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

tjc78

I am big fan the land yachts, as I am sure you guys who read my positng know.... This 87 Crown Vic is available for $1200 (Started off at $2500). I would be all over it as a toy if it didn't have red interior and top. The "5.0" sticker would have to go though, its not a Mustang.

87 Vic

andre1969

With the 3.27 axle, that thing might even be kinda fun!

texases

I'm sorry, Andre, I have concluded you live in one of those 'alternate universes' they keep talking about on the Discovery Channel...'87 CV..."kinda fun"... :confuse:

(:P, of course)

andre1969

Well, it's all relative, of course. These things usually came standard with a 2.73 axle. The 3.23 might actually jerk you around enough to make you feel like you're going fast, even when you're not.

Okay, it's time to shave Mr. Spock's beard now. :shades:

tjc78

That is what I thought too. IIRC my 89 TC had the same rear (Trac Loc) and dual exhaust. It moved out ok for what it was.

andre1969

My 1985 Consumer Guide tested a Crown Vic with the handling package that, for $223 extra, got you the quicker rear, traction-lock, dual exhaust, and the 15" tires (they were still running 14" standard back then! )

I forget now if it had a 3.27:1 axle or the even quicker 3.55:1. It managed 0-60 in 10.5 seconds, and somehow got better fuel economy than the Grand Marquis with the 2.73:1 axle they also tested! They didn't give a 0-60 time for the 2.73, but I'd guess around 12-13 seconds?

I know a quicker axle ratio will hurt your highway fuel economy, but I wonder if, in mixed driving, it might actually help you a bit, since you don't have to rely on the lower gears as much? And, even on the highway, with the 2.73 axle I'm sure it's ready to downshift the second you put the slightest stress on it, while the 3.23 might do just fine without downshifting.

My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had a 2.73:1 axle, and at highway speeds it was pretty quick to downshift, because it just didn't have much power. That is, unless you got it up to 85 mph or so. Then, I think it was finally back up to a high enough rpm range to be "happy" in 4th gear.

tjc78

know a quicker axle ratio will hurt your highway fuel economy, but I wonder if, in mixed driving, it might actually help you a bit,

I can't remember what my 89 GM had, but my 89 TC with the same arrangement as the Vic for sale was consistently 14 - 15 MPG around town and about 22-23 on the highway at 65-70. If you were doing 55-60 and wanted to pass the slightest movement of your foot would take it out of 4th and into 3rd. I know it wasn't a fast car, but it seemed fine especially on the highway.

jlflemmons

The trick for the manufacturer is to get the right gearing to put the engine in it's "sweet spot" at a typical cruising velocity. This is where the 6-8 gear tranny's will have a great impact. You can have all kinds of scoot around town, and still keep the revs where they need to be on the highway.

That's how you get crossovers nailing over 20mpg in town, and still get 30mpg on the highway.

The other thing that was always interesting was the concept of smaller being better for gas mileage, engine wise. When we got married, I had an Olds Cutlass Calais (rwd) with the 5.0 4bbl, while my wife had a Buick Regal, 3.8L 2bbl. The two cars were near identical in weight and gearing, with mine being slightly heavier.

The best the Regal could do on the highway was 19mpg. My Cutlass would consistently turn in 21-22mpg. And could get out of the way when needed. In town they both got about 15mpg, but mine covered those miles significantly quicker. :shades:

andre1969

Did both cars have the same transmission? I had an '80 Malibu with a 229 V-6/3-speed automatic, '82 Cutlass Supreme with a 231/3-speed, and an '86 Monte Carlo with a 305-4bbl/4-speed.

All three got similar economy...15-16 around town, in my type of driving, 21-22 on the highway, maybe more in the right conditions. Of course, the Monte Carlo was considerably quicker, both off the line and at highway speeds. The Cutlass was a pretty good highway cruiser though, all things considered.

I don't think GM ever got around to offering a 4-speed automatic with the 110 hp 231-2bbl, did they? Starting around 1984-85, the 4-speed was mandatory with the 305 or 307 in the big cars, and in '86, if you wanted a 305 Monte or GP, the 4-speed was mandatory as well. I think the Regal and Supreme let you get 3- or 4-speeds with the 307 up through '87, but then I think the swan-song '88 Cutlass Supreme Classic was 307/4-speed, all the way.

hpmctorque

" This is where the 6-8 gear tranny's will have a great impact. You can have all kinds of scoot around town, and still keep the revs where they need to be on the highway.

That's how you get crossovers nailing over 20mpg in town, and still get 30mpg on the highway."

True, but I'm wondering about the cost of repairing a 6, 7 or 8 speed automatic vs. a 4 speed, and to what extent that added cost might offset the better fuel economy. It's something I've pondered, but these 6-8 speed transmissions may be too new to have data on out-of-warranty repair costs.

hpmctorque

"Most interesting to me is how quickly muscle cars evaporated. 1971 YES 1974 NO. That was it."

