....my mom and stepdad still have their '87 944 (stick), my mom purchased new in October '86 (it's my stepdad's daily driver), it is pricey when it has to be repaired, but repairs are not so frequent (it has something like 265k miles). It's really a pretty trusty old thing, when maintained properly. Of course, YMMV.
A 944 Turbo in the right hands, and well set up, is an awesome car, a 150+ mph automobile, and as good a handler (if not better) than a comparable 911. The one-year-only 944 Turbo S (1988) is even deadlier, with 0-60 in 5.5 seconds and a top speed of 162 mph. Not even a 928 is going to keep up with that.
They are sturdy but they punish neglect with a vengeance.
Porsche engines routinely punch out 250K and over. I see that kind of mileage all the time in appraisal work. The bottom ends are bulletproof. Of course, the 924 isn't a real Porsche engine, (Audi--Porsche didn't even assemble it) nor is the 914 (VW 412) . But the 944 is an engine developed from the 928 V-8 (but not with interchangeable parts).
....but I can't vouch for the rest of the car....I'm sure it's had a clutch or two, probably lots of other stuff. I'll have to ask Mom next time I talk to her.
Oh yeah, the 944 has its trouble spots---but really, it's the a) price of parts and b) difficulty of some of the repairs----rather than the car breaking.
Really (ironically) the cheapest Porsche to run is the 911.
'70 Chrysler---the price is dead on "book" value for a #3 "clean driver".
63 Polara -- ugly but probably fun. The price, however, is sadly delusional. It's not worth half that. This is....well...a Polara from 1963. Sale-proof IMO. Try $13995.
The '68 AMC 390 Coupe, however, might be an excellent buy at asking price. There may even be some profit in the car if it's really nice.
That Scamp really doesn't do anything for me, either. I think with me though, it's just that it's not that different from a Dart, and I've been able to look out the window and see a Dart in the driveway (or parking lot, when I had the condo) for 20 years now, so I'm just sort of Darted out. It might be kinda fun with that hopped-up crate 360, but I imagine those 4:10 gears would get tiring (and thirsty) out on the highway.
When I was a kid, I didn't like those "fuselage" style Mopars, The styling made them look fat in my eye, but also, I think the styling took sort of a generic look, where the Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler, and Imperial all started looking more and more alike. Plus, as a small kid, I was a big GM fan, so by default, everything else kinda sucked! :P
I'm starting to like them more and more, though. That 300, with its hidden headlights and two-tone paintjob, has a sleek, stylish look to it, and that lower accent crease helps fill the car out, so that it doesn't seem so fat and tipsy. It seems like the Dodges back then also did a pretty good job at toning down the fatness. The lower part seemed a bit more filled-out, rather than tucked in. Plus, the Dodges had open rear wheel wells, as opposed to the skirted look that the others used.
No the 944 is not "half a 928 engine" as is so often said, but it certainly is derived from that engine.
That 4-cylinder Tempest engine was a trip---nasty vibration levels, as one might expect with any large displacement 4 cylinder engine (I think about 2.5L is all you want to go with a 4 cylinder inline engine). However, it had some torque, as one might expect from a large displacement per cylinder engine.
Yeah, I drove a Tempest 4 (if I recall correctly, it was a in a slanted position [a slant 4]) and the vibration would be totally unacceptable today.
Didn't Porsche have a 3.0 4 cylinder in the 944? Several midsize cars today have 2.5 4s, and Toyota also has a 2.7 4, but I presume they're smooth, although maybe not as silky smooth as the smaller displacement 4s from the same manufacturers. I don't think the Tempest 4 had a balance shaft. I know the early Iron Duke 4s didn't. Do you know whether the Iron Duke was basically an updated Tempest 4 with a new name? Actually, GM named the engine used in its '85 and newer N bodies (Grand Am, Cutlass Calais, Buick Skylark) and FWD intermediates the Tech 4. Don't know how the name Iron Duke originated, but the Iron Duke and Tech 4 were the same engine. Earlier, that OHV 4, in carburated form, was used in the X-cars.
Chevy used a different OHV 4 in the Cavalier and Corsica. That Chevy 4 must have been quite exceptional, since it Cadillac used it in the Cimarron.
The Tempest slant-4 was also a heavy engine, at something like 470 lb. Although maybe that's not so bad, as a Mopar slant six was around 475. I think those little Ford 144/170/200 CID inline 6es were around 375-380 lb.
100 pounds doesn't sound like it would make much difference, but I guess when you consider often the difference between a small-block and a big-block V-8 was only 100-150 lb, sometimes less, I guess it does! For instance, the 360 in my '79 New Yorker weighs 550 lb. Yet a 361/383/400 big-block only weighs 620 and even the big 413/440 "only" weighs 670.
The Iron Duke first came out in 1977, and I believe that year it was standard in the Astre, as well as the Monza and all of its offshoots. I want to say that the Vega stuck it out that final year with the aluminum engine.
The Iron Duke was a new engine, not related to the old slant-4. They probably called it what they did so that you knew you were getting an iron engine, as the Vega's aluminum engine had a bad rap by that time. Although I've heard that in the later years, the Vega's aluminum engine wasn't too bad...but the bad PR had already set in.
I used to get the Iron Duke confused with the old Chevy inline-4, as they were both 2.5L engines. However, the Iron Duke was a 151 CID, whereas the old Chevy engine was a 153. That Chevy engine was last used in the 1970 Nova, and I imagine was quite a dog. But if anybody was nostalgic for that kind of performance, Pontiac tried putting the Iron Duke in the Nova-based Phoenix!
The Caddy 472/500 weighed 625 lb, according to that site. However, take some of those weights with a grain of salt. Not all of the weights are for a complete engine. Some are, some are just the bare block, and others are for everything in between.
We had an I4 in our '84 Jeep Cherokee (the small one) with a manual tranny. Wasn't that the Iron Duke? It was OK, not a lot of pep, but we got 12 years out of it with only carb problems. We got that instead of the 2.8l GM v6 that was also available because the 2.8 was particularly gutless.
I think AMC only used the Iron Duke through 1983, and then replaced it with their own 2.5 4-cyl, a 150 CID unit that was derived from their 6'es.
I have a 1985 Consumer Guide that tested two Jeep Cherokee/Wagoneers. One had a 2.5/manual and the other was the 2.8 V-6/automatic. They didn't list a 0-60 time for the 2.5, but the 2.8 came in around 17.3 seconds, and they commented that it was similar to the 2.5.
Andre, you're right, it was the AMC 150, not a 151. And 17.3 seconds to 60 - ouch! But it worked great for 12 years in Alaska. Sold it to a teacher who shipped it off to Bethel, AK...wonder if it's still around!
I have a Pontiac 400-2bbl intake manifold sitting in my garage, and that thing ain't light! I'm kinda curious to hop on the bathroom scale with it and see just how much it does weigh. I also have a couple of 318-4bbl intakes, and while they feel lighter, they're still heavy suckers!
How much weight would an aluminum intake manifold save, I wonder? My mechanic put one of those on my '76 LeMans a few months ago. I know it's not enough weight savings to improve mpg or performance, but I'm kinda curious if it's much lighter.
Thanks for the reminder. Yes, I recall that the Astre featured the Iron Duke instead of the Vega 2300 engine. GM must have already been planning widespread use for the Iron Duke (for the X-cars, etc), because they couldn't justify a new engine for just the Astre.
So, andre, was the Iron an all-new engine? I would find that hard to believe because it was so crude. I had one in my '86 Grand Am, and my mother had an '87 Cutlass Ciera with that engine, and they were really agricultural. The timing gear (yes gear) in my mother's broke at ~80,000 miles. Mine went 188,000, then the head gasket blew, but 188k isn't bad for an '80s engine. Both cars were well maintained and driven normally.
The Chevy I-4 that was introduced as the base engine of the Chevy II, and later the Nova, was indeed a different block from the Tempest 4. However, I wasn't sure whether there may have been commonality between that old Chevy 4 (not the newer one introduced in the '82 FWD compacts) and the Tempest 4. Probably not.
Regarding your comments on engine weights in your earlier message, I think the Tempest 4 had a larger displacement (195 c.i., or 3.2 L...huge for a 4 cylinder!) than the base (170 c.i.). Slant Six used in the Valiant and Lancer. That partially justifies the weight of the Tempest engine.
okay, this is going to make me sound like a spoiled diva, but here goes... Anybody have an idea of how hard/expensive it would be to convert my '67 Catalina convertible to power windows?
I was thinking about this today, as I tried to replace the passenger side window crank on this car. There's a special tool you theoretically need, but if you know where to stick it, you can use a flathead screwdriver to pop the clip. that holds the crank in place. Well, back during the GM Nationals at Carlisle in June, the knob fell of the original crank. I bought a cheap replacement at Advance Auto, put it on, but it wasn't a good fit. It was loose and wobbly, and the metal was cheap, and it eventually stripped out. Well, at Fall Carlisle, I picked up another one, a reproduction, and when I put it on tonite, it was just as loose...so, only a matter of time, most likely, before it strips, too.
I know I can find an OEM handle if I really look around, but, I hate to say it, I've gotten spoiled by power windows! I haven't had to hand-crank a window down on a regular basis since 1998, when I wrecked my '86 Monte and then got fed up with my '79 Newport, and started driving an '89 Gran Fury with power windows. That got replaced by my 2000 Intrepid, which has power windows standard. And since then, I've added two '79 NYer's, a '76 LeMans, and '85 Silverado, again, all power window.
The crank windows in the Catalina never really bothered me in the past, when the top was broken and I had to put it up and down by hand. But now that I have the power assist on the top working again, the crank windows just bug me for some reason. Also, not that I plan to sell the car anytime soon, but would adding power windows hurt its value any, since it didn't come from the factory with them?
Now, this is all just wishful thinking right now, but it's not the first time I wished that car had power windows! I probably have better things to waste money on, though.
With a 67 Catalina, I doubt that adding power windows would hurt your resale, especially if you did it right: with EOM switches and door panels. That might not even be too expensive, IF you could find an appropriate wreck to donate the necessary bits.
Yeah, sounds like a good project, might take a while to round up the parts. Just don't go the JCWhitney route with motors stuck on where the cranks go.
We already knew you were a spoiled diva, so no big deal.
On GMs in particular, I don't think it's a big deal (or big expense) at all.....I've seen MANY crank window cars on eBay that have been converted to power. I can't be more specific than that, but I know the (period correct) switches are readily available.....I am wondering if the switches were in the same position as the cranks in this case, especially the driver's control switch. Also, I know in the case of Bonnevilles (67s and 68s in particular) the switches (in front doors) were based in specific armrests, rather than the typical-for-GM (B-bodies, anyway) door panel mounted switches. I think Catalinas, if equipped with PW, had the regular GM switches.
I guess the biggest expenses would be.....wiring, motors (and mounting/installation) and the possibility of having to replace or repair door panels. OK, maybe not so inexpensive.
If you do it, make sure you get the roundier-edged switches (GM switched to very rectangular switches in 1971).
I think there are kits you can buy from vendors who advertise in Hemmings Motor News, and they have everything you need, all worked out. No custom work required. All you have to do is pay for it and install it. DEFINITELY the way to go.
"Pioneers end up with arrows in their back. Settlers arrive later".
I think its that clear stuff... or at least was clear at some point. Seems to be standard issue on those Porsches ... at least here in Jersey.
So, shifty, what's the appeal of this Porsche, if there is any? Specs seem to indicate its slower than even my non-turbo 300z of the same era. Is there something more to it than meets the eye? I've never driven one, so I really don't know.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I'd say that handling is its only strong suit. It's fun to drive, but not that fast and potentially very expensive to repair. It's a car that always wants something.
Porsche 914 --- he's pushing it at $3500 with damage to the unibody and other needs. But maybe. It doesn't run for gawd's sake and the VW engine is a pain to take out of there...again....if it's need it.
Datsun 1600 -- might be a good deal at this price, even if the engine is fried.
Fiat 500L -- I'd do an MRI on that car before I bought it.
Re-that Z, were the '73s much of a drop from the '72s? I don't like the bumpers, but did the engine's suffer much? That engine compartment is the nicest, cleanest looking one I've seen in a Z (maybe I'm thinking of the rat's nest in some 280Zs).
The big change in Z-car bumpers came in 1974 with the introduction of the 260Z. The 1973 car in the advertisement has some kind of add-on bumper over-ride protector bars that detract from the clean lines of the car.
Yep, one year only... then came the 280Z; unloved for it's clunky bumpers and emission control issues. That, and the original 240Z was a tough act to follow. :shades:
Chrysler made this dream[playing records in cars] a reality with two generations of in-car phonographs. The original Highway Hi-Fi hit the streets in Autumn of 1955, for model year 1956 -- a factory option in the full Chrysler Corporation line of vehicles: Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth, DeSoto and Imperial
OK... I am only 31 but remember vinyl fairly well and have a lot of older albums. If you walk too hard across the floor the turntable could skip. How in the heck did it work in the car? I guess you could increase the pressure the stylus puts on the record, however, that would kill the records over time.
Comments
They are sturdy but they punish neglect with a vengeance.
Really (ironically) the cheapest Porsche to run is the 911.
seems cheap
amc bullitt
nice vette
ugly but i like it
63 Polara -- ugly but probably fun. The price, however, is sadly delusional. It's not worth half that. This is....well...a Polara from 1963. Sale-proof IMO. Try $13995.
The '68 AMC 390 Coupe, however, might be an excellent buy at asking price. There may even be some profit in the car if it's really nice.
