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

1268269271273274853

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    I had a '67 Newport for a few months back in 1999. Basically, the toned down version of that 300. Interesting, it looks like they actually went through the effort to change the front and rear-end on that car compared to my Newport...although I think that thing's uglier. I imagine it must be pretty brutal with that 440, though.

    I really didn't care for my Newport, but then it just had a 383-2bbl and typical 2.76:1 gearing. Heck, I think it still had bias ply tires on it! I'm sure if it had a stronger engine and better tires, I would've liked it better.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    The seller does list the same price twice in the ad. I bet the car is a bit of a rat. I am suspicious of that paint.

    Looks like the 190D sold.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,438
    I thought that all of these were gone If it's drivable, I've seen worse for this price

    These old Max's seem to really last This one looks good given the mileage and price

    Here is another high mileage Max that looks good I don't think that I'd buy anything with 200k for that much money though

    Never be tailgated again

    This probably isn't worth 12,000 and isn't worht close to what any decent 69 Mach 1 is worth How is that an Indy pace car?

    70s survivor You never see these around here. Unfortunately, it's such a sad little thing I can't see anyone caring

    Another one with an even more optimistic price

    It's unusual to see one of this in such unmolested condition anymore 5.0 and 5 speed
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    67 Chrysler --- what a bizarre car to put 450 HP in. And he thinks a sway bar and some new shocks is going to keep that power on the ground? Yeah, right.

    86 Jeep -- I guess the plow makes it worth it, I guess. Kinda.

    90 Maxima --- good deal looks like

    86 Corvette ---Yeah I'm SURE he'd like to trade for a '69 Mach 1 Mustang, since it's worth about 3X what his car is worth. Dream on. Maybe a Mach 1 in a couple of boxes....

    '76 mustang II for $8,500 ------ can you say "sale-proof"? Try half that.

    84 Camaro --- shoddily-built car. America at its worst.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    Weren't those Vette pace cars yellow?

    Those Mustang IIs are from the same seller. Not many others are OCD over those.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,438
    You're right about the Camaro. I had an 89 5.0 that was such an unreliable POS by the time that it was six years old and had 50k on it that I dumped it for an 89 Accord with a few thousand more miles. Would you believe that the Accord treated me better in the following 3 years than the Camaro did in the preceding 3 years?

    Nontheless, those cars still seem popular with the motorheads around here and that one looks decent with a reasonable price.
  • steine13steine13 Member Posts: 2,825
    I... it... you...

    Words fail me.
    http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/car/640300484.html

    -Mathias
  • steven922steven922 Member Posts: 49
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    The Jensen is Mopar powertrain, British everything else - so you can guess where the problem areas live (rust, electrics).

    I could see someone saving the bloated Mach I if it isn't rusty.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    Falcon looks good for a little vintage car to putter around town in. You don't get much of anything for that money anymore.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Seems fair enough...shoot $2,500...that's dinner and a movie in San Francisco.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,159
    "Falcon looks good for a little vintage car to putter around town in."

    "Putter" being the main word - that 170 with a 3 on the tree (not an a/t, right?) would best stay on the side roads.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    "Putter" being the main word - that 170 with a 3 on the tree (not an a/t, right?) would best stay on the side roads.

    I imagine 0-60 would come up in about 20 seconds with something like that. I recall reading an old road test of a similar vintage Comet, but with the smaller 144 CID and an automatic, and I think it took nearly 30 seconds to get up to 60!

    I guess once they started putting 200 CID 6-cyl engines in these cars, they weren't too bad. Or the little 221/260 CID V-8's.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    Those engines must have really been low tech.

    I think the engine in my fintail is only about 130 CID (2.2l) but it moves around just fine. Of course it is FI, so it is at the 1hp/CI output. But the carb cars weren't slow either.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    I want to say the 144 put out 85 hp, while the 170 put out around 100? I think the later 200 CID put out 120 hp.

    In V-8's, I think the 221 put out about 145 hp, while the 260 was something like 164?

    And of course, that was gross hp, so even that 164 hp is probably more like 120-125 in today's net terms.

