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

bumpy

It's not a F20C, but that's been done with the engine from the Suzuki Hayabusa:

http://www.h1v8.com/page/page/1562068.htm

texases

Man, what a lot of work, but 300+ rear wheel hp from 2.6 l. That would be some fun! Now they just need to go to 4.4 l with 2 X S2000s :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

Huh...I had totally different experiences with those V8 Pontiacs. Mine sucked gas like you wouldn't believe. 8 mpg was GOOD! These were early 60s cars I had. I think with a rebuilt Q-Jet and economy differential and a real soft foot you could do a lot better on today's gasoline---an RV cam wouldn't hurt either.

andre1969

Huh...I had totally different experiences with those V8 Pontiacs. Mine sucked gas like you wouldn't believe. 8 mpg was GOOD! These were early 60s cars I had.

Were those higher-performance models though, or just run-of-the mill cars? I'm sure once you got into the high performance 4-bbl models, qual quads, tri-carbs, etc, and the quicker axle ratios and stick shifts and such, they could be some serious guzzlers. But I think your typical Catalina probably left the factory with a 2.56 axle, 3-speed automatic, and a 389-2bbl putting out around 256-290 hp (through 1966) or a 400-2bbl putting out 290 hp (1967+)

My '67 was rebuilt shortly before I bought it and upgraded to a 4-bbl carb, so I think it puts out 325-330 hp. But it still just has the loafy 2.56:1 axle, so it's almost falling asleep on the highway.

Would a shift kit hurt or help fuel economy? I figure on one hand it gives you crisper shifts, and they always used to say that smooth shifts waste fuel (maybe not nowadays though), but on the other hand you'll hold the lower gears longer, so I guess it could just be how you drive.

Mr_Shiftright

Actually I don't think differential ratios have THAT much effect on economy. It's more related to engine efficiency, of course how you drive, and aerodynamics.

Any skillful person can get a LOT of mpg out of just about ANY car, depending on how much intensity you want to put into it.

But in the "step on it and go" department, I think how they build the engine in the first place means a lot.

I'm sure I could BUILD a Pontiac 389 to achieve excellent mileage.

fintail

Hypermiata

This is something

Mr_Shiftright

Ominous note in that Rolls article: that it was the oldest RUNNING Rolls....does that mean there is another older one, non-running, waiting to take the crown? If so, that $7 million might go up in smoke.

fintail

This should be fun to drive over a railroad crossing

A brute...and once owned by the French, so you know it hasn't seen combat

oregonboy

I love it: "Top believed to be in trunk, but no key to trunk. Sold AS IS." :P

As for the French Unimog, it's like the ad for the used French assult rifle:
"Like new, only dropped once."

(Hey, you have to admire the French. They were right about Iraq!)

james

lemko

Sheesh! How much trouble would it be to get a locksmith to retrieve the top if it indeed is in the trunk. Yeah, the top probably does exist, but is one-of-a-kind and is a dry-rotted mess. Still, it is an interesting car. Hope the builder reinforced it instead of just torching the top off. It probably already flexes more than Betty Spaghetti. Those hubcaps look like they're from an S-10 truck.

fintail

Land yacht

"IT'S NOT A SS BUT CLOSE ENOUGH" - uh right...good luck with that

fintail

I wonder what is really in the trunk...maybe the seller is named Guido and has a contracting business on the side...

The French...blind squirrel...nut...you know how it goes :P

oregonboy

Hey fin, I like that red buick; not to drive, but as artwork. Park it in a spare ballroom as a testiment to an era.

Here's a project with a funny (fishy?) story.
maybe the donee had the V6

send it to the crusher, I never liked Imperial styling

"boring when new, boring when old." But I'll bet somebody likes it.

ashes to ashes, rust to dust

james

Mr_Shiftright

Mercedes SLK -- LOL! Yes, I'd say a "number of front end parts" have been removed, as in the ENTIRE front end! Money pit.

60 Imperial -- parts car--a really nice one is worth $25,000, and you can't get there from here.

4-door gray '50 Chevrolet ---- oh, whoopie (twirl finger in air)

'41 Nash--- scary bad. Might make a nice rod if you had an extra $75,000 to spend.

andre1969

LOL, that's actually one of my favorite Imperials, the '60! I'd want one that was in better shape though, and preferably a 4-door hardtop or a convertible. IMO these things are too big to really look good as a hardtop coupe, so either give me 4-doors, or a 2-door with no roof! (just as long as it's not "no roof" like that earlier '67 Buick Special!)

I like that '50 Chevy sedan, as a period piece. It's kinda boring, and an unobtrusive color, but that's what people drove back then...humdrum workaday 4-door sedans. Hardtops, convertibles, big V-8's, etc, were still somewhat of a status symbol.

I like the '68 LeSabre Fintail posted, too. Nice color combo. Might not be too bad with fuel economy if it just has a 350. But a 425, 430, 455, or whatever Buick's big-block was by then would be a lot more fun! I could probably handle driving something like that on a regular basis, as long as it had halfway decent, modern tires. Shouldn't be too much bigger than my '67 Catalina and probably shorter than my '79 New Yorkers! It would get old really fast if I had to parallel park it on a regular basis though, or squeeze it into a lot of tight spaces.

british_rover

Man Unimogs are so cool.

Love the portal axles. I don't think that is really a French army vehicle though as it has more forward gears then reverse... :P

jlflemmons

I wonder what is really in the trunk...

Jimmy Hoffa.

:shades:

lemko

Oh, that's so sad about that 1960 Imperial. I'd love to have a '60 or a '57 or '58 myself! That poor car reminds me of the shabby 1960 Lincoln Continental Mark V limousine we saw at Carlisle - a beautiful car, but far too gone for any reasonable money to restore. Now, if you're ultra-wealthy...

Love that red 1968 Buick LeSabre too! I love that sleek roofline.

andre1969

Oh, that's so sad about that 1960 Imperial. I'd love to have a '60 or a '57 or '58 myself!

Let me guess...you don't like that heavy-handed facelift they did for 1959, either? I do like the '57-58, although I don't care for the single headlight setups on the '57. Kinda gives the car an owl-like "face".

I think the '61-63 Imperials got a bit too garish up front with those free-standing headlights, although in back they weren't too bad once they started toning down the fins. But there's just something about the '60 that I find appealing. That front-end just has a proud look about it. It's big, flashy, over-the-top, and proud of it!

Similarly, as awful as those '58-60 Lincolns are, I kinda like the '60 and even the '59 isn't TOO horrible. It seems like they cleaned up the front-end a bit with each passing year. Still, the 1961 Lincoln Continentals rendered them all obsolete.

stevedebi

That "not quite SS" has zero miles on the engine. I wonder if the engine runs at all?

stevedebi

"I wonder what is really in the trunk...maybe the seller is named Guido and has a contracting business on the side... "

Wow, wonder what it is worth if we have finally found Jimmy Hoffa... :surprise:

deskman

I had a 383 71 road runner with air grabber a 833 four speed that i swapped a overdrive ratio 4th gear from a dart lite and 8 3/4 rear with a 2:76 gear(swapped the gear from a new yorker). with a thermoquad on a 75 400 intake(swapped from wrecked cop car),hooker 1 7/8 inch headers . 2 1/2 inch duals with hemi style mufflers.

i could get 23-25 mpg hi way and 15 mpg around town.I ran it lean with a lot of spark advance.the car would still pull mid 14s in the quarter.

just think if i had acess to modern tech fuel injection and a six speed back then. 30 +mpg 13 second 1/4 mile and 170+ topspeed!

I wish i would have kept the car but traded it in on a new 84 turbo colt twin stick ( dont step on the gas unless you really mean it)with a/c after i found a 11,ooo mile 70 hemi 4 speed super bee to replace the runner.

andre1969

had a 383 71 road runner with air grabber a 833 four speed that i swapped a overdrive ratio 4th gear from a dart lite and 8 3/4 rear with a 2:76 gear(swapped the gear from a new yorker). with a thermoquad on a 75 400 intake .

How did that Dart Lite 4-speed hold up against the 383? Seems to me something like that might be a bit unpredictable, putting a slant six 4-speed up against a 383! I guess if you didn't push it, though...

If you wanted to go really long-legged, the 1981 R-body (St. Regis et. al) 1981-83 J-body (Mirada/Cordoba/Imperial) and non-police versions of the M-body (Diplomat et al) used a 2.26:1 ratio! I dunno what the spring perch is on those cars, but a '68-70 Charger rear-end will supposedly bolt up to a 1980 Cordoba, so I guess it's possible that one of those rears could be forced onto a 1971-79 B-body. If nothing else, I guess you could always weld on new perches?

Anyway, those 2.26 axles were tall enough that Mopar had to change first and second gear in their automatic trannies to keep them from stressing.

I heard that if you were gentle enough on a Feather Duster or Dart Lite, that you could actually see 36 mpg on the highway! Is that really possible? Or did you have to really use some crazy hypermiling techniques for that?

Mr_Shiftright

I think there comes a point when aerodynamics start to rob just about any trick you can come up with. But few people realize that a properly set up 4 barrel can deliver better economy than a 2 barrel. I think if you drove with a vacuum gauge and paid attention to it you could get mid 20s in a big old V8, with proper gearing and a really good tune up that's "dialed in".

The problem is city driving. There's a lot of weight to get moving there.

andre1969

But few people realize that a properly set up 4 barrel can deliver better economy than a 2 barrel.

Yeah, my dentist, back in the day, used to prefer to buy Impalas and Caprices with a 4-bbl, instead of a 2-bbl, because you could get better economy with the 4-bbl if you drove it right.

When you're out on the highway though, is there a given speed at which that advantage starts to diminish? I guess it's going to vary from car to car, but is there a general rule of thumb for a highway speed, or maybe rpm, at which the secondaries start to kick in?

Here's something else I never understood: How come sometimes the 2-bbl version of an engine will actually put out more torque than the 4-bbl version? I know it has something to do with backpressure, but I'm just having trouble grasping the concept, I guess!

jlflemmons

I know the 350 Olds would always do better with a 4bbl. Neat trick was to flip the lid on the air cleaner. You could really hear when the secondaries opened and it taught you how to drive efficiently.

But when you floored it and the secondaries went to full open ....

pure music.

andre1969

Neat trick was to flip the lid on the air cleaner. You could really hear when the secondaries opened and it taught you how to drive efficiently.

I do that trick with my '85 Silverado when the weather is warmer, from around late April to late October. It has an extra-tall 5" air cleaner. Now the air cleaner top itself is designed so you CAN'T just flip it. For one thing, it's concave in the center so that, when upside down, the hole won't reach the fastener, but also, the top piece isn't just flat, it also comprises about 3 inches of the side height. So, off that top comes, and on goes the flat air cleaner top from my non-running '68 Dart!

I dunno how much it really helps fuel economy...probably just 3-5%. But when you're dealing with 12-13 mpg around town and 15-16 on the highway unless I really old-lady it, every little bit helps!

Seems to help performance more than fuel economy, though. I haven't actually timed the truck from 0-60 in any before/after tests, but it definitely feels more responsive, especially when merging onto highways. Definitely sounds alot stronger too, but of course that can be deceiving.

So with 4bbl versus 2bbl fuel economy, if you keep your foot out of it, would that also apply to a 1976 LeMans with a Pontiac 350? Silly me, I always thought my '76 LeMans just had a 2-bbl, as that's what the seller told me it had. And since either of my '79 New Yorkers, which have 360-2bbl's, would beat it in a drag race, I just figured that's all it was. I've had the air cleaner top off and seen the carb opening, but I always just thought the back part was one of those GM jobs where the 2-bbl looked like the 4-bbl , just with the secondary flaps welded shut. Didn't Olds do that with the 260? Anyway, I was messing around with it the other day and had the whole air cleaner assembly off, not just the top part. I accidentally touched that back flap and it opened! And then, I noticed the linkage to it and that's when I realized...cool, a 4-bbl!

I guess if nothing else that would explain why, while the car doesn't seem so strong from say 0-60, at highway passing speeds it actually seems pretty responsive. Almost like the 2.7 DOHC in my Intrepid. Minus the fuel economy, of course. :sick:

Mr_Shiftright

Probably doesn't help fuel economy at all. The air flow is controlled by the throttle plate except at full throttle---that's the only time less restricted air filter would make any difference, and might gain you 2-3 HP.

jlflemmons

Well, that 260 was not much off the line. It is basically and underbored 350. Different heads and such, but it was a case of giving a little bit better gas mileage for most drivers, but actually didn't do much for Olds.

The open air cleaner lid really worked well down in Texas where the weather just never gets that cold.

But mostly it was for the sound! Those old Rochester Quadrajets had some really big secondaries that put out a great deep throated roar when fully utilized. Which, back when Amoco Gold 100+ premium was a whopping $0.39 a gallon, I did quite often.

toomanyfumes

I had a '76 Cutlass with the 260 V-8. Real dog of a car, especially off the line, like you said. Much slower than one with the 350, but the mileage was much better. It had the 2 barrel Rochester with the welded secondarys that looked like a 4 barrel.

andre1969

A buddy of mine had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260 V-8. Honestly, for only having like 100-110 hp, it was a pretty decent engine in a car that size. I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe with the 231 V-6, and it definitely felt quicker than that car, so I'm guessing it either had more torque, a better torque curve, or both. I've never seen a 0-60 time on a downsized car with that engine, but CR tested a 1977 Cutlass Supreme sedan with that 260 V-8. They pitted it against a Ford LTD-II with a 302, a Fury or Monaco with the 318, and an Impala with a 305. While the other cars, all with around 135-150 hp, ~245 ft-lb of torque, were able to do 0-60 in around 12-13 seconds, the poor Cutlass with its 100-110 hp, came in at around 21 seconds!

Another thing that I thought was interesting, is that while the LTD-II and Fury/Monaco probably outweighed the Caprice by at least 400 pounds, they were really no slower. In fact, I think the 318 was slightly quicker than the other two!

I always wondered how that test would've turned out if they had tested the Cutlass Supreme with a 350 V-8, which is probably how most of them came that year. I have a theory that with the 350, it would have done too well in the tests, thereby stealing the Impala's thunder. But then again, it was probably something as innocent as CR specifying the "base V-8" in all of their cars for that test. And it just happened to be that while a 302, 318, or 305 WAS the "base V-8" in those other cars, Olds was the only one to offer the even smaller 260. Chevy would come out with a smaller 267 CID V-8 with 125 hp in 1979, but according to my old car book, they didn't offer it in the big cars until 1980. It started off as a Malibu/Monte Carlo option. Likewise, Ford would come out with a wussy 115 hp 255 V-8 for 1980, but it wouldn't be the Crown Vic's base engine until 1981. Mopar never did counter with a smaller V-8 in these years, but the 318 did get cut to a wussy 120 hp for 1980. :sick:

toomanyfumes

I learned to drive in that Cutlass. I still remember the first time I got behind the wheel, my Dad saying, "This car is SLOW. Don't ever try to pull out in front of or pass anyone in this thing!"

fintail

Cheap cruiser

Freakshow

Mice and crappy British cars...

"not a whole lot of 760 diesels left on the road" - many good reasons for that I'm sure

Mr_Shiftright

Give the mice a merit badge for life-saving.

stickguy

for my sons first var. The Volvo. Perfect car, has a stick, built like a tank, safe, and too slow to get into touble with!

Even looks kind of sharp in the pictures...

gsemike

"You'll never find a better deal

"Not hammered like most"

"Throw another tranny in it for $200 or $300"

This looks like a decent car but too much work given the asking price

His neighbors will thank you

This needs work but could be worth it

Ths could be worth it too

Overpriced by double at least

You don't see too many survivors like this around here and the price is OK

Mr_Shiftright

74 Nova --never find a better deal? Perhaps---depends if it smells as bad as it looks I guess.

86 Civic -- nothing like a 22mm fisheye lens to really give you a good idea of a car...if you are a fish looking for some wheels.

68 Chevy -- one would have to carefully examine all this rust repair and see if it was welded or dry-walled.

72 Olds -- I think I once had a refrigerator that color!

gsemike

With the Nova, never find a better deal than a grand for a POS nothing special undesirable year Nova that needs everything.

Mr_Shiftright

Hey maybe it has a 454 crate engine with Edelbrock carb and hi rise manifold and Performance headers and an M-22 four-speed with SS custom exhaust and Mickey Thompson mags?

or maybe not.

lemmer

Lancia

I can't imagine a perfect one costs too much, so I'll pass on this one. I never believe people who claim to never even try to start a car that they own.

Mr_Shiftright

It's not a real Lancia....just some re-hashed Fiat....a disgrace to the Lancia name in every respect. False advertising!!! :mad:

fintail

This looks like a decent survivor

texases

I liked the sport package on those, but they look better in black, IMHO. It makes it look less tacked-together.

xwesx

Seems to help performance more than fuel economy, though. I haven't actually timed the truck from 0-60 in any before/after tests, but it definitely feels more responsive, especially when merging onto highways. Definitely sounds alot stronger too, but of course that can be deceiving.

The air cleaner on my '69 Chevy's 307 has a completely enclosed unit with a long neck and, perhaps, a 1.5" opening at the end. I was discussing the truck with my father one day and mentioned that it seemed to get bogged down easily. He suggested that I "open up" the air cleaner on it to let in more air to the two-barrel carburetor. So, we got out a grinder and turned the top-half lid of the assembly into a plate with three legs. That way it allows air in from all sides. Whew, what a difference! Aside from giving the engine a more "throaty" sound, it really boosted the ability of the truck to power up hills, pull loads, etc. I did not notice any change in fuel economy, but the power boost was unquestionable.

Mr_Shiftright

At full throttle you might get a few more HP, if you originally had a restrictive filter. The automakers put a fairly tight airbox on there because they don't want intake noise. But I don't think taking off the air filter would register on a dyno. What you get is more noise and a better throttle response, but probably not any more power in normal driving. It's more perception than reality I think. For one thing, you are now sucking warm engine air into the intake rather than colder outside air, so in fact you might lose horsepower doing this.

Dragsters pack their air flow with ice bags for a reason.

fintail

Maybe try to knock a few hundred off the price...then...you could do worse - of course these are to me what R-bodies are to Andre, or big old Buicks are to Lemko.

xwesx

Possibly, but when the truck pulls at 65mph up and over the mountains on I-90 with no problems after the modification but could not tackle that same road at better than 50 days before, I suspect the engine is breathing much easier. Now, it might be an added bonus were I to duct the added flow out to the grille for the intake air. There is certainly no lack of air flow in the engine bay of that truck, though - I could probably double the physical size of the engine and it would still feel roomy. It is not cluttered like modern bays.

texases

Course, the Buick and R-body will be $100 to fix, compared to...never mind! :P

(I guess $0 - just take the plates and the VIN) :sick:

Mr_Shiftright

It's possible you were running a highly restricted air box as OEM; also high altitude does cut down on the available oxygen somewhat. A better idea would be to advance the engine timing one degree for each 1,000 feet at which you operate.

But you can't "add" HP by changing the air filter arrangement-- at best you can "find" a few HP that the engine wasn't using. The best air filter would be none at all, of any kind, in terms of increasing power.

deskman

i just swapped out the internels on the trans. the dart lite ratios made it a 3 speed with overdrive.

yes 35 mpg was real on a dart lite/feather duster.