who's to say that 1980 Bonneville is smoking, loud, or conspicuously dangerous? Heck, in swapping out the engine, you've actually eliminated two of those features...the smoking and loud part. And probably helped improve on the conspicuously dangerous part as well, since the car won't be as much of a rolling roadblock as it was with the Diesel. Not to mention it would be less likely to break down and leave you stranded, block a traffic lane, etc. :P
And who's to say that it would necessarily pollute more? The only way to know for sure would be to put it through an emissions test. It could very well pass by 1980 standards, as is. And as long as it's kept in a reasonable state of tune, it'll still run far cleaner than your typical belching, smoking, neglected gross polluter.
I believe all the Olds diesels used the TH350 tranny, but I could be wrong. The TH200 would not stand up to the torque of the diesel.
I have to admit I had a chance to drive a four door Cutlass with a 350 diesel engine, and it ran quite well. Still sounded noisey at idle, though ...
That's something else I never understood, about the Olds Diesel 350. I always thought that Diesels would give you more torque at the expense of hp, but in the case of the Olds Diesel, it only gave you like 190-200 ft-lb of torque, whereas a gas 350 was probably more like 275+ ft-lb.
Now a Chevy 305 put out around 245 ft-lb of torque, and an Olds 307 put out 255 ft-lb, so why were they able to put the THM200 behind those engines and not the Diesel? Could it be that the Diesel's 190-200 ft-lb came on more quickly, and it was more likely to operate for longer times at that level, whereas the 307 or 305 might have more peak torque at a specific rpm, whereas the Diesel might have a broader, flatter torque curve?
straight 510 - too bad it's an auto
mercedes with rare volvo body conversion
seems reasonable, if sound, but I like el caminos better
again, reasonable, if sound. This bodystyle is nice and clean
unusual, true projects. Probably no upside
Happy Birthday Taco !!! My 1996 Tacoma rolled over 200k miles last night. Still going strong.
james :shades:
Those Nashes are so weird, they make a Studebaker look normal.
'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
Oh, yeah. The Olds 5.7L diesel hit 225ftlbs at 1800rpm.
There are interesting articles around on how to fix the problems GM created by rushing the engine to production. According to some, the design could be made quite robust if a few relatively easy and inexpensive mods, or "diesel tricks" are incorporated to the '86 engine. I never cared much for diesels, so it didn't interest me particularly.
One guy does describe how to start a dry diesel using a gasoline moistened shop towel in the intake. He clearly states that if you put too much gasoline in the intake you will get a most impressive backfire and accompanying ball of flame rising many feet into the air. I might pay to see that. From a distance anyway.
Wow, and I thought my Grandma's '85 LeSabre was luggy. It hit its 255 ft-lb at a comparatively high 3200 rpm! And the 305, in 165 hp 4-bbl form at least, like what you'd find in an '85 Caprice or Parisienne, would have to scream to 4400 rpm to hit their 245 ft-lb.
I have no idea what either one of those engines would be putting out at 1800 rpm, though. It's a shame they don't really publish hp/torque curves. I know GM does for their newer engines, and my 2000 Intrepid's brochure shows the curves for the 3.2, 3.5, and the variable intake version of the 2.7. But by and large, I guess those curves just aren't easily available.
That's it? Jeez, the 5.7L in my truck hits 300 ftlbs at 1600 rpm. I think the S2000 peaks at 7800 or something. :surprise:
I've wondered what a V8 made using two S2000s would do - think of the sound!
Turns out the Olds 307-4bbl, in 140 hp form at least, hit its 255 ft-lb @ a low 1600 rpm! The Chevy 305-4bbl with 165 hp hit its 245 ft-lb @ 2400 rpm. Sorry about the goof-up!
Now, the 307 actually had 150 hp in 1980, and 145 in 1981, then 140 for 1982-90. I dunno if those first two years had different torque curves or not. And some versions of the 305-4bbl only put out 150 hp. For instance, while a 1985 Caprice/Parisienne or pickup would've had 165, the midsize Monte Carlo, Bonneville G, and Grand Prix only had 150. I dunno if that did anything to the torque, either.
They're also exaggerating a bit about the length...19.5 feet is 235 inches! I think these cars were around 223".
Those earlier Bonnevilles were nice inside, too. They often had real leather on the seats, as opposed to the thick "Morrokide" vinyl they used in later years. Bonnevilles, and Star Chief/Executive models also dodged a bullet with that "Slim Jim" Roto-Hydramatic tranny that afflicted Oldsmobiles and Catalinas and Grand Prixes. For some reason, Pontiac elected to stay with the old, beefy, 4-speed Hydramatic with the Bonneville/Star Chief/Executive. You get a more instrusive tranny hump with the older Hydramatic, but it's worth it for the durability!