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

jlflemmons

Don't forget that some of these older air cleaner assemblies did not draw air from the outside, but from under the hood. The Olds had a fairly good sized horn, but some of the Chevy's, especially the 307, was really small.

but you are right, it really sounded cool.

fintail

Or when one dies, you just park it in the backyard and get another...after you get 10 or so parts cars, you'll be set.

And the 126s start coming out of the woodwork - this early model does look nice

And an even earlier Euro model, in neglected condition

Sadly both wear those dumb chrome wheel lips.

texases

Those 126s impressed me more than the more recent S models. In terms of depreciation, you could get one of these a year, or a new C300.

fintail

The W126 was the first really modern car in my opinion - hard to believe it is approaching 30 years old.

Now that the good W221s are out (and not depreciating so fast), the W220s and C215s are dropping like rocks - I feel sorry for anyone who bought an 04+ model new, as they will lose their shirt. They were mediocre cars and the earlier models can be quite problematic. The higher models were losing a nice W126 every couple months in depreciation.

andre1969

I just stumbled across this 1976 LeSabre hardtop coupe on eBay. For some odd reason, I like this odd style of hardtop. Although I dunno if I'd want a car this big that's painted red! Oh well, at least it looks like a real red, rather than that orangish-red Hyundai Excel rental car color that started becoming common in the 80's!

Mr_Shiftright

Amazing that this huge engine produces only 205 HP and has a compression ratio in the 7s. Might be a good candidate for some better cylinder heads, an Edelbrock carb and manifold, Performance headers and Flowmasters, an MSD ignition, MSD distributor, RV mild camshaft, electric cooling fan, CAI, front and rear sway bars, adjustable shocks, transmission shift kit and positraction.

Other than that, it's fine. :P

oregonboy

I know next to nothing about the land yachts of this era, but from the front, it sure looks cadillakish. :P

I also noticed that the hood has the "flame surfacing" first introduced by Bangle on BMWs. It looks better on the Buick.

james

fintail

And another nice early W126 comes out of the woodwork - I think they can hear me talking about them

bumpy

I find this paint job morally objectionable

Sigh. Just call it a parts car and be gone with it.

This might actually be a good buy.

fire up your "Wall Street" DVD

Lemko Special

I don't think "rare" and "1967 Mustang" go together

Depreciation

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit

andre1969

Probably not a big shock here, but I actually kinda like that '77 Mark V. That pale yellow/creme color doesn't look bad on a car like that. Hey, at least it's not like a mustard yellow or some loud color!

Still, if I was gonna get one of those, I'd want it in that pale, icy blue they offered, or maybe the pale green.

texases

535i - like the model, but the 'minor' fixes will be big $$, I'd imagine. How does the AC work, yet it needs a heater blower? And how much does it cost to replace two computers and rebuild the tranny, just to turn around and sell for $2900? Doesn't make much sense.

'67 Mustang "One of few late 66 models/ early 67 models produced." What? First time I've heard that line. Yes, MUCH more valuable than the mid 67s!

Cadillac DHS - depreciation, yes, but you could get those for very low $$$ (big discounts) when new, so it's not quite as bad as it looks.

qbrozen

for $10k on that pickup, I would AT LEAST expect to not find what looks like a tarp fitted to the seat.

lemko

John Deere Green? I'm surprise the upholstery and wheels aren't bright yellow.

guss

Well, nothing runs like a Deere. I kinda sorta like the green on it, but not at $10k.

fintail

Looks like an OK survivor

Andre-mobile

andre1969

That '73 Century looks like it's in pretty good shape though, but good lord, that color! I think I suffered retina damage just looking at those pictures!

I like that Ford Fairlane, though. Too bad the seller doesn't list what engine it has. IIRC, these could actually be had with a tiny 170 CID 6-cyl, although a 200 CID was much more common, and then the 221 and 260 CID V-8's.

fintail

I think the 64 Fairlane was also reasonably common with a 289. My dad knew a guy who had an immaculate original 64 Fairlane sedan with a 289, red on red, this was in the early 90s. One day the poor thing got rear ended hard by a Blazer, and was demolished.

I knew you'd like the Buick color. A warning to anyone clicking on it - don't do so until at least an hour after your last meal.

andre1969

Really? I didn't think that Ford had the 289 until 1965? Or maybe I'm just thinking of the Mustang, whereas the 1964 1/2 (had to throw that in there for you, Shifty :shades: ) used the 260 V-8, and the 1965 proper used the 289.

Maybe the 289 got used earlier for the intermediates, though?

As for that Buick Century, I actually don't mind that buckskin/light brown interior. But I just can't handle that awful gold/orange exterior! Another precautionary measure for anyone viewing it is to set your monitor to grayscale. :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

Yes, that 1964 & 3/4 Fairlane ( :P ) could have either a 260 or 289.

fintail

I am sure it is something like that. I am also pretty sure I have seen a stock 289 in a 64 Falcon Sprint, so it must have been available.

There's also kind of a 68.5 Fairlane I think, as I believe during the middle of that production run the 289 was replaced with the 302.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes you could get a '68 Fairlane with a 302, and, we trust, a box full of timing chains.

andre1969

I just cracked open my old car encyclopedia, and it looks like the 289 first appeared in 1963. That year it was actually kind of a hot engine, only available as a 271 hp setup. It was optional in the Fairlane but, oddly, not offered in the Mercury Meteor. 1963 was also the last year for the tiny 145 hp 221 CID 6-cyl which my book is showing as optional in the Fairlane, Comet, and Meteor. But not the Falcon. :confuse: The '63 Falcon's only V-8 was the 164 hp 260...standard in the Sprint, optional in the other models. But then oddly, you could get the 260 in the Meteor and Comet, but not hte Fairlane. Weird how they offered those engines in some cars but not others.

And sure enough, in 1964, my book is showing the 289 being offered in all the cars, with either 195 hp or 271. I guess that's either a mild 2-bbl or a hot 4-bbl?

As for the 302, my book shows it first making the scene in 1968. It lists the 289 as optional on the Falcon that year, with the 302 being standard on the LTD and Torino GT, and optional on everything else. The 289 had 195 hp, while the 302 had 210. I'm guessing both were 2-bbls. My book also lists a 230 hp 302 offered on the Falcon, Fairlane, and Torino. I guess that one was a 4-bbl, but more of a mild setup, rather than the hot 271 setup from early years.

Oh, and as for half-years, my book actually lists a "1970 1/2 Falcon". For all intents and purposes, it basically replaced the 1969 base model Fairlane, giving Ford's intermediate lineup a Falcon/Fairlane 500/Torino/Torino Brougham/Torino GT/Torino Cobra sort of hierarchy. For 1971, the lineup was all consolidated under the Torino name, with a Torino/Torino 500, etc sort of nomenclature.

fintail

I am sure reverse is counted to make 5 speeds

Red...good name for a car too

Not a project, but these depreciating beasts seem like a decent used deal - they get rave reviews in England, like Lexus does in the US

fintail

Too much info! :P

Funny about the Torino...as the 70s rot set in, they had to get ostentatious and make a 'Gran' Torino, too.

andre1969

Funny about the Torino...as the 70s rot set in, they had to get ostentatious and make a 'Gran' Torino, too.

Yup, and naturally they didn't stop there. I think eventually, ALL the cars were Gran Torinos, with the nicer ones being Gran Torino Broughams or Gran Torino 500 Broughams. And then, of course, there was the Elite.

It never ceases to amaze me how the domestics tended to come out with a new name, but instead of sticking with it, they would just push it down the scale, putting a new name above it, and eventually, the names at the bottom would get dropped off. But in the overall scheme of things, you still usually just had 2 or 3 basic trim levels.

fintail

It's nice to see that being pretentious isn't an invention of the current younger generation. I forgot about the Elite...a friend of mine's father bought one new, he has told me many stories of the car benig mocked, as his father would produce these stories of it being some kind of luxury car, but everyone knew it was just a deluxe Torino. The car being a poopy brown on brown didn't help either.

I never understood the depreciation of model names. It usually took about 15 years for a name to go from a higher line full sized car to bottom - Impala and Galaxie both did it, and I am sure Mopar did the same. More of the intentional obsolescence ideal, I guess.

fintail

Another early-ish Euro W126 comes out of the woodwork

Grey market stuff everywhere

andre1969

I never understood the depreciation of model names. It usually took about 15 years for a name to go from a higher line full sized car to bottom - Impala and Galaxie both did it, and I am sure Mopar did the same. More of the intentional obsolescence ideal, I guess.

Yeah, it always bothered me, too. Now I could understand coming out with a new name for a truly new car. But just dropping the cheapest name off the bottom, coming in with a new name at the top, and then moving the rest down a notch always bugged me. And yeah, Mopar did it to. Even DeSoto started doing it. For instance, the 1952-54 Firedome was a top of the line car, about on par with an Olds 98, or Buick Super. For 1955, they came out with the Fireflite name to deal with those pricier cars, and moved the Firedome down a notch, about on par with the Super 88, and maybe halfway between the Buick Century and Special. Then for 1957 they came out with a cheaper Fireflite lineup, that basically competed with the cheaper 88, Buick Special, and was really down into Pontiac and Dodge territory. As the brand contracted, the once proud Fireflite name moved down to Firesweep level for 1960, while the Firedome was eliminated. The Adventurer, formerly a high-priced "supercar" (I won't say musclecar because Shifty will get on me :P ) was now a name applied to a car priced about halfway between what a Firedome and "proper" Fireflite should have been.

I guess one Plymouth name that didn't suffer TOO much was "Fury". Sure, it got watered down somewhat when it became a full lineup for 1969, at roughly the Impala/Galaxie level. But when the name was retired for 1989, it was the top of the line Plymouth, had standard V-8 power, was passed off as full-sized, and even picked up a "Gran" prefix along the way! :P (okay so I left out the part where most of them by that time were sold as police cars and taxis).

I'd say the biggest insult Chrysler inflicted was to the New Yorker name. If you look at a 1978 New Yorker ( true hedonistic mastodon), 1979-81 NYer (a heavily facelifted intermediate), 1982 NYer (derived from the Volare), and 1983 NYer (a K-car), the progression is downright scary! I guess they sort of ended on a high note though. The final K-car versions of the New Yorker (1988-93) were pretty nice (for a K-car), and the 1994-96 New Yorker, which was basically an LHS with a chrome grille and bench seat, was a pretty sweet car (until the transmission chewed itself up, the water pump went out, and the door seals started leaking :sick: )

fintail

I've always been amused at how cars such as Accord and Camry (and Civic/Corolla) have existed for 20-30 years at the same position (with bloating), yet the domestics would dumb down names over time (or completely replace them). It's a different marketing mentality, I guess - and I don't mean that in a good way.

jlflemmons

It can't get much worse than what GM/Olds did to the Cutlass name. When the car first came out in the early 60's you had a base model called F85 and the nicer model called Cutlass. Later, there was Cutlass (base) Cutlass S (sporty, sort of) and Cutlass Supreme (nicer). This all made sense as they were based off the same platform and looked a lot alike. Then, Calais, sport tuned suspension in rear wheel drive, but also used for the small FWD. Cutlass Ciera, in various suffixes. Then there was the big FWD Cutlass, the midsized FWD Cutlass, and on and on.

All in all, it was just the beancounters trying to make money off of what had been the biggest selling name in Olds history. I remember being in a parts house one day when someone came in asking for a waterpump for a Cutlass. Didn't know the year model or engine size. Counterman just looked at the guy and told him "You will have to do a lot better than that, buddy".

gsemike

I think that all those different Cutlasses were to give Olds bragging rights to having the best selling car in America even though 3 or 4 different cars were all being called Cutlasses. Buick did the same thing with the Somerset Regal which later morphed into the Somerset and then the Skylark.

jlflemmons

Thing was, I believe the best sales year for the Cutlass was 1972, when they had just a Cutlass S and Cutlass Supreme in 2Dr and 4Dr, with the 2Dr considered by many to be best of the generation.

andre1969

Olds was basically trading on the brand equity they had in the name "Cutlass" by the 80's. At least in the 70's, on up through 1981, all the Cutlasses were basically the same car, on the RWD intermediate platform.

I guess I never really considered the Cutlass Ciera to really be a "true" Cutlass. I guess I put more emphasis on the Ciera than the Cutlass part of its name, and that helped me to more or less excuse it somehow. As for the Calais, when it initially debuted, I didn't realize that the Calais name had been previously used as a sporty trim level for the RWD Cutlass, so it didn't initially sink in with me that they were trying to again capitalize on the Cutlass magic. Until they started calling that little N-body thing the Cutlass Calais!

It's really quite sad how Olds took that once magical name, milked it for all it was worth, and then ran it into the ground so bad that it lost all value. I'm glad that Chevy has somewhat redeemed themselves with the Malibu.

andre1969

Thing was, I believe the best sales year for the Cutlass was 1972, when they had just a Cutlass S and Cutlass Supreme in 2Dr and 4Dr, with the 2Dr considered by many to be best of the generation.

I just pulled out my auto encyclopedia to verify. In 1972, Olds sold about 300,000 Cutlasses. The single most popular model was the Cutlass Supreme hardtop coupe (the style with the more formal roofline), with 105087 sold. They also sold 3792 F-85s (all 4-door sedans), and about 32,000 Vista Cruiser wagons. It was a good year for the Cutlass, but it would ultimately soar to new heights.

The 1973 Cutlass sold about 376,000 sedans and coupes, and another ~24,000 Vista Cruisers. The Cutlass Supreme coupe alone accounted for 219,857 sales! By 1976, Olds ran off about 490,000 Cutlasses! Even more astounding, in light of the newly downsized Delta 88 other GM big cars, the Cutlass shot off about 625,000 units! In fact, that was the whole reason for the fiasco that GM had with selling Oldsmobiles with Chevy 350's. For some reason, Olds gave top priority for its 350 to the Cutlass, and not the Delta. So they'd substitute in a Chevy 350 or other 350 into a Delta 88 or Ninety Eight before they would a Cutlass. And the Cutlass ended up being more of a hit than Olds had intended it to be that year, so it created a shortage of Olds 350's.

1977 was actually the peak for the Cutlass. The downsized 1978-79 models sold around 500-550K units. Coupes were wildly popular, but the clunky aeroback sedans shot the nameplate in the foot, so 4-door sales fell off pretty sharply. 1980 saw a sharp downturn in the industry in general, but Cutlass sales weren't off by much...down to maybe 450-475K units. Main reason was that, while coupe sales were falling, Olds restyled the sedan with an attractive notchback style reminiscent of the '75-79 Seville, and sales took off. Sales stayed about the same in 1981, incredible, since in general, that was a worse year for the industry than 1980. Sales did fall off sharply in 1982 though, to about 280,000. The Ciera, which debuted in 1982, could have taken some sales, but it only sold about 100,000 units that year.

I heard that in 1982, Chevy actually had to beg people to buy Celebrities, throwing hefty incentives to move them, whereas a full-sized Caprice was sure to move out the door at sticker price. Not sure about the Malibu, though. I wonder if a similar thing was happening with Olds? GM really wanted to get people out of those bigger cars because of the EPA and CAFE regs, and I think they tried to cut back production of the bigger RWD cars. The intention was to get people into the more fuel efficient models, but I think all it did was create a shortage of what people really wanted. And despite the economy being in a recession and fuel prices being at all time highs, people still wanted their big cars.

RWD Cutlass sales stayed around 280-290K for 1983, shot up to around 345K for 1984 (despite the wagon being dropped and replaced by a Ciera wagon), then started tapering off. Around 225K for 1985, 210K for 1986, 125K for 1987, and a 3-month run of 1988's that produced 27,678. All of them coupes, as the sedan was phased out after 1987.

If anything, I'd say that stands as a testament to the Cutlass's endurance. Chrysler left this market after 1983. The Monte Carlo and Grand Prix never really recovered from the 1980-83 downturn, although the Regal fared pretty well. And when the T-bird/Cougar were transformed for 1983, they made the competition look dated. Yet the RWD Cutlass kept on selling.

I wonder what would have happened if, instead of just letting the car become obsolete and die, if GM had refined it like Ford continued to do with the T-bird/Cougar? Oh, I'm sure that a RWD Cutlass would have been killed eventually, but I could see it being viable at least through 1996, when GM killed the B-bodies. Just imagine something like a modernized 1987 Cutlass Supreme with the LT-1 350!

stickguy

wonder if the dealer in Spokane is still dishing out free (lifetime) lubes on that baby?

toomanyfumes

It seems like everyone had a '75-'77 Cutlass(myself included.) I remember in the early to mid eighties there was a repair shop/auto lot that had nothing but '76 Cutlasses. Came in handy when I borrowed my Dad's and lost the gas cap. :shades:

hpmctorque

Good historical recap, andre.

andre1969

Me want. :shades:

hpmctorque

Nice!

lemko

Worst insult to the Cutlass name, and indeed Oldsmobile itself, was that awful 1999 Cutlass sedan my girlfriend once had. It was mediocrity personified. Even GM uses it to mock itself in the commercials for the new Malibu.

Actually Calais was the low-end Cadillac from about 1965 through 1976. It replaced the old Series 62. A guy I knew had a 1967 Cadillac Calais hardtop coupe that had crank windows. He called it "the working man's Cadillac."

qbrozen

so ... fin ... is this too much for such a pig? Does this thing even get out of its own way with this engine? How's reliability? Repair costs?
S320

fintail

It is surely not a fast car, but it should be able to keep up with traffic. It's the old MB philosophy, you'll have to rev it a bit to make it move as it was designed.

The engine itself is not an unreliable unit. I'd want to know the transmission has been maintained however. The problems with that car are a few electrics, along with the AC evaporator (I think that's the issue) and maybe a steering defect. But they are nothing like the W220 bugs.

Price is reasonable enough, it is from the end of W140 production and those tend to be the best cars. I think it looks pretty nice, good colors.

qbrozen

Interesting.
thanks for the feedback.
I was just pondering this for the wife. I mean, we aren't buying NOW, but when her SUV lease is up, I think this could be a good alternative. She could certainly fit 3 across in the backseat, and the trunk should be plenty big to fit a stroller and groceries at the same time.

qbrozen

So I finished going through "the Used 911 Story." Pretty informative little book.
Looks like I should stick to an '89-90, as I believe shifty has previously advised, or step up to a 996.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh I didn't tell you to buy a 1990 C2---uh-uh, no way! 1987--1989 (with the G50 transmission and clutch), or a 993 after 1991 would be my choices for you. I think C2s are bad news, 1990-91.

As for the 996, they are great cars but complex and the 996 engine is just not of the quality or durability of the 993 IMO. Porsche engine builders tell me this.

lemmer

Wasn't the Cabriolet still the old style in 1990? Maybe that is what he wants.

Do you think that most of the 90-91 C2 issues have emerged and been fixed on any well maintained car with 80-100K miles on it?

Mr_Shiftright

You know it's hard to say. I suppose if the owner has receipts for a complete engine rebuild done by a top notch shop, you could rest easy, but otherwise I wouldn't touch one of those cars.

You have to remember, an engine rebuild is an easy $12,000--$15,000 bucks. That'll hurt.

qbrozen

i have the check the book again. Maybe it was 88-89. I thought it was 89-90, though. I forget exactly. I have that page bookmarked, though. But, from what I recall, something is wrong with the '87s. I'll have to have the book in hand to let you know the details. I believe it has to do with the tranny.

Now, according to the book, the 993 suffers from a rather weak transmission, which is why I wrote that off. Something about 30k mile rebuilds, IIRC.

He says time will tell on the 996, but so far so good. There were, however, problems with early 996s ('99-'00) and porous cylinder sleeves. However, an '01, for instance, should be pretty reliable.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm surprised he doesn't mention the dreaded 996 rear main seal oil leaks.

qbrozen

no, not that I recall. He did mention a few seals, but said they are easy and relatively inexpensive. I believe just cam seals.

Good quote from the book:
he says when he started back in the '60s, he pointed to a roadster with an oil puddle under it and asked the senior tech if that is something they should be worrying about. The tech responded "The only Porsche that doesn't leak is the one that is completely out of oil."