I think the Ford influence was really starting to shape them up by then. And look at Jag now, light years ahead of the past, not risky at all anymore. They really reformed themselves.
I like the Cuda too, however, I wonder how quick it is with only a 318.
I'd guess 0-60 in around 9 seconds, if it has the stock 2.76:1 axle. That's the same setup as my '68 Dart (although my Dart was probably a bit heavier, had a/c, and oversized rear tires that made it look tougher but probably hurt acceleration a bit), and my Dart could do it in around 9 seconds.
As a rough reference point, Consumer Reports tested a 1968-69 Mopar intermediate with a 318/Torqueflite/2.76:1 axle, and got 0-60 in 10 seconds flat.
fast enough? Besides, something like that is about putting around sounding good, and occasionally spinning the rear tires to impress the girls! I'm sure even a 318 can do that, especially in the wet.
Since I normally drive a 4 cyl. Accord, I am sure it will seem fast.
And if you are 10 minutes from that car, we must be close. I live in the town that begins with a V,
RE; Jaguar V-12: It has little to do with mileage really. If the cost to fix up a car is 3X what it is worth already running well, who in the world would do it?
All expensive-to-fix, difficult-to-fix, very low-value, modern cars are going to the wrecking yard.
Most modern cars are like banking accounts. You can't keep making withdrawals (driving it with no maintenance or repairs) without making some deposits (TLC), or you will be bankrupt pretty quickly.
Oh I am sure it would spin those tires... heck my neighbor's 86 5th Av with a 318 would spin them under the right circumstances.
My '68 Dart would chirp the tires with very little provocation. I never really could get my '89 Gran Fury ex copcar to do it, though. It had a 318-4bbl with 175 hp and a 2.94 axle. I don't know how much net hp the Dart would've had...I know it was 230 gross with a 9.2:1 compression ratio and 2-bbl carb.
That's the story of the Jaguar's fate in a nutshell.
These tired old luxury cars, being so ridiculously cheap to buy, fall into the hands of people who cannot maintain them, and thus go from bad to worse....rapidly. I see it all the time.
Can't say as I blame them in a way, when factory crate engines are now costing upwards of $30,000 on some older lux cars that could be bought for $5000.
Evena 40 year old Porsche 911 is way cheaper to maintain than a '92 Jaguar V-12.
Gotta love the optimist that's selling the Jag. He starts out saying "Exterior has a rust spot approx size of a quarter next to the gas lid. also the gas lid rubber seal needs replacement water leaks into the trunk area. newer tires have approx 3500 miles on them so they are like new. The brake pads in the front are brand new but needs a new brake pad sensor. $7.00 part rears may need replacement soon?"
THEN he goes into "The issues with the vehicle..."
As if body rust, rubber seals/rust/leaking trunk, bad front brake sensor, and needed rear brakes are GOOD things! :sick: :lemon:
I like those XJR's. Drove one for a few days that someone traded in at my old Honda dealer. I think it was 04 and we paid abouty $6k-$8k back then for it and it was a 96.
I like how everything on the Jag is a simple and cheap fix. Shifty is right, this is a junkyard car or parts car at best.
Who would have thought back then that a top of the line luxury car would be a junkyard candidate about 15 years later due to numerous and somewhat minor issues. I see 94 Accords with higher asking prices.
BMW 8 series - not my favourite color, and yeah for $13k it better be a primo example. Of all the ones for sale I have yet to see one with a 6 speed manual transmission. They gotta be very rare.
I like how everything on the Jag is a simple and cheap fix.
I think its easy to get "suckered" in to a car like this. You figure "for that price how could I go wrong" and realize its one thing after another or you spend hours trying to find out why the CEL light in on only to realize its 5 things all needing $200++ parts. I think that is exactly the scenario that seller is facing. At least he is wise enough to dump it.
I would think $4,500 is about correct retail for that car with 145,000 and four owners. I ran the carfax no accidents as far as they are concerned so take that with a shaker full of salt.
A 1996 or 1997 with under 100,000 miles and say one or two owners I would pay 2,000-3,000 more for that.
A one owner with maintenance records might get me to be double that $4,500 retail figure for a clean under 100,000 mile car.
Oh yeah a 1995-1997 XJR or XJ6 are good cars. Preferably a 1996 or 1997 but a 1995 is ok too.
The SC 4.0 inline six in the XJR made just as more power then the V12 with none of the problems.
The V12 313-hp @ 5,350RPM
353 lb.-ft. @ 2,850RPM
The 4.0 SC inline six
322-hp @ 5,000RPM
378 lb.-ft. @ 3,050RPM
A 1998-2000 XJ or XJR can be good cars too but they have a couple of strikes against them.
Nikasal blocks and bad timing chain tensioners for the first two. As long as those two issues are taken care of, and they are big issues as you need an engine replacement to fix the nikasal problem, then those cars are ok.
Second problem is that those V8 Jags used a sealed five speed auto trans from Mercedes and they just don't have much life past 100,000 miles unless someone actually changed the fluid and no one ever does.
The 1996-1997 XJ and XJRs used a good easy to work on and service GM 4 speed 4L80E I think. I have lost track of how many cars I have worked on with that transmission. Nothing on it is hard to do and it is easily serviceable and relatively cheap to service too. If you really, really wanted to, and I wouldn't recommend it as I think he XJR is too big, they did make Euro market XJ6/R models with a five speed getrag manual.
People have done the swaps on this side of the pond before.
I edited in some power figures for the V12 vs the Blown six.
I forgot the blown Six actually makes more power then the V12.
I have lusted after a 1995-1997 XJR since they were new and I was still in school.
In the mid 90s to late 90s anyone that went on Leno's show and asked him about cars usually got recommended to buy a XJR. I remember him doing it at least half a dozen times. Probably the best advertising jag ever got. One actress, and I forget who, came back on a year or so later and said she did buy one and loved it said it was the best car she ever had.
I have taken cars in trade that I know had $10,000 plus of damage done cause our body shop did the work and no carfax report.
Now it might show up eventually but it also might not.
One of our techs bought a car from us that had a good carfax and no paint work that we saw. This was a long time ago before we regularly used a paint meter on cars though. He took off the bumper to do some work and saw all kinds of sloppy welds behind the body work. Whoever did it had a great paint shop but a horrible frame guy.
My C43 had that same transmission, and my E55 has an updated version. They do have an uncanny knack for dying around 100-120K if not serviced. My C43 was serviced around 50K, and I had the E55 serviced at 40K. MB should be held to some kind of legal liability for the "lifetime" transmission con, especially on the unit seen in the AMG cars and that Jag, made for high torque applications. That's exactly what needs the most servicing.
a friend has a very nice, tastefully restored Corvette C4 for sale.
The good -- all gone through mechanically, neat as a pin, star wars dashboard works, leather seats are primo, new tires, performance exhaust system, tasteful new two-tone paint, full history in California, manuals and docs, targa top, 20-24 mpg, asking $6500
The bad -- it's a 1984 with Cross Fire Injection (a bit weak for power delivery, and quirky to tune, and very resistance to modification) AND it's an automatic.
The good/bad -- the automatics are sturdy, whereas the manual transmission alternative, the bizarre 4-3 Doug Nash contraption, is not the least bit sturdy.
Convert to Tremec 6 speed? Nah, about $3000 + labor.
Install Edelbrock manifold and carburetor? Nah, fails smog, eats gas.
Pretty much you buy an '84, you're stuck with what you got.
PS: The 1984 C4 was the first regular production car to record 1g on a skidpad.
I don't think that 3rd brake light is stock, nor the paint job. The tail isn't dented, it's just a reflection.
At the time of its introduction, I was very taken with the C4. It was such a vast improvement, at least visually, over its predecessor. But my recollection is that the '84, (in typical GM fashion), was "not ready for prime time." That is to say, later years were far better sorted.
I would have to say that the particular car, while tempting, is merely an invitation to investigate other, more desirable C4s. :shades:
As far as a Vette purist I am sure it would get a thumbs down for the color, the auto and the fact its an 84. However, for $6500 it could be a fun Sunday car and I wouldn't mind driving it "down to the shore" or for a night out. I just wouldn't want to get into any stoplight races with a recent V6 Camcord!
I'd be leery of that 4-speed automatic. The reason that there was no 1983 Corvette is because that transmission wasn't ready yet. GM had a 4-speed automatic already in production, the THM200-R4, but it was based on the lightweight 3-speed THM200 that got a bad rap back in the 1970's when it started blowing up prematurely. Mainly in applications where it didn't belong though, such as full-sized cars, or any engine around 5 liters.
The 4-speed version did get pretty reliable in later years, and could take a full-sized car with a 305 or 307, and in heavy-duty form could even handle the likes of the Monte SS, Cutlass 4-4-2, and even the Buick Grand National and the fabled GNX. But I don't think it was strong enough to go up behind a high-performance 350. Just too much torque, across too wide of an rpm band. So the THM700-R4 was developed for heavier-duty applications. Initially it went in the Corvette, but was also used in police cars with the 350, and pickup trucks. It got pretty good in later years, but in all honesty, none of the domestics got their 4-speed automatics right in their first year.
In fact, GM had to delay another model lineup because they didn't get the bugs worked out of a 4-speed automatic. The Electra/98/DeVille were originally supposed to be downsized and converted to FWD for 1984, but the transmission held them back about half a year. And when they were introduced as early 1985's, the transmissions chewed up pretty quickly. I don't think they really got the bugs more or less worked out until 1987-88 though.
That THM700R4 ultimately evolved into something else, but I can't remember if it was the 4L60E or the 4L80E. I've heard the 4L60E more or less replaces the old THM350, while the 4L80E is essentially a replacement for the sturdy old THM400.
On the plus side though, if you really liked the car otherwise, and that transmission did fail, I guess if you got it rebuilt, they'd rebuild it to more include the updates that made it more durable in later years.
Personally, I just couldn't do it with the auto. OK, so the stick in an '84 sucks... then I just wouldn't buy an '84 at all. I don't see the compromise. Meaning, with other cars, you may say ... "well, its an auto, but it suits all my other needs and wants." The vette has only one purpose: fun. Auto = less fun. So now what do you got?
'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
Just for the hell of it, I searched for '95-'97 XJRs within 200 miles of home. Only 1 came up, and it is just 7 miles away. Not a dealer known for nice cars, though. 110K miles, BRG over tan, $6995.
Then, again, just for kicks, I looked up the specs here on Edmunds. 14 mpg combined!! My god that is unbelievably atrocious. And, at 2 tons, it is probably not even that fast.
Nice to look at and dream about, but I don't think I'd want to have to feed that beast.
'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
14 mpg combined on premium don't even think of putting regular in that car.
Its all relative though. A 750i of the same time period made the same power but in a heavier car. A S600 made a little more power but in a much, much heavier car.
They would all get the same mileage or worse.
If I bought one I would drive it less then 5,000 miles a year so 14 mpg doesn't really matter to me.
14 mpg combined on premium don't even think of putting regular in that car.
Its all relative though. A 750i of the same time period made the same power but in a heavier car. A S600 made a little more power but in a much, much heavier car.
They would all get the same mileage or worse.
If it's any consolation, my '85 Silverado is rated at 13 combined! And it's getting a bit old and tired and carboned up, so it's developed an appetite for premium...or at the very least a mix of around 89-90 octane.
Now, now, tic....an '84 Vette in top tune should be able to do 0-60 in about 6.7. I don't think Camcords are there yet.
All of your points are very well taken, thanks! Let's look at some of them:
Stick vs. Automatic --here I might commit heresy. My opinion is that if a) you live in an area with a lot of traffic and b) you have a car as huge as a Corvette, that an automatic is not the end of the world. Consider that most new Ferraris come with paddle shifting and no 3rd pedal. Now on a MINI or a Boxster or a Miata I'm with you all the way as far as preferring a stickshift. But the Vette always struck me more as a GT car---a "gentleman's express", and it has evolved steadily in that direction---more comforts, more space, etc. I'm seeing a car like this as a freeway stormer, not something you push through narrow mountain roads.
Upgrade to LT1 -- hard to justify, even though it is true that most 80s Vettes are horrible rats and finding a good one is not easy. I guess if money were not a factor, using an '84 chassis makes sense---it's a *great* handling car.
Cross-Fire: I'm wondering if this system is really suffering from "education aversion" like the SU carbs did on British cars---that is, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the system except that nobody knows how to properly set it up and maintain it. Once you insert the key in the knowledge box, things become simpler.
No, Crossfire was just another GM whiz-bang idea that didn't pan out. If you don't want to go in for a whole engine swap, just throwing some early-90s TBI parts at it would cure most of its ills.
Yes but would anyone in a Camcord actually do that? :P
I think I could defeat a Camcord psychologically without actually racing.
Anyway, SO WHAT? A Camry is even faster than a BMW 330ci. It's one thing begin spanked in your $6500 Vette, but far far worse to be spanked in your $50K Bimmer.
Now, now, tic....an '84 Vette in top tune should be able to do 0-60 in about 6.7. I don't think Camcords are there yet.
Consumer Guide got a 2010 Camry XLE V-6 to do 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. www.autoguide.com quoted a 2009 Accord V-6 coupe at 7.0 seconds with the automatic, 5.9 with the stick. And the car that re-started the horsepower wars in mainstream cars, the Nissan Altima, was good for 0-60 in 5.9 seconds with the stick and 6.9 with the automatic...back in 2002!
It's actually kinda scary how fast cars are getting today...especially as drivers continue to dumb down, it seems.
Comments
I guess we are practically neighbors because its maybe 10 from me! I like the Cuda too, however, I wonder how quick it is with only a 318.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I'd guess 0-60 in around 9 seconds, if it has the stock 2.76:1 axle. That's the same setup as my '68 Dart (although my Dart was probably a bit heavier, had a/c, and oversized rear tires that made it look tougher but probably hurt acceleration a bit), and my Dart could do it in around 9 seconds.
As a rough reference point, Consumer Reports tested a 1968-69 Mopar intermediate with a 318/Torqueflite/2.76:1 axle, and got 0-60 in 10 seconds flat.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Since I normally drive a 4 cyl. Accord, I am sure it will seem fast.
And if you are 10 minutes from that car, we must be close. I live in the town that begins with a V,
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Yeah we are close... think Evesham road toward the Black Horse Pike near that Toyota Dealer.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
All expensive-to-fix, difficult-to-fix, very low-value, modern cars are going to the wrecking yard.
Most modern cars are like banking accounts. You can't keep making withdrawals (driving it with no maintenance or repairs) without making some deposits (TLC), or you will be bankrupt pretty quickly.
My '68 Dart would chirp the tires with very little provocation. I never really could get my '89 Gran Fury ex copcar to do it, though. It had a 318-4bbl with 175 hp and a 2.94 axle. I don't know how much net hp the Dart would've had...I know it was 230 gross with a 9.2:1 compression ratio and 2-bbl carb.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
"$7 part"
yes, don't mention the $700 labor.
'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
That's a real shame. Seems like such a waste, but as you say no sense sinking money into something that you will never get back.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Yeah, he researched everything and fixed nothing. That tells you alot right there.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
These tired old luxury cars, being so ridiculously cheap to buy, fall into the hands of people who cannot maintain them, and thus go from bad to worse....rapidly. I see it all the time.
Can't say as I blame them in a way, when factory crate engines are now costing upwards of $30,000 on some older lux cars that could be bought for $5000.
Evena 40 year old Porsche 911 is way cheaper to maintain than a '92 Jaguar V-12.
THEN he goes into "The issues with the vehicle..."
As if body rust, rubber seals/rust/leaking trunk, bad front brake sensor, and needed rear brakes are GOOD things! :sick: :lemon:
And the Porsche will be more reliable too.
A 1996 or 1997 XJR is the car someone should buy if they want a sporty, relatively inexpensive and unusual euro sedan.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Who would have thought back then that a top of the line luxury car would be a junkyard candidate about 15 years later due to numerous and somewhat minor issues. I see 94 Accords with higher asking prices.
BMW 8 series - not my favourite color, and yeah for $13k it better be a primo example. Of all the ones for sale I have yet to see one with a 6 speed manual transmission. They gotta be very rare.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Retail on nice under 100,000 mileage examples seems to be 6,000-9,000 and Galves says wholesale on the same kind of car is 3,500 to 4,500.
I think its easy to get "suckered" in to a car like this. You figure "for that price how could I go wrong" and realize its one thing after another or you spend hours trying to find out why the CEL light in on only to realize its 5 things all needing $200++ parts. I think that is exactly the scenario that seller is facing. At least he is wise enough to dump it.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/ctd/1598493913.html
A 1996 or 1997 with under 100,000 miles and say one or two owners I would pay 2,000-3,000 more for that.
A one owner with maintenance records might get me to be double that $4,500 retail figure for a clean under 100,000 mile car.
'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
The SC 4.0 inline six in the XJR made just as more power then the V12 with none of the problems.
The V12
313-hp @ 5,350RPM
353 lb.-ft. @ 2,850RPM
The 4.0 SC inline six
322-hp @ 5,000RPM
378 lb.-ft. @ 3,050RPM
A 1998-2000 XJ or XJR can be good cars too but they have a couple of strikes against them.
Nikasal blocks and bad timing chain tensioners for the first two. As long as those two issues are taken care of, and they are big issues as you need an engine replacement to fix the nikasal problem, then those cars are ok.
Second problem is that those V8 Jags used a sealed five speed auto trans from Mercedes and they just don't have much life past 100,000 miles unless someone actually changed the fluid and no one ever does.
The 1996-1997 XJ and XJRs used a good easy to work on and service GM 4 speed 4L80E I think. I have lost track of how many cars I have worked on with that transmission. Nothing on it is hard to do and it is easily serviceable and relatively cheap to service too. If you really, really wanted to, and I wouldn't recommend it as I think he XJR is too big, they did make Euro market XJ6/R models with a five speed getrag manual.
People have done the swaps on this side of the pond before.
Heck, at that price, I might have looked for one before. Guess I'll just plod along in my V70 T5 for now.
'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 forgot the blown Six actually makes more power then the V12.
I have lusted after a 1995-1997 XJR since they were new and I was still in school.
In the mid 90s to late 90s anyone that went on Leno's show and asked him about cars usually got recommended to buy a XJR. I remember him doing it at least half a dozen times. Probably the best advertising jag ever got. One actress, and I forget who, came back on a year or so later and said she did buy one and loved it said it was the best car she ever had.
I am looking at, as we speak, a "clean" CARFAX report on a 2009 Chevy Truck that I know had $12,800 damage and a new frame installed back in November.
So much for peace of mind :shades:
Now it might show up eventually but it also might not.
One of our techs bought a car from us that had a good carfax and no paint work that we saw. This was a long time ago before we regularly used a paint meter on cars though. He took off the bumper to do some work and saw all kinds of sloppy welds behind the body work. Whoever did it had a great paint shop but a horrible frame guy.
The good -- all gone through mechanically, neat as a pin, star wars dashboard works, leather seats are primo, new tires, performance exhaust system, tasteful new two-tone paint, full history in California, manuals and docs, targa top, 20-24 mpg, asking $6500
The bad -- it's a 1984 with Cross Fire Injection (a bit weak for power delivery, and quirky to tune, and very resistance to modification) AND it's an automatic.
The good/bad -- the automatics are sturdy, whereas the manual transmission alternative, the bizarre 4-3 Doug Nash contraption, is not the least bit sturdy.
Convert to Tremec 6 speed? Nah, about $3000 + labor.
Install Edelbrock manifold and carburetor? Nah, fails smog, eats gas.
Pretty much you buy an '84, you're stuck with what you got.
PS: The 1984 C4 was the first regular production car to record 1g on a skidpad.
I don't think that 3rd brake light is stock, nor the paint job. The tail isn't dented, it's just a reflection.
The bottom isn't brown--it's just picking up the pavement color. It's more like a two-tone platinum/pewter.
I sort of like it, as it's unusual for a 'Vette, which is usually done up about as subtle as a rogue elephant with a church bell around its neck.
I would have to say that the particular car, while tempting, is merely an invitation to investigate other, more desirable C4s. :shades:
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
The 4-speed version did get pretty reliable in later years, and could take a full-sized car with a 305 or 307, and in heavy-duty form could even handle the likes of the Monte SS, Cutlass 4-4-2, and even the Buick Grand National and the fabled GNX. But I don't think it was strong enough to go up behind a high-performance 350. Just too much torque, across too wide of an rpm band. So the THM700-R4 was developed for heavier-duty applications. Initially it went in the Corvette, but was also used in police cars with the 350, and pickup trucks. It got pretty good in later years, but in all honesty, none of the domestics got their 4-speed automatics right in their first year.
In fact, GM had to delay another model lineup because they didn't get the bugs worked out of a 4-speed automatic. The Electra/98/DeVille were originally supposed to be downsized and converted to FWD for 1984, but the transmission held them back about half a year. And when they were introduced as early 1985's, the transmissions chewed up pretty quickly. I don't think they really got the bugs more or less worked out until 1987-88 though.
That THM700R4 ultimately evolved into something else, but I can't remember if it was the 4L60E or the 4L80E. I've heard the 4L60E more or less replaces the old THM350, while the 4L80E is essentially a replacement for the sturdy old THM400.
On the plus side though, if you really liked the car otherwise, and that transmission did fail, I guess if you got it rebuilt, they'd rebuild it to more include the updates that made it more durable in later years.
Personally, I just couldn't do it with the auto. OK, so the stick in an '84 sucks... then I just wouldn't buy an '84 at all. I don't see the compromise. Meaning, with other cars, you may say ... "well, its an auto, but it suits all my other needs and wants." The vette has only one purpose: fun. Auto = less fun. So now what do you got?
'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
Downside it is still a 1984 Vette.
Then, again, just for kicks, I looked up the specs here on Edmunds. 14 mpg combined!! My god that is unbelievably atrocious. And, at 2 tons, it is probably not even that fast.
Nice to look at and dream about, but I don't think I'd want to have to feed that beast.
'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
Its all relative though. A 750i of the same time period made the same power but in a heavier car. A S600 made a little more power but in a much, much heavier car.
They would all get the same mileage or worse.
If I bought one I would drive it less then 5,000 miles a year so 14 mpg doesn't really matter to me.
Its all relative though. A 750i of the same time period made the same power but in a heavier car. A S600 made a little more power but in a much, much heavier car.
They would all get the same mileage or worse.
If it's any consolation, my '85 Silverado is rated at 13 combined! And it's getting a bit old and tired and carboned up, so it's developed an appetite for premium...or at the very least a mix of around 89-90 octane.
All of your points are very well taken, thanks! Let's look at some of them:
Stick vs. Automatic --here I might commit heresy. My opinion is that if a) you live in an area with a lot of traffic and b) you have a car as huge as a Corvette, that an automatic is not the end of the world. Consider that most new Ferraris come with paddle shifting and no 3rd pedal. Now on a MINI or a Boxster or a Miata I'm with you all the way as far as preferring a stickshift. But the Vette always struck me more as a GT car---a "gentleman's express", and it has evolved steadily in that direction---more comforts, more space, etc. I'm seeing a car like this as a freeway stormer, not something you push through narrow mountain roads.
Upgrade to LT1 -- hard to justify, even though it is true that most 80s Vettes are horrible rats and finding a good one is not easy. I guess if money were not a factor, using an '84 chassis makes sense---it's a *great* handling car.
Cross-Fire: I'm wondering if this system is really suffering from "education aversion" like the SU carbs did on British cars---that is, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the system except that nobody knows how to properly set it up and maintain it. Once you insert the key in the knowledge box, things become simpler.
I think you would be surprised... right here @ edmunds: Outfitted as such, the Camry can sprint to 60 mph in just 6.5 seconds
I believe Car and Driver logged it at 6.2.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I think I could defeat a Camcord psychologically without actually racing.
Anyway, SO WHAT? A Camry is even faster than a BMW 330ci. It's one thing begin spanked in your $6500 Vette, but far far worse to be spanked in your $50K Bimmer.
Consumer Guide got a 2010 Camry XLE V-6 to do 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. www.autoguide.com quoted a 2009 Accord V-6 coupe at 7.0 seconds with the automatic, 5.9 with the stick. And the car that re-started the horsepower wars in mainstream cars, the Nissan Altima, was good for 0-60 in 5.9 seconds with the stick and 6.9 with the automatic...back in 2002!
It's actually kinda scary how fast cars are getting today...especially as drivers continue to dumb down, it seems.
I'm sure a V-6 Camry would mop up many a legendary 60s "muscle" car as well--just about all of them in fact.