The time span was a little longer, since the GTO was introduced in the '64 model year, and competitor models soon followed. However, your premise is correct, in that we're not talking about a long time period, considering the collector passion for these cars.

texases

I thought the point was they were still going strong in '71, and were just gone by '74.

andre1969

Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Wasn't 1970 pretty much considered the peak of musclecars?

By 1973, I think Mopar was pretty much the only game in town. They still offered a pretty potent 260 hp 400, 280 hp 440, or 330 hp 440 6-pack. GM's big blocks were down to around 245-270 hp for 1973, but worse, got handicapped by newly designed intermediates that were packing on the pounds. Pontiac did offer a Super Duty 455 that initially had 310 hp, but I think by the time it hit the street it was down to 290 hp. And it only ended up in the Firebird. Originally the GTO, Grand Prix, and Grand Am were to offer it, but that never happened, beyond a prototype or two.

And I think Ford pretty much bailed on hot midsized cars after 1971. You could still get a 460 in a Torino or Montego, but it was just a generic ~227 hp unit, nothing really wild.

I think Olds actually had a 300 hp 455 through 1974, but it was only offered in the Toronado, and in something that size those 300 hp probably didn't go very far.

texases

While not a sad event, I wonder if full-size SUV sales have gone through a similar collapse in the last 3 years? I just read that Toyota's going to cancel the Sequoia after this model.

andre1969

Yeah, I think big SUVs have gone through a similar thing, although it's been more dragged out. They seemed to hit their peak around 2000-2003 I guess, but when gas started going up in the summer of 2004, and began consistently staying above $2.00/gal, I think sales began to taper off. But once the economy tanked, that's what really took them out.

Is Nissan going to cancel the Armada, I wonder? I've heard off and on rumors about that for awhile, that they were going to drop both it and the Titan. Hasn't there also been talk of GM replacing the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade with something more crossover-ish? Seems to me that would overlap with the Acadia/Enclave/et al, though?

Maybe that market will go back to just people who really need them? Say, Suburbans for people who haul trailers, and something Bronco-ish for people who like to off-road?

omarman

Mopar was still selling the 440 six pack on the street in 1973? Just curious, what car model line was that? I thought the last 440/3 X 2bbl engines were offered in 1971.

michaellno

Yeah, I think big SUVs have gone through a similar thing, although it's been more dragged out. They seemed to hit their peak around 2000-2003 I guess, but when gas started going up in the summer of 2004, and began consistently staying above $2.00/gal, I think sales began to taper off.

I've been through two SUV phases - the first was in the late 80's, when my first wife and I bought a new Isuzu Trooper. 120HP 2.6L 4 banger made for some sloooowww acceleration. We did use it off road, however. Sold it when gas spiked at $1.50/gal (gasp!) during Gulf War I in 1991.

The second was from '97 to '05, when the second wife and I leased an Expedition, then an Explorer, back to back. I don't think either one saw any off road duty, but we did haul a lot of kids around. Plus a couple of road trips - to CA in the Expedition, and to Vegas in the Explorer.

Maybe that market will go back to just people who really need them? Say, Suburbans for people who haul trailers, and something Bronco-ish for people who like to off-road?

Well, if you are talking about the traditional SUV, then yeah, you'll still see Wranglers and Xterras for the hard core crowd, and Suburbans or Expeditions for Texans who pull horse trailers or have large families.

Everybody else will end up in a crossover, either with or without AWD. My wife has an '08 VUE, which suits her just fine. The new Explorer may cannibalize sales from the Edge and Flex, but there is just enough DNA (looks wise) to the old Explorer to appeal to many middle income families. Though I find it interesting that the EcoBoost is set to cost more than the standard 6-cyl, even though if offers less HP and torque.

explorerx4

pretty funny. at the bottom of the page, a picture of Dee Snyder.

explorerx4

both the minivan and suv markets are down.
many of the people who bought them over the years now have kids that are grown up and they don't need a big box body anymore.
buy a good one while they are cheap. they are destined to be classics.

andre1969

Mopar was still selling the 440 six pack on the street in 1973? Just curious, what car model line was that? I thought the last 440/3 X 2bbl engines were offered in 1971.

I saw that mentioned on www.musclecarclub.com. I guess it could be wrong, though? I just looked in my Consumer Guide old car book, and they're showing 1972 as the last year for the 440 6-pack, when it was offered in Dodge Coronets and Chargers, and they're not showing it at all for 1972 Plymouths. I'd be shocked though, if you could really get a 440 in a Coronet though, as they only offered 4-doors and wagons by then. Maybe they put them in police cars?

For 1972, they're showing a 285 hp 440 as the most powerful Plymouth engine, offered in the Fury. Odd though, that they wouldn't offer it in the Satellite/Sebring? And IIRC, the Roadrunner was one of the cars that Musclecarