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

Mr_Shiftright

Everything we tell you probably comes from making those very mistakes in the first place.

xwesx

Haha - that would be scary! I already mentioned once that my dad had a red one of these that he received as payment for half of a cow. I remember going to baseball practice many a-time in it, as well as him running over a neighbor's dog with it. I was sub-ten at the time though, so I didn't really pay attention to the driving mechanics. I just remember those scorching black vinyl seats and the fact that we did not have it for very long....

stickguy

outside a local repair shop that usually has a couple old cars for sale.

A 1984ish Celica. I think it was a GTS, but I had the wife with me so I couldn't stop. Might run over tomorrow if I am out.

Black hatchback. $1,250.

Other than what looks like a nasty rust spill starting at the back of the bottom of the rear window, that's all I know.

stickguy

Took a look. Anyone interested?

Might run OK, but what a rat. It is a 1983 Celica GT (not an S). 5 speed at least. Black hatchback.

Body is bad. Lower half actually looks OK, but rot around the rear windows, a hole near the hatch keyhole (as in see through), and some holes in the cowl benether the front window (not quite sure if the water will pour into the interior or back of the engine bay).

Not at all fixable with huge $$ investment! And bad enough I don't think it is uesful as adrive until it breaks option.

Big kicker? On the dash, had a work order (from the place it was sitting in front of) from May, 2009. Must not have been running, and they spent $1,200 (oddly, what they are asking for it) bringing it back to life. Fuel pump, battery, full tune up, water pump, and a few other things. Why with that body I do not know.

It did pass NJ inspection right after that though.

I also think the seats are trash, since they all have cheap covers on them.

And, only about 200,000 miles on it!

Hey, what's not to love?

Mr_Shiftright

Sounds like about $350 from here.

boomchek

Sounds like about $350 from here.

Assuming it's got a full tank of gas. :P

Mr_Shiftright

I suggested $350 because someone wanted to sell me a running, registered 1976 Datsun pickup for $350. I went over and took a look at it, and turned it down. It just seemed to be begging me: "put me to sleep, please, please".

boomchek

The Celica sounds like it had a similiar problem to my first car - a 14 year old 82 Accord that when lifted on a jack to change a tire, the jack went up through the frame and floor board.

xwesx

I tell you what, this recent topic makes me feel much better about my Escort. The thing is not worth much, but it is solid and reliable. I have to put about $500 into it this spring to keep it running well and was considering replacing it, but if I put the money into it (new struts, clutch, oxygen sensors), it will still be in pretty darn good shape....

lemmer

How about a Mercedes convertible for less than 10% of its original cost? And no, it isn't an SL.

texases

I was always amazed at how much these things were when they came out, like double the sedan. I guess I can get one now!

texases

I was always amazed at how much these things were when they came out, like double the sedan. I guess I can get one now!

ghulet

156k miles isn't all that much for a '95, except on a car like that (since they were $80k new, they tended to be toys/garage queens for the rich). Still, I don't imagine keeping it on the road, save for the convertible-specific stuff (though seller mentions the top has been replaced--major bonus), would cost any more than a 'regular' E320. Looks a little ragged, still....unless there's something wrong, the price seems OK (nice versions of those are still going for $20k+).

Then again, I think if I wanted a 15 year-old convertible, I'd probably find a nice 325i for less, or better yet, a newer one for that price.

andre1969

$80K doesn't seem like THAT much for a car these days, in the overall scheme of things. Heck, I've seen Cadillac DTS's with a $60K MSRP, and I think you can option up a Buick Lucerne to close to $50K. But way back in 1995, that was a lot of money! FWIW, I bought my condo in the fall of 1994, and the mortgage balance on it was $79,800, after putting 5% down (paid $84K for it)

I remember the principal and interest on the mortgage was $678.29 (I got suckered into 9 5/8% fixed for 30 years...but did refinance a few years later). I wonder what it would cost to finance an $80K car over the course of just 5 years?! According to Excel, $80K financed for 5 years at, say, 5%, would come out to $1510 per month! OUCH! I guess most people who bought a car this pricey though, were well-off enough that they either paid cash for it, or leased it and found a way to write it off on their taxes?

fintail

Cheapest 124 cabrio I have seen, but also the shabbiest. It needs some TLC, which won't be cheap - and got no bids, which might be telling. I also notice the front spoiler is broken...that won't be a cheap fix...but for a driver, maybe it doesn't matter. Those little things would bug me though.

texases

Looks like I guessed right (for once). MSRP for the '95 E320 sedan was $43k, for the cab. was $79k.

And yeah, I imagine that's why it seems more big $ cars are leased, cut down the payments and guarantee a new flashy ride every few years...

lemmer

OK, I expected Fintail to come and smack it around a little. Now I am just waiting for Shifty to completely hammer it.

Mr_Shiftright

156K? Man, that's a roll of the dice. No wonder he got zero bids.

Who drives around for 10,000 miles without an oil pressure gauge?

I'd hit it at about $4500--$4750. That's about market value IMO.

andre1969

Who drives around for 10,000 miles without an oil pressure gauge?

Probably just about everybody, since most cars don't even have an oil pressure gauge. :P

Mr_Shiftright

LOL! True enough, but at least there's a light---SOMETHING to warn you.

I just find it very suspicious that a person would on the one hand brag about putting money into fixing the lighting and suspension, and then casually mention a non-functioning engine oil pressure system. What's the excuse? "I forgot"?

tjc78

Maybe at idle when warm its really low and he is hiding something....

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah and maybe a wire in the back "got loose"....

I wouldn't *touch* that car without screwing in an oil pressure gauge.

If the bearings are shot, the car is a parts car.

lemko

Strangely enough, my 2005 Grand Marquis has one. So did my 1988 Buick Park Avenue. I'm sure both R-bodies have one.

andre1969

Strangely enough, my 2005 Grand Marquis has one. So did my 1988 Buick Park Avenue. I'm sure both R-bodies have one.

Yeah, all three R-body Mopars I've owned (the 2 NYers and a Newport I used to have) had an oil pressure gauge. I think they made it standard because a lot of these cars were sold as police cars or taxis, which would tend to have the full instrumentation, so it was probably cheaper to just make one gauge cluster, rather than two (although copcars did get a 125 mph speedo, versus 85, but that was an easy swap).

That might also be the reason the Grand Marquis (and my friend's '04 Crown Vic LX) has full gauges...simply because they dominate the police/taxi market as well.

My '85 Silverado has an oil pressure gauge, but it doesn't work. The DeSoto has one as well. My '67 Catalina has one, but it's aftermarket. And while the Park Ave doesn't have an actual gauge, one of the computer readouts it can display is oil pressure. Mine always reads something like 130 psi though, so I think the sending unit or something has gone bad.

**Edit: almost forgot...my '89 Gran Fury had an oil pressure gauge too, as it was an ex copcar. However, it was stuck in the lower dash, and wasn't the most professional looking thing in the world.

boomchek

Yeah, somewhat ratty looking Benz. I suspect there are more issues with it due to lack of photos and the seller's suggestion to come look at it because he might have "forgotten" to mention something. Nevertheless these were expensive in their day. Not sure why, whether it cost that much to reinforce the body and engineer a soft top for the E class or if it was something else.

tjc78

my 2005 Grand Marquis has one.

My Grandfather's 04 doesn't, but its the digital dash. My 99 S10 actually has one, its the only vehicle I ever owned that has one. The 06 Pacifica we share at the office doens't even have a temp gauge!

andre1969

Not sure why, whether it cost that much to reinforce the body and engineer a soft top for the E class or if it was something else.

The E-class coupes in those days were still true hardtops, weren't they? If they were, well that gets you about half-way to being a convertible anyway, since you already have the roll-down rear windows and some reinforcing to account for the lack of a B-pillar.

boomchek

Yeah they were hardtops with no B pillar.

lemmer

Same money and almost same year for a 325ia>. I am not crazy about black, but the manual transmission wins some points. I think he is a tad overpriced in any case.

ghulet

I could probably forgive the black exterior, since at least that one has a light interior. I've already had skin cancer, though, so I shouldn't push my luck.

God, those MB W124 coupes were pretty. I'd love to have one.

ghulet

re my post 20609, re that beat up '68 Caprice, here's your answer, shiftright, since you asked me to watch it:

link title

I'm guessing the current owner is a repair shop who did a whoolllle bunch of work to the car, at which point the previous owner realized he was in way over his head and gave the thing up. The (badly typed, not-much-description) ad does say 'make an offer'. Geez, I'd think $4k was pretty much a gift, wonder what he really thinks it's worth?

Especially when one like this is $7500 (though I think a bargain at that):

link title

andre1969

That green Caprice looks like it was a nice car in its day...I love that light, silvery green (sage green?) with the matching interior. And it has some cool options, like the big-block, hidden headlights,and bucket seats/floor shifter.

But, once the day is done, if forced to choose I think I'd rather pay $7500 for the white one than take the green one for free! Even though the white one's not perfect, it's still not bad. I'd want to check out how good the disc brake conversion was though, and that the powerglide-to-THM350 swap was done okay, with no issues.

Actually, that car might not be a bad performer with that swap, as the 2-speeds generally had a quicker axle ratio than the 3-speeds. So, the 3-speed with the quicker rear might give it a nice little performance boost.

I was actually shocked to find out that the 250hp 327 was a 4-bbl. I had only recently discovered that, a few months ago. I'd just presumed that the 250 hp version was a 2-bbl and the 300 hp was a 4-bbl.

Mr_Shiftright

Damn fool should have taken the :mad: $4K and run with it.

ghulet

hmmm.....now I'm equally confused about all these 327s (in 1968, anyway). I do know the 'standard' V-8 for Camaro (67-68) was a 210hp, two-barrel. For full-sizers, there were both the 250hp and 275hp, but yeah, I thought the 250hp would have been a two-barrel, also. Last, a 300hp, four-barrel, 10:1 compression ratio 327 was standard on Corvette. Unfortunately, my 'usual book' didn't clarify much. I also checked both '67 and '69 (which had but one 327--a two-barrel w/235hp, as far as I could tell, since the 307 was now standard on V8 Novas/Camaros/Chevelles, and a 350 was standard on Vettes). :confuse:

Mr_Shiftright

All the 327s in the full size Chevys, Chevy II, Corvette and the Chevelle are 4BBL. Only the Camaro had a 210 HP w/ 2 BBL. Go figure.

andre1969

I know I shouldn't try to make sense of this, but a 210 hp 327 2-bbl just DOESN'T make sense to me...especially when they had the 200 hp 307-2bbl, and not long before, there was that 195 hp 283-2bbl.

omarman

now I'm equally confused about all these 327s (in 1968, anyway). I do know the 'standard' V-8 for Camaro (67-68) was a 210hp, two-barrel. For full-sizers, there were both the 250hp and 275hp, but yeah, I thought the 250hp would have been a two-barrel, also.

1968 was a strange year in a lot of ways-cars included. Chevy changed the 327 crank journals and juggled compression/induction configurations for the 327 in different applications. Confusing information lingers, but for the full sized 1968 Chevy there were two 327 Turbo-Fire versions:

327/250hp (RPO L73) regular fuel, 8.75:1 compression, with 4 bbl induction.
327/275hp (RPO L30) premium fuel, 10:1 compression, also with 4bbl.

If you have any old magazines from '68 look for the Chevy adverts touting the new smooth power of the 327 regular gas engine. That was the 327/250hp with lower compression, 4bbl carb and single exhaust.

But the Camaro 327/210hp with 2bbl is a strange option. Maybe Chevy was trying to provide more applications for the 327 in 1968 after updating that engine? Just a guess.

Mr_Shiftright

I suspect it's nothing more than leftover engine blocks they were dumping in the transition to the 307 and 350. Remember, too, this is the era of multiple engine options. The 327 was gone for good this year.

tjc78

too, this is the era of multiple engine options.

I am just so amazed at the plethora of options on car years ago. Were there ever two exactly alike? Just by looking at the ads we post on here for different classics you find some really odd-ball cars. Today everything is so much simpler..... 4cyl or V6? V6 or V8? Nav or no Nav? I wonder if all these years of custom orders, multiple engine block with different cams, carbs and heads, all have helped contribute to the problems of the "big 3". It just was in no way efficient.

andre1969

I think in many cases, there was just too much choice in engines, and it was really getting to be overkill.

For instance, on my '76 LeMans, I think the engine choices went something like:
Chevy 250-6cyl, ~105-110 hp
Olds 260 V-8 ~100-110 hp
Chevy 305 V-8 (although this might have been Canada-only), ~140 hp?
Pontiac 350-2bbl, 160 hp
Pontiac 350-4bbl, 165 hp
Pontiac 400-4bbl, 180 hp
Pontiac 455-4bbl, 200-205 hp

Seriously, did they really need that many engines?! I think they could have gotten by with one "economy" engine (pick one, the Chevy-6 or the Olds 260), one mid-range engine (350 4bbl?) and one at the top-end (455). The 400 just seems redundant to me, as there's probably not a huge difference in power between the 350-4 and the 455 anyway. I've heard the 455 in these cars would do 0-60 in around 10 seconds (thank the 2.41:1 axles :sick: ), but I've clocked mine at around 11 seconds, on a good day. So in theory, the 400 might split the difference, at around 10.5?

Actually, I could see a need for something around the 305 CID range in this lineup though. The 6-cyl and Olds 260 V-8 took 20+ seconds to move a car like this to 60. I think the 305 (and 1977 Pontiac 301) would cut that down to around 13 or so.

In 1977, the LeMans engines got really convoluted. They were:
Buick 231 V-6
Pontiac 301-2bbl (49 states...CA banned all Pontiac engines this year)
Chevy 305-2bbl (CA)
Pontiac 350 2 or 4bbl (49 states)
Olds 350-4bbl (CA)
Pontiac 400-4bbl (49 states)
Olds 403-4bbl (CA)
Pontiac High-output 400-4bbl (Trans Am, Can Am...substituted with a stock 403 in CA)

I wonder if all these years of custom orders, multiple engine block with different cams, carbs and heads, all have helped contribute to the problems of the "big 3". It just was in no way efficient.

You'd think it would have caused problems, but I always thought it was odd that GM did so well in the 1960's and 1970's, and early 1980's, when it was the "worst offender" in offering all those choices and configurations. Chrysler actually started simplifying things in the late 50's, and by 1960 was down to just three basic engines: the Slant Six, the "A" engine (318) and the "B" engine (the big-block 361/383/413). And Ford began simplifying their engine lineup as well. Yet, GM dominated in the 1960's, and in the 1970's and early 1980's, Ford and Chrysler were almost erased from existence, while it seemed at the time GM could do no wrong. And even when they did, people forgave them and kept buying their cars!

tjc78

You'd think it would have caused problems, but I always thought it was odd that GM did so well in the 1960's and 1970's, and early 1980's, when it was the "worst offender" in offering all those choices and configurations

Well, that's kind of my point. When things are great the problems get masked. Imagine if they would have streamlined the choices during those great years how much more profit they would have made?

Today they are still doing the same things... who needs three versions of the same SUV? To make matters worse they do it twice (Acadia, Enclave, Traverse and the Equinox, Terrian, and SRX) It just drives me nuts! If you want two (one mainstream, one lux) that's fine but a tweener too? :confuse:

omarman

I am just so amazed at the plethora of options on car years ago. Were there ever two exactly alike? Just by looking at the ads we post on here for different classics you find some really odd-ball cars.

Here's a CL listing for a 1977 Grand Lemans showing bucket seats with floor shift automatic and no detail about the engine. So there could be, what? 8 different possible engines. It is hard to believe that even after the economic issues following the oil embargo that there was still a variety like that being certified for production.

Didn't someone post a link to a listing for a similar year Olds Cutlass with a 260 V8 and a 5-speed a while back? They couldn't have made much money building those things. The range of powertrains may have been influenced more by CAFE standards by that time though.

andre1969

Funny you'd post the CL list for that '77 Grand LeMans. I was going through my old emails last weekend and found a bunch of correspondence from the guy I bought my '76 from, 5 years ago. I shot him an email to see if he was still around, and he replied, and sent me a link to that same car, saying he had seen it and thought of me!

I think that black one has a 301. Even though that ad doesn't mention it, I seem to remember when I saw it earlier, it did mention a 301, so maybe that's a re-post?

As for the 260/5-speed, I've heard of it being offered in the LeMans Sport Coupe, as well as the Cutlass. I wonder if the Century or Regal offered it as well?

garv214

I was watching this auction about a month ago to see how much a restored Mustang convertible with a 4sp would sell for. The auction had gone up to $28K, but it looked like 2 shillers were bidding it up... I think the last "legitimate" bid I saw was around $23K.

Nice looking car... I have a soft spot for Orange I am finding...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Original-Poppy-Red-D-Code-4Speed-Convertible-Rare- -Car_W0QQitemZ280496514537QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item414ee525e9

andre1969

Normally I couldn't see myself going for an orange car...yet on that Mustang I'll admit it does look pretty sharp! I'm sure Shifty's going to love the fact it's advertised as the mythical "1964.5" Mustang. :P

garv214

Yet this one only got bid up to $15K before the auction ended...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140398682948&ru=ht- tp%3A%2F%2Fmotors.shop.ebay.com%3A80%2F__%3F_from%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm39%26_nkw%3- D140398682948%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1

texases

Great looking for what it is, but no a/c...and how do those disk brakes work without a power booster (that I could see)?

stickguy

Leg power baby, leg power.

I learned to drive on a 1969 Volvo with 4 wheel disks, and I am almost positive they were not power (no PS either. Or AC. Not much in that engine bay for sure!)

Push hard, and they worked. At least you had good feel!

Only problem I had was my first driver's ed lesson behind the wheel, of a snappy new 1979ish Caprice 4 door (the "downsized" model). Instructer said to let of the brake and glide to the next telephone pole, and then top by it (this coasting was a novel concept in itself, since the Volvo was also a stick).

So, I did what he said, and at said pole, slammed the brake pedal so hard I think the front bumper bounced off the road, and the instructer would have hit the dashboard if he wasn't belted in.

After driving the Volvo, a beetle, a VW 412 (evil car, bad to the core) and noodling with a Fiat 850, that was my first feet-on experience with the beauty of domestic power brakes. and of course, 1 finger steering.

qbrozen

At least the seller admitted it in the description:

All of the early cars were titled as 1965 models even though they are considered 64½ cars by many.

garv214

I drove a 1965/66 mustang with a 4 speed and non-power discs... My legs were definitely "pumped" up by the end of the drive. Afterwards, I got into my little Mazda and nearly put the clutch pedal through the floorboard when I went to start it...LOL... It took me a couple of shifts before I started to readjust...