    I guess in American cars though, those Fords were more or less competitive. The Mopar Slant six, for example, put out 101 hp in 170 CID form, and 145 in the more familiar 225. The 170 did later get bumped to 110 and then 115 hp, though, and when it was replaced by the 198, it was up to 125 hp.

    I think the Chevy Corvair initially just had a 140 CID pancake six, which put out something like 85 hp, although later versions were pretty potent. And there was that Chevy II inline-4, a 153 CID I believe, which put out like 90 hp. I think the 194.5 6-cyl put out 120.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    but Maryland just changed their requirements for historic tags. Instead of 25 years, a car only has to be 20 years old! I found out about it just a little while ago, when a guy I know from the warehouse on our site came over and asked me about getting historic plates and the form you need. I mentioned the 25 year thing, and he said he heard it was changed to 20. Well, I looked it up, and sure enough, now it's just 20!

    Oh, and the car he wants to get historic plates for? A 1986 Pontiac T1000. :P
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    For some reason those small Ford sixes were clattery, gasping buckets of oil-spewing bolts. The 300 inline 6 was a good engine, though, for trucks, but a gas hog due to the cubic inches. The Slant 6 was the most powerful six of those days for domestics. I think AMC was still using flatheads....sad.

    The Benz 6 is a low torque but high revving engine, so once a fintail gets moving, it stays there. The Ford 170 was just the opposite. Great 0-30 and totally out of poop at any revs. Coupled with an automatic, it felt, to my memory, more like driving a vacuum cleaner.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,159
    My 170 '65 Mustang felt way slower than my 198 '72 Duster, and I'm sure the Duster was much heavier. I pulled a Uhaul from Houston to San Francisco with the Duster, no problem. I'd never have considered that with the Mustang.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't think that car is worth $500. In fact, I don't think that car is worth ANYTHING.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    I think the Ford 300 inline-6 was derived from the 1965 era big-car six, which started off as a 240 CID unit and was punched out to 250 CID a few years later, with the 300 version being offered in trucks. Maybe that's why it was such a good engine...it was built with big cars in mind, so they put a little more effort into it. Meanwhile, the 144/170/200 family was designed specifically for the Falcon/Comet, so it was probably, to put it nicely, "built to a price".

    Like the Ford 240/250/300, the Mopar Slant Six was designed with bigger cars in mind, although it was versatile enough to have a smaller 170 CID version for the Valiant/Lancer/Dart. I guess Chrysler should also get props for the Hyper-Pak, a hot 4-bbl setup that boosted the 170 CID from 101 to 145 hp, and the 225 CID from 145 to 197.

    How did the Chevy inline-6 from that era compare? I'm thinking in terms of the 194.5 that came out around 1962 I guess, and later 230/250 CID versions that found their way into the Chevelle and the big cars. Wasn't it a pretty good engine?
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,159
    What if...you had a crunched MB with a good engine - swap? Only because this one's body/interior do look pretty good...(let the laughter begin)
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    The early AMG bits are worth something to the 8 old school enthusiasts in the world...but the engine problems make the car a black hole. Labor of love or a parts car.

    I'd pay $500 for it if I had a place to put it :blush:
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,159
    "The early AMG bits are worth something to the 8 old"

    I was wondering about that - are those AMG wheels, or some cheap ones? Don't look quite right.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    They look like period AMG wheels. The typical 80s AMG wheel was a plain looking painted 5 spoke usually with a polished lip. The monoblock style most people associate with AMG wasn't born until the end of the 80s I think, and has many versions
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    Dave's farm got an Andre-mobile This is one of the more amusing people on Youtube...lots of us would love to have our own little junkyard and car experiment station
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 20,955
    first let me say thanks to all those posting all those great, and some not so great cars, over the weekend.
    i was trying not to drive unless absolutely necessary over the weekend.
    one kid is away a school, the other is in rome for the week and my wife went shopping at the grocery store, and another time the mall(no thanks).
    the weather was a little iffy, fertilized the dry part of the lawn, then did the same at my moms. rode my bike over there holding onto the spreader with one hand. got a lot of funny looks from the kids in the neighborhood.
    then i decided to wash the fusion and the explorer.
    ok, now what? the exterior of the explorer was really trashed after the winter. i hope it is over, but i am not putting the snowblower away until may 1st.
    did the quick detail spray and wipe on the explorer. ok, i will start waxing it. did the hood and the roof(hate waxing the roof). after a while, i was sick of looking at it. so off to carspace i go and go and go! :)
    so anyways, i think that little falcon might be an automatic. it looks like it has a plastic gear indicator on the steering column. cute little car.
    2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    They were commenting on that New Yorker on my Mopar Mailing List, trying to get the word out in case anybody wanted to try to rescue it. In all honesty, it's probably not worth it, but I'd almost be tempted to try to save the thing! I like that teal leather interior!

    I also like the way this guy panned over the sales brochure. I always wondered just how long these cars were. Wow...227.7 inches! I think my '79 New Yorkers are 221.3", so that downsizing only took 'em down by 6.4". In contrast, I think the Electra/98 and DeVille lost about 10" or more, and I think the Town Car lost at least a foot!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    This would fall under the more dollars than sense category I know, but what would be the end result if you took something like that mammoth '76 New Yorker mentioned above, and swapped out its choked-down 440 for, say, a 3.5 V-6 drivetrain out of a modern Charger or 300?

    As is, that '76 New Yorker would probably do 0-60 in about 12 seconds. The 440 V-8 had 205 hp, but tons of torque, but was sort of held back by a loafy 2.45:1 axle. I'd guess torque would be around 330 ft-lb? I imagine fuel economy would be 14-15 at best out on the open road, and in local driving you'd be lucky to break 10 mpg.

    The 3.5 V-6 puts out about 250 hp, and around 250 ft-lb of torque. I'm sure the obvious answer here would be to just put in a modern Hemi drivetrain, but I'm trying to think a bit more economical. I'm not sure what axle ratio a 3.5 Charger/300 uses...I want to say a 3.89:1? The more modern 5-speed automatic (I think they're back to a 4-speed for 2008 though) would let the engine wind up more to get that mass moving, while the overdrive would probably put the highway revs to about what the original 2.45 axle would've been with the 440. And I'm sure the modern drivetrain would shed a couple hundred pounds, compared to the 440, although it would still be a heavy car. Still, you load up a Charger or 300 with four good-sized adults, and you end up with about as much total weight as an empty '76 New Yorker.

    Anyway, any guesses on what kind of performance and fuel economy such a swap would yield? I think that setup in a Charger is good for 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds, and fuel economy was rated around 19/27, before they started instituting those dumbed-down numbers that they use today.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    I don't think that car is within a light year of viably being saved, but I will admit that the interior was pretty amazing to me...must have been decent quality leather to age like that under extreme conditions. I am sure it would make a great parts car for the interior alone.

    The guy who runs that place is also extremely optimistic about price, wanting 1500 for it, claiming a mint one is worth 8K. Maybe if it had 1000 original miles on it and was selling to a land yacht enthusiast. If he could get half his asking price, I think he should take it.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,438
    What exactly is a 'flathead'?
  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes Member Posts: 1,019
    Isn't it where the valvetrain is in the block and the head is basically a thick piece of metal? I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's not a very efficient engine design.
    2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    yes Mr Fumes is correct. In the flathead engine, the cylinder head is merely a domed slab of iron that caps the combustion process. Intake and exhaust all occurs with the valves sitting "upside down". When you take off the flathead cylinder head, you can see the faces of the valves looking up at you.

    These engines are heavy and not so efficient for breathing and fuel charge swirling, combustion and exhausting. But they are cheap and simple to make compared to an overhead valve design. Adjusting the valves sometimes required taking a fender off or dangling yourself upside down under the manifolds. You had to open up little doors to get at the valves.

    Also after many years of use it was (and still is) quite common for head bolts to break off in the block on a flathead. Sometimes you could get all the very long headbolts out, but that slab of iron seems welded to the block. One neat trick was to take out the spark plugs, and stuff a piece of rope into each cylinder. Then you cranked up the starter, the rope got compressed by the piston head, and it popped the cylinder head off!

    JEEP also made an "F" head, which you might come across now and then in the dusty arcane literature, which had intake valves in the head but exhaust valves in the block. This was thought to be more efficient without necessitating the complexity of OHV.

    Overhead valves are almost as old as the flathead idea, and both were produced simultaneously in America until the mid 60s, when AMC and Chrysler finally gave up.

    Those wonderful V-12 and V-16 engines from Cadillac and Lincoln and Packard are all flatheads.

    Some American manufacturers were very advanced in engine design, like Stutz, which had overhead CAM engines back in the 20s.

    Now of course, most engines are ohv and ohc, but Americans still makes the ohv pushrod engine with cam in block, and it works very well in the modern world, evfen though the design goes back 100 years.

    Old Harleys were also flatheads, as were those old BMW motorcycles you see in German war movies.
  • jlflemmonsjlflemmons Member Posts: 2,242
    For a very basic example of a flathead design, pull the head off a standard Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engine. That's about as simple as it gets, and given annual oil changes will run for a very long time.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well now we know what you get when you love, cherish and maintain a '68 Ford 4-door for 30 years---$2,300 bucks.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    The old Ford looks honest, if boring. The Supra has a crazy asking price and is the wrong car for the coming era of ever-increasing fuel prices.

    So here is a car with a crazy price that is more in tune with the times:
    diesel greed taken to new heights

    james
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    46K for a 4 year old VW with over 70K on it, how could that be a bad idea?

    Must be our friends at the Green Car Company, they seem to have a few oddball claimed private imports. I wonder where it came from...Mexico?

    I could get a nice W211 CDi and a W210 4matic for that money.

    Now that Smart Cars are officially being sold in the US starting in the low teens, they still want 25-28K for their private imports, claiming them as "originals".
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    That '68 Ford is pretty unexciting, but there's something sort of endearing and nostalgic about seeing something like that in well-preserved condition. I think the '65-67 style, with the stacked headlights, is a bit more exciting to look at.

    Interesting how quickly that trend with the stacked headlights died off. Pontiac and Ford dropped them after '67, while Plymouth and Cadillac dropped them a year later.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    I've always liked the stacked lights too. I think AMC dropped them after something like 66 or 67 ...I can't think of anyone else who used them. MB also did produce them up through MY 1973, but I think all of those were the last of the 1972 build date 108s.
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    I bet I could get a brand new TDI Passat shipped over from Germany for close to $46k. Some ones been breathing diesel exhaust for too long.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Stacked is back! My 2007 Cadillac DTS Performace has stacked lights that remind me of the 1965-68 Caddies.

    I kind of like that '68 Galaxie. It's indicative of the kind of cars people actually drove during that time. Too often you see a movie set in the 1950s or '60s and it looks like everybody drove top-of-the-line convertibles and hardtops.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Might be worth $19K if it were the best one in this immediate galaxy. It would have to be one tasty meat-a-ball for that price, though, as in fall into the engine compartment in a bridal gown and not get dirty.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Mark IV Supra TT with a solid roof and a manual? That will bring $50 grand easy.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,647
    Does the DTS have 4 headlights? I remember looking at the headlight assembly of th CTS, weird with strange bulbs that looked like tubes. I don't know if I go for that...but I also don't go for the BMW "angel eyes" look, so I might be somewhat of a traditionalist.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    It's kind of a strange setup. When the car is turned off, the car appears to have two stacked round lights behind a clear cover per side with a tiny bulb in the lower about 1" diameter in the lower corner of each side close to the grille.

    When the car is turned on, the top light is yellow and the bottom light is unlit except at night. I've got to check it out sometime as to see what happens when I put the high beams on. I haven't driven the car much at night and haven't really bothered to check it out when I get home.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,109
    Nice, cheap '79 Newport. I've entertained the idea of getting something like this so I could still have a nice, big comfy R-body, but have one that's a bit easier on gas. I had a '79 Newport 318 back in 1996-98, and it would get around 11-13 around town, 20+ on the highway. The two NYer 360's I have right now are good for more like 10 around town, 15-16 on the highway. The back doors seal better on these models as well. The padded opera windows built into the trailing edge of the door on the New Yorkers tend to leak in the rain.

    Another '79 Newport. This one appears to be a cheaper trim level than the other one. The seats don't seem as thickly padded, and they don't have the little buttons. But I absolutely LOVE the color scheme on this one! That frosty teal with the matching interior probably isn't for everybody, but for some twisted reason it has me drooling!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.