When I was a kid, I didn't like those "fuselage" style Mopars, The styling made them look fat in my eye, but also, I think the styling took sort of a generic look, where the Plymouth, Dodge, Chrysler, and Imperial all started looking more and more alike. Plus, as a small kid, I was a big GM fan, so by default, everything else kinda sucked! :P
I'm starting to like them more and more, though. That 300, with its hidden headlights and two-tone paintjob, has a sleek, stylish look to it, and that lower accent crease helps fill the car out, so that it doesn't seem so fat and tipsy. It seems like the Dodges back then also did a pretty good job at toning down the fatness. The lower part seemed a bit more filled-out, rather than tucked in. Plus, the Dodges had open rear wheel wells, as opposed to the skirted look that the others used.
That 4-cylinder Tempest engine was a trip---nasty vibration levels, as one might expect with any large displacement 4 cylinder engine (I think about 2.5L is all you want to go with a 4 cylinder inline engine). However, it had some torque, as one might expect from a large displacement per cylinder engine.
Didn't Porsche have a 3.0 4 cylinder in the 944? Several midsize cars today have 2.5 4s, and Toyota also has a 2.7 4, but I presume they're smooth, although maybe not as silky smooth as the smaller displacement 4s from the same manufacturers. I don't think the Tempest 4 had a balance shaft. I know the early Iron Duke 4s didn't. Do you know whether the Iron Duke was basically an updated Tempest 4 with a new name? Actually, GM named the engine used in its '85 and newer N bodies (Grand Am, Cutlass Calais, Buick Skylark) and FWD intermediates the Tech 4. Don't know how the name Iron Duke originated, but the Iron Duke and Tech 4 were the same engine. Earlier, that OHV 4, in carburated form, was used in the X-cars.
Chevy used a different OHV 4 in the Cavalier and Corsica. That Chevy 4 must have been quite exceptional, since it Cadillac used it in the Cimarron.
100 pounds doesn't sound like it would make much difference, but I guess when you consider often the difference between a small-block and a big-block V-8 was only 100-150 lb, sometimes less, I guess it does! For instance, the 360 in my '79 New Yorker weighs 550 lb. Yet a 361/383/400 big-block only weighs 620 and even the big 413/440 "only" weighs 670.
The Iron Duke was a new engine, not related to the old slant-4. They probably called it what they did so that you knew you were getting an iron engine, as the Vega's aluminum engine had a bad rap by that time. Although I've heard that in the later years, the Vega's aluminum engine wasn't too bad...but the bad PR had already set in.
I used to get the Iron Duke confused with the old Chevy inline-4, as they were both 2.5L engines. However, the Iron Duke was a 151 CID, whereas the old Chevy engine was a 153. That Chevy engine was last used in the 1970 Nova, and I imagine was quite a dog. But if anybody was nostalgic for that kind of performance, Pontiac tried putting the Iron Duke in the Nova-based Phoenix!
I think all large displacement 4s are still a bit rough, relatively speaking.
The Caddy 472/500 weighed 625 lb, according to that site. However, take some of those weights with a grain of salt. Not all of the weights are for a complete engine. Some are, some are just the bare block, and others are for everything in between.
I have a 1985 Consumer Guide that tested two Jeep Cherokee/Wagoneers. One had a 2.5/manual and the other was the 2.8 V-6/automatic. They didn't list a 0-60 time for the 2.5, but the 2.8 came in around 17.3 seconds, and they commented that it was similar to the 2.5.
625 sounds like more of a bare block measurement.
How much weight would an aluminum intake manifold save, I wonder? My mechanic put one of those on my '76 LeMans a few months ago. I know it's not enough weight savings to improve mpg or performance, but I'm kinda curious if it's much lighter.
So, andre, was the Iron an all-new engine? I would find that hard to believe because it was so crude. I had one in my '86 Grand Am, and my mother had an '87 Cutlass Ciera with that engine, and they were really agricultural. The timing gear (yes gear) in my mother's broke at ~80,000 miles. Mine went 188,000, then the head gasket blew, but 188k isn't bad for an '80s engine. Both cars were well maintained and driven normally.
The Chevy I-4 that was introduced as the base engine of the Chevy II, and later the Nova, was indeed a different block from the Tempest 4. However, I wasn't sure whether there may have been commonality between that old Chevy 4 (not the newer one introduced in the '82 FWD compacts) and the Tempest 4. Probably not.
Regarding your comments on engine weights in your earlier message, I think the Tempest 4 had a larger displacement (195 c.i., or 3.2 L...huge for a 4 cylinder!) than the base (170 c.i.). Slant Six used in the Valiant and Lancer. That partially justifies the weight of the Tempest engine.
I was thinking about this today, as I tried to replace the passenger side window crank on this car. There's a special tool you theoretically need, but if you know where to stick it, you can use a flathead screwdriver to pop the clip. that holds the crank in place. Well, back during the GM Nationals at Carlisle in June, the knob fell of the original crank. I bought a cheap replacement at Advance Auto, put it on, but it wasn't a good fit. It was loose and wobbly, and the metal was cheap, and it eventually stripped out. Well, at Fall Carlisle, I picked up another one, a reproduction, and when I put it on tonite, it was just as loose...so, only a matter of time, most likely, before it strips, too.
I know I can find an OEM handle if I really look around, but, I hate to say it, I've gotten spoiled by power windows! I haven't had to hand-crank a window down on a regular basis since 1998, when I wrecked my '86 Monte and then got fed up with my '79 Newport, and started driving an '89 Gran Fury with power windows. That got replaced by my 2000 Intrepid, which has power windows standard. And since then, I've added two '79 NYer's, a '76 LeMans, and '85 Silverado, again, all power window.
The crank windows in the Catalina never really bothered me in the past, when the top was broken and I had to put it up and down by hand. But now that I have the power assist on the top working again, the crank windows just bug me for some reason. Also, not that I plan to sell the car anytime soon, but would adding power windows hurt its value any, since it didn't come from the factory with them?
Now, this is all just wishful thinking right now, but it's not the first time I wished that car had power windows! I probably have better things to waste money on, though.
On GMs in particular, I don't think it's a big deal (or big expense) at all.....I've seen MANY crank window cars on eBay that have been converted to power. I can't be more specific than that, but I know the (period correct) switches are readily available.....I am wondering if the switches were in the same position as the cranks in this case, especially the driver's control switch. Also, I know in the case of Bonnevilles (67s and 68s in particular) the switches (in front doors) were based in specific armrests, rather than the typical-for-GM (B-bodies, anyway) door panel mounted switches. I think Catalinas, if equipped with PW, had the regular GM switches.
I guess the biggest expenses would be.....wiring, motors (and mounting/installation) and the possibility of having to replace or repair door panels. OK, maybe not so inexpensive.
If you do it, make sure you get the roundier-edged switches (GM switched to very rectangular switches in 1971).
"Pioneers end up with arrows in their back. Settlers arrive later".
Can't say the private dealers in that area have much of a reputation for quality autos, though. :lemon:
But I guess one could get lucky.(??)
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
So, shifty, what's the appeal of this Porsche, if there is any? Specs seem to indicate its slower than even my non-turbo 300z of the same era. Is there something more to it than meets the eye? I've never driven one, so I really don't know.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/1446688014.html
$15,000!!!? That's like $15 a pound!!!
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1416008653.html
Datsun nice car you got there. Too bad it was "overheated years ago and parked"
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1443570759.html
Datsun nicer car but the color isn't exactly 240Z
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1405257059.html
Nicely restored chrome bumper MG B
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1432026346.html
It's a Triumph! (Uhm, triumph over what, exactly?)
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/1414102751.html
Nice TR 6 but expensive
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/cto/1405965020.html
Not as nice but 1/3rd the price!
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/cto/1446031308.html
A first ! A replica of a replica!
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1409884670.html
Barn Find 1959 Jaguar Mark IX $4500
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1426601338.html
From the Barn to Andre's Garage?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1414813833.html
Datsun 1600 -- might be a good deal at this price, even if the engine is fried.
Fiat 500L -- I'd do an MRI on that car before I bought it.
That Fiat 500?
I'd think somebody REQUIRED an MRI if he seriously thought about a Fiat 500 for $15,000! It's not even really original, is it?
Here's a listing for a toy that I've only ever heard about - never actually seen one for sale before
Very rare Philco Ford portable 45 rpm record player. Offered by Ford as an option for 1955, 1956, 1957 Ford Thunderbirds $200.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/mdf/cto/1445313995.html
Actually I see quite a few automatic 240Zs. Probably saved the engines.
"... I always thought Chrysler was first to offer a record player as an option..."
I'd always thought so too, and so I decided to do a little research (if googling something count's as 'research').
I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about - I think he's off by a decade.
The Philco wasn't around (if I'm reading this right) until the mid 60's.
http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php/Hip_Pocket_Records
And then there's this site which is interesting reading, with its old advertisements and magazine articles about the players:
http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html
Chrysler made this dream[playing records in cars] a reality with two generations of in-car phonographs. The original Highway Hi-Fi hit the streets in Autumn of 1955, for model year 1956 -- a factory option in the full Chrysler Corporation line of vehicles: Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth, DeSoto and Imperial
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic