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

british_rover

Yeah discos can be tough to buy. You have to buy the right one and not all of them are the same. Something I forgot to mention is that when you test drive a Disco you really need to put the screws to it a few times and see how it accelerates. A good strong stud should pull very, very hard from a stop up to about 25-35 mph because of all the massive torque and gear reduction a Disco has. If the vehicle bogs down when you punch it or doesn't down shift hard from a rolling start then pass on it. There are some real dogs out there but a quick ten minute test drive will normally tell you if the disco is a dog or a stud.

A good disco should be able to engage the traction control when accelerating from a stop and turning right or left. A really good disco will break traction and engage the traction control from a dead stop without having to turn. If it can't do one of those two things then I would pass on it.

To give you an idea of how good that 12k price is think about this. Last month we sold our last three 2004 Disco lease returns. They all had between 40,000 and 48,000 miles. They were all still under factory warranty and they all had the CPO warranty out to 75,000 miles or six years from the in service date. They all sold between 21,000 and 23,000 and we didn't really make any money on them at all. Probably averaged less then a grand in gross across the board.

Oh I have a V70R for you that is sitting at one of our Volvo dealers. Not sure if it is too old for you and it is an Auto(YUCK) but I just noticed it the other day.

V70R

qbrozen

ugh. That's the poseur R. Well, sort of. The R used to mean something back with the 850R. Then it became sort of a bastardization for a time there in the late '90s, which is what you have there on your lot. It wasn't until the reintro in '04 (or was it '03?) that it meant a high performance volvo again.

thanks for the info on the disco. Do you know anything about Land Rover Monmouth and whether they could evaluate one well? You may know them by a different name that they went by not long ago ... Schneider Nelson?

But, I guess the big question is, can a Disco go 200k miles without much major work? Or is that like chasing a white elephant?

By the way ... in my last post, I referred to a 989. I have no idea what that is. It was late and I guess my brain combined 996 and 1989 (the 2 porsches I was looking at pictures of yesterday) into one thing. SOOO... make that a 996 as something I could get for not a heckuva lot more money than that volvo. I wonder which would be cheaper to own in the long run? The 996 would be much more to maintain, but the depreciation would probably be FAR less than the volvo.

Mr_Shiftright

A 996 will run you about $200 a month in maintenance at a top-notch shop, if you drive it a lot each year. If you're spending less than that, and not doing your own work, you aren't taking good care of the car.

One caveat on the 996 is to check for rear main seal leaks. Only a small percentage of them will show this leak, but if they do, you'll need a new engine to correct the problem in 50% of the leak cases (rough estimate) if the "improved" seal doesn't hold. You don't want to have to buy a new engine for a 996.

But you are right, a Volvo will depreciate rapidly into nothingness (but it still gets you where you're going, worthless as it may be in ten years).

Right now, the modern Porsches holding value best seem to be the 993s from 1995 on up. (last of the air cooled, and a GREAT engine for durability). Last of the Porsches for the "purist".

qbrozen

we did talk about the 996, too. The issues in my little book are a bit different. But the new engine problem is definitely there. Thing is, he says its just early '99s to worry about. So I'm thinking, by the time I can afford to kill my lease, I should be able to get into an '00 or '01. So hopefully that fixes that. But the rear cam seals are still a potential problem area, although he says not terribly expensive.

I've noticed the 996s are as cheap as the 15 years of porsches that preceded it already, so yeah, there's definitely a disconnect there. I think the 996s are gorgeous, so I don't mind picking up the "undesirable" model.

british_rover

Ah yeah I knew that wasn't the greatest R model around but it was the only one we had in our inventory at the moment.

I haven't done a swap or any kind of business with Land Rover Monmouth in probably a year or more so I don't have any opinion one way or the other about them.

A disco can go to 200,000 miles without needing any major work, I have seen it happen, but it is a little unlikely. One of my clients just sold his 2000 Disco to one our techs and it had over 250,000 miles on it. Now that Disco did have an engine and tranny replacement during the regular warranty but it has had no major problems since then. I know he recently had a most of the engine resealed(intake gaskets, head gaskets, valve covers, oil pan and timing chain cover) but a British vehicle that doesn't leak oil is just weird. Even the early engine and tranny replacement was probably more a result of the troubles that happened between Ford and the union right after Ford bought Land Rover from BMW.

Unfortunately because of all the off-road miles on that Disco, Probably over 100,000 miles spent trail riding through mud and muck, the frame is starting to rust and fatigue from the interior of the boxed sections. The tech knew this was happening as did my client so they cut a good deal on the vehicle and he is planning to do a frame swap as the rest of the Disco is in great shape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_989

Mr_Shiftright

I'm hearing different info on the RMS leak. This is related to the actual structure and design of the M96 engine, so any 996 is prone to it by definition. On the positive side, apparently if Porsche does the fix for you with the new seal and the new installation tool, this works a lot of the time. I guess the buzz is that if three new seals don't fix the leak, you get a new engine.

I don't like the 996 engine one bit in terms of design I mean (great to drive however) and don't yet have any confidence in it. If they start racking up 200K ++ miles like the 993s with regularity and no rebuilds, then I might change my tune. But the GT engine is built differently and machined differently and it doesn't have these problems.

Frankly, I think Porsche just did too much cost-cutting on the 996 engine.

lemmer

I was recently looking through some English magazine - "911 &Porsche World" or something similar. In a used car review of Boxsters, they acknowlege but seem disinterested in the whole RMS problem. They recommend against fixing it. Their solution was to add oil when it gets low. Are they so jaded by MGBs that they think all cars leak oil?

I will admit that my 944 leaks oil and I don't particularly care. It is one major repair away from being trashed anyway. I am not sure when I start fixing oil leaks. On my 944, never. On my BMW, maybe if it was dripping once or twice a day.

Mr_Shiftright

That's another way to look at it, but you know, if you plunk down $80K for a car and have it dog-spotting your garage floor or your friends' driveways, it gets annoying I think.

qbrozen

The book speaks of the early 996 engines as being "porous" and losing coolant over time INTO THE CYLINDERS, resulting in hydrolock.
So it sounds as if 2 scenarios can result in a new engine in these.

lemmer

That's another reason to avoid the low mileage examples. My understanding is that if these problems are going to happen, they will most likely happen in the first 50K miles.

jrosasmc

The V70R that British Rover provided the link for a few posts back is really a rare AWD wagon that Volvo made for three years, 1998-2000. Not very many of them were sent to America. As the longtime owner of several Volvos from the '90s, I can safely tell each one of you that any AWD Volvo made between '98 and '02 should best be avoided like the plague. They have terrible drive systems, in particular the bevel gear, and they will drain your checking account like no other. And tires must be rotated at least every 5,000 miles or else the alignment will go out of sync.

British Rover, since you are an expert on Land Rovers and Range Rovers, both vintage and new, I must ask you this: What is your opinion on Jeep Cherokees and Grand Cherokees from the middle to late '90s? Do you think they are reliable or durable as the Rover products? I'm aware that Jeeps can hold their own with Rovers off-road, as I used to have an old Cherokee that I took mudding a few times.

gsemike

"Perfect condition" Really??? Do you know that we can see those pics

"All the car needs is bodywork" Bodywork is a little bondo. That needs a 3/4 nose

Falcon convertible

I'm wondering if this is a 442 or a clone

Depreciation alert

Could a 442 have a 350 in 1971? Notice that the ouc on thie rught is before the car was complete

Mr_Shiftright

A '99 BMW 740 is worth that without a salvage title---with a salvage, even less than $9,500. Money pits.

andre1969

According to my old car book, the '71 442 had a 340 hp 455 standard. Although oddly, a 320 hp was optional. Maybe the 320 hp ran on lower octane fuel, so they offered that as a credit option?

Olds only had two 350 choices in 1971, 240 and 260 hp. In gross hp terms, that's not a whole lot. And indeed, by 1972 net standards, those engines came in at 160 or 180 hp. Probably just the stock 2-bbl and stock 4-bbl...stuff you'd see in a more basic F-85 or Cutlass, or perhaps a Delta 88.

guss

With the MX6 you don't even get the cool rims. Bury it with a shovel and then bury the shovel.

I like the Falcon, but at maybe half the asking price.

jlflemmons

Not positive on the '71 442, but I do know the '72 was available with the 350 4bbl. One of my buddies parents had one they bought brand new.

Re; the other 442, looks like a possible clone, but tough to tell without more pictures. First thing that caught my eye was that the original rear end had been replaced with a Chevy. That and some of the other "modifications" leads me to believe this one is a fraud. Lot's of Cutlass convertibles can be found, very few true 442. And the true 455CI 442 convertibles had the most incredible frame flex you will ever see. You can sit in the back seat when the throttle is punched and watch the dash twist several very noticable degrees from parallel. Even the 350CI Cutlass would lift one end of the dash about an inch to two inches under full throttle. Amazingly, these things didn't rattle much at all, at least ours didn't.

fintail

Not many of these left that aren't completely trashed

michaellno

My first father in law owned one of these ... a Turbo model, no less. I really, really wanted it.

guss

The guy appears to be a collector, I wonder what is under the car cover.

I get the feeling if Toyota ever brought the Supra back without many changes they would sell a bunch of them.

lemko

...compared to a revived Supra?

andre1969

Not positive on the '71 442, but I do know the '72 was available with the 350 4bbl. One of my buddies parents had one they bought brand new.

They must have really downgraded the 442 for 1972, then. My old car book lists Olds as offering the 350 in two hp setups that year, 160 and 180. Which would imply to me 2-bbl and mild 4-bbl. Nothing really high-output in the 350-size range, though. However, my old car book doesn't list the 442 at all in its 1972 production figures. Did it revert from a separate model to an option package for 1972, or something?

gsemike

In 1972 the 442 was an option package on the Cutlass and could be had with a 350. I'm not sure of the output. I'm pretty sure now that the 350 was not available in 1971.

qbrozen

too bad its an auto.

bumpy

Good question; it depends on just how much is potentially available from the GT-R's VR38DETT and what sort of engine Toyota would put in a Mark V Supra. The '90s Supra TT and GT-R were roughly neck and neck for overall potential; the Supra had 400cc more displacement but the GT-R's AWD would probably prevail in the end.

jlflemmons

I do know there was a 455 version in '72, also. The 350 was a 4bbl and the same engine used in the Cutlass. I believe the main difference was stripes and suspension.

From personal experience, changing the starter in a '72 with the 455 was a monster job.

andre1969

according to my Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia, the last of the "traditional high-power 442's" appeared for 1971, with the 455 V-8 standard. After 1971, it was an option package, and just cosmetic, and carried on through 1979.

As for the 455, in 1972 it was offered with 225, 250, 270, and 300 hp configurations. The latter two were only offered on the Cutlass coupe/convertible. So you could still spec out a hot 442 if you wanted; it's just that the engine was a separate option.

The last high-output 455 was in 1974, a 275 hp unit offered in the Cutlass. For '75-76, the 455 was just offered in 190 and 215 hp configurations. They weren't still sticking 2-bbls on 455's that late in the game, were they?

Mr_Shiftright

The new GT-R is awesome. It recently whumped both a Porsche 911 and a Z06 on the track in road tests....not edged them out, but whumped them. A superior Supra would probably have to be alien technology :P

jlflemmons

Your CG is close, but not quite. The last of the monster 455's was in 1970. In '71 the compression was dropped to something like 8.25:1, where it had been 10.?:1.

The meanest of them all was the 1970 W30 engine, with 500ftlbs torque, and a falsely reported 385HP. The true dyno horsepower was closer to 430. I had the privilege and honor to learn high performance/high speed driving in one of these, and the sound of that engine winding up still brings a smile to my face.

andre1969

Your CG is close, but not quite. The last of the monster 455's was in 1970. In '71 the compression was dropped to something like 8.25:1, where it had been 10.?:1.

Yeah, I know what you mean about the last truly high-hp 455. What I meant though, was that 1974 was the last year that Olds tried ANY high-hp 455. They'd been making the low hp (~190-230 hp net) mass market boat anchor 455's all along, but they at least offered a more hopped-up version through 1974. It's just that, from 1970-74, it became less and less hopped up. And for '75-76 they just offered the boat anchor variety.

jlflemmons

Interestingly enough, for many more years Olds made a killer 455 MARINE engine. The beast was used in jet boats and generated massive power. Without too much effort, the marine engine could be made to run on dry land.

Assuming, of course, you could afford it's thirst for high octane.

andre1969

Just out of curiosity, is there much difference between an Olds 455 and Buick 455? I was thinking, if I was in the market for a land yacht like a '71-76 Electra, Ninety Eight, or even a LeSabre or Delta, if the engine would make one brand advantageous over another.

I always heard that they're both good engines, but I think the Buick 455 is better at low-end torque, while the Olds 455 likes to rev.

jlflemmons

The Olds engines were reknowned for their longevity. The blocks had a higher nickel content in the alloy and were considered stronger. Olds also introduced "Positive Valve Rotation" which virtually eliminated burned valves. On the down side, Olds valve covers were a rather odd design and prone to leaking if not torqued down juuussssttt right. The 455 Olds high output would let you know when it was time to change the plugs. At 4-5K RPM those suckers would backfire through the Quadrajet with a ferocity akin to a howitzer. First time it happened to me was at 115mph and I thought the engine exploded. A good set of plugs would last no more than 10K in those engines.

But man, were they sweet running when in tune.

There are no interchangeable parts between the two engines that I know of except the oil filter.

andre1969

Yeah, I heard about the high nickle content in the Olds smallblock Rocket, so I figured that applied to the big-block, as well.

Are there any shortcomings to the Buick 455, that you know of? I've heard that the Pontiac 455 is a bit weak compared to the Olds/Buick, because it's more of a "medium" block rather than a true big-block.

Just going on style, I tend to prefer the big Buicks of the overblown '71-76 generation to the Oldsmobiles. I just don't care for the little peaks between the headlights on the earlier Oldsmobiles, and while the later ones are nice, I just think the '75-76 Buicks are downright gorgeous. Although I never cared for the '74 big Buicks...but for some reason the Delta and 98 looked really good that year. Probably not much to recommend those big mastodons to most people, but I find a perverse sort of attraction to them.

hpmctorque

In my view the '71-76 model years saw the greatest divergence between domestic and import autos, in terms of size, style, driving dynamics, and fuel economy. The introduction of GM's down sized large bodies for '77, and the subsequent domestic car down sizings, together with the modest, though steadily increasing size, power, and weight of the imports, began to narrow the gap between the domestics and imports. The gap never completely closed, but it would be hard to argue that it hasn't narrowed greatly.

Some would say that the introduction of the Ford Granada/Mercury Monarch for '75, the Cadillac Seville, and the Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen for '76, marked an earlier turning point. Maybe these models were just as significant as the the '77 GM mentioned above, in terms of the convergence of the domestics and imports.

jlflemmons

I had the chance to buy one of these brand new in '79. I bought the Calais which was the same chassis and suspension but with the Chevy 305/4bbl and none of the stripes and trim. Why? Because in my young and pea-brained mind I didn't think the Hurst was worth the extra $1K. What an idiot.

The '79 Calais was the best of all the cars I have owned with the exception of, you guessed it, that stinking Chevy 305. The 305 4bbl of that era had a problem with the intake and head design that caused the #8 plug to fuel foul every 4-5K miles. I got to where I could change the plug with my eyes closed.

:sick:

andre1969

Some would say that the introduction of the Ford Granada/Mercury Monarch for '75, the Cadillac Seville, and the Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen for '76, marked an earlier turning point. Maybe these models were just as significant as the the '77 GM mentioned above, in terms of the convergence of the domestics and imports.

I'd say the Aspen/Volare sedan and wagon, at least, were pretty significant, in terms of reigning in the excesses of domestic cars, and providing a package that was smaller on the outside, yet space efficient. They were billed as compact cars, but had legroom and headroom that rivaled many full-sized cars. The only area where they came up short was shoulder room...about 56". That's about midsized today, comparable to an Altima, Fusion, or Malibu, a bit less than a Camry or Accord. But back in 1976, the typical midsized car had shoulder room more in the 58-60" range, and the biggest full-sized cars were pushing 64-65"...almost overkill!

Truth be told though, I don't find an Aspen/Volare to be any roomier than a Dart, so in many ways, Chrysler had the formula down for a space efficient small-ish car years before. They managed to make the Aspen/Volare, and the LeBaron/Diplomat that followed, feel like bigger, more substantial cars though. They were several inches wider, a bit bulkier overall but not really much longer, and tended to be plusher inside. And the ride was a bit smoother. Supposedly the transverse torsion bars of the Aspen/Volare and its spinoffs sacrificed handling. I don't know for sure though. My '89 Gran Fury handled a lot better than my '68 Dart, but it was an ex-police car. Also, it only had 73,000 miles on it when I bought it, and had just been refurbished. The Dart had 253,000 on it when I bought it!

I've driven a few Granadas from that timeframe, and wasn't really impressed. They handle like a much bigger, sloppier car than their dimensions would suggest, although I think Ford did that on purpose to try to build a "big car" ride into a smaller package. It was a smash hit when it came out, though, as a lot of people liked that upscale, mock-Mercedes look. They always felt tight inside to me, but were probably okay for more average-sized drivers.

I had a chance to sit in a Seville about a year ago at Hershey, and sad to say I was disappointed. I know they were considered small for the time, but I figured something that size would still be pretty roomy. Not so. Even with the seat as far back as it would go, it felt like it had about as much legroom as my uncle's '03 Corolla. Definitely not a car I'd want to drive for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. Still, it was a significant car for the time. Definitely a classy looking ride. It did a good job hiding its Nova underpinnings.

It's interesting though, how the gap between the Japanese has closed over the years. Today I would actually cross shop an Accord, Camry, or Altima with a Lucerne, Charger, or Taurus (500). The domestics are slightly larger inside, but not enough to really make much difference. Now the Taurus has almost limo-like legroom in the back seat, but IMO suffers a bit up front. But anyway, just imagine back in 1976, someone trying to cross shop a Datsun 510, Honda Accord, or Toyota Corona with a LeSabre, Royal Monaco, or Grand Marquis!

andre1969

Why? Because in my young and pea-brained mind I didn't think the Hurst was worth the extra $1K. What an idiot.

Well hey, $1000 was a lot of money back in 1979. Probably the equivalent of $3K today. How long did you have that Calais for? I'm guessing it also had the THM200C tranny? Did that give you any troubles?

I'm guessing the Hurst, with an Olds 350, would've used a THM350 tranny? I'm actually impressed that Chevy got 160 hp out of the 305-4bbl that year. I think Ford's 302's were choked down to 129-140 hp that year, while the Mopar 318 only put out 135 hp with a 2-bbl, 155 with the 4-bbl.

I think the Olds 350 only put out 160-170 hp that year, but I'd guess it had a lot more torque than the Chevy 305, so it was probably a better performer.

Just out of curiosity, what did Chevy do to fix that #8 plug problem on the 305? Or did they ever do anything? Now you have me curious to pull the #8 out of my Silverado and see how bad it looks!

I wonder if there's just something about the #8 position in general on a V-8 that's cursed? On the Mopar 318 in 1989, they had a run of bad camshafts, and the #8 lobe would wear down prematurely. Is there just something about the design, perhaps, that makes the #8 position hotter than the others?

jlflemmons

I put nearly 80K on the car in 4 years. The transmission was flawless, no problem at all. Shifted crisp and smooth.

The 350 used the TH350, and I believe was rated for 170HP. Not sure why the power dropped from the '72, which was rated at 185HP.

The #8 plug issue was not resolved until around '81, when they went to ECM control. The '79 had HEI ignition, but no computer controls.

fintail

Noteworthy for one thing - the last carb MB sold in NA

Strangely enough, another comes up the same day

Mr_Shiftright

also very troublesome cars. Just didn't run right.

fintail

Most carb cars of that period seem to have issues. And if those cars had duals (I don't know, but I suspect it)...yeah they always need work.

gsemike

thanks for vacuuming it before you took the pics Some hot rodding is probably in this cars future

I don't know much about these cars but this looks nice and clean For the right Audi person, this is good, right?

Another Audi

Looks nice but what are the miles

I love these cars but the miled up ones scare me

30 mpg???????? With nonsense claims like that, he should be posting here

Even though this is a post car, the market for 57 Chevies isn't what it used to be

guss

It looks like you found they only 24 year old Audi existence. It looks like it was somebody's pride and joy because it cleaned up real nice.

toomanyfumes

Nice burns on the seat of that Regal. Is that a bag of weed tucked in the passenger armrest? :surprise:

jlflemmons

Don't laugh, but if that Buick is in good tune, on a flat road with no headwind it probably will get 30mpg. That generation of 3.8L really did get great mileage. We had an 87 Cutlass Ciera (a bit smaller) that would routinely get 30-31 on the highway at 70.

I believe it is one of those rare cases where the designers of the drivetrain got the sweet spot of the engine lined up with the correct gearing for the road. These have the 4spd overdrive tranny. The Cutlass would run like a banshee if punched, but would really sip fuel if you kept your foot out of it. The engine uses three coils with dual outputs, no distributor, and sequential fuel injection. Actually, a very nice piece of engineering.

fintail

That 84 Audi looks amazing, perhaps one of the best originals left. Around here those things fell into the hands of wannabe rally driver kids long ago and have all been thrashed to hell...and that the cars break a lot and have difficult parts doesn't help either. I'd say it's easily worth that money to an Audi-phile. If it was local, I'd even be tempted to check it out, that car would really be an attention-getting curiosity to the right crowd.

andre1969

Don't laugh, but if that Buick is in good tune, on a flat road with no headwind it probably will get 30mpg. That generation of 3.8L really did get great mileage. We had an 87 Cutlass Ciera (a bit smaller) that would routinely get 30-31 on the highway at 70.

Yeah, but unfortunately GM didn't keep up with the times when it came to the carbureted 3.8 in the RWD cars. It got a new, stronger block for 1985, which also eliminated most of the oiling problems (right angle bends and too-narrow passages and such), but it just stayed with 110 hp right up through the end. I think the 2-bbl's last year was 1987. The only G-bodies left for a brief 1988 run were the Monte Carlo, which used a Chevy 4.3 for its V-6, and the Cutlass Supreme Classic, which went with a standard 307 for the final run.

That particular Regal also just has a 3-speed automatic. If you look closely, you can see the gear designator, and all I see is PRND21. The 4-speed would have had two "D's". It's basically identical to my 1982 Cutlass Supreme. I'd get around 15-17 mpg around town, maybe 22-23 on the highway. Now I'm sure if you really babied it, you might push 30. Heck, my grandparents were able to nurse 29 out of a 1985 LeSabre with a 307/overdrive once.

Still, I guess they could have improved the electronics and carb a bit for the 3.8 2-bbl in later years. And I think they eventually did start offering that engine with a 4-speed overdrive automatic. In the earlier years, the overdrive was a V-8 only option, but eventually I think it became the standard automatic, whereas V-6 cars initially could only be had with the 3-speed, but eventually you could choose between the 3-speed over the 4-speed OD.

It's actually a shame that GM didn't update the 3.8 in the RWD cars. But as the years went by, it became less and less common anyway. For 1986 it was only offered in the Cutlass, Regal, Bonneville, and Grand Prix. And I think by then most buyers were opting for the V-8. And in this market of car, I guess most buyers would have opted for a V-8, even if there was a V-6 that could outperform it.

gsemike

The 98 LeSabre was making the 30 mpg claim. I had a 91 with the 3.8 and don't think it got 20 in mixed driving. Locally,maybe 15.

Mr_Shiftright

I will personally DRINK any gas not consumed at about 25 mpg on the 98 Buick. Maybe 30 mpg downhill, coasting, gearshift in neutral, no wind, tires pumped to 90 psi, back seats out, no spare tire?

Audi 4000 -- not a bad little car the Quattro. Probably a fair deal at $3,300 if the car checks out. The Quattro system is bulletproof, it's the electrics and the head gasket you gotta worry about. But if that's all been done, these are decent cars (for Audis). Of course, if you want cheap AWD, you can buy a mid to late 90s Subaru for that money and have fewer problems.

Audi 90 -- don't bother.

BMW 528 -- rather optimistic price for a miled up '97 model, wouldn't you say? Try $5995 and be happy to get close to that. For $8K you can score a '99.

jrosasmc

I've heard numerous stories, and seen plenty of examples, about Audis from the early '90s not being all that reliable, especially the 90 series. No wonder one barely sees any of them on the road today. Shifty, how often do you see those early '90s Audis out where you live?

Last year I drove my friend's '94 100 Quattro. The car had 219k miles on it. Not a bad-driving car but certainly not one I would buy. She told me she's consistently put at least $1800 a year in maintenance and repairs in the four years she's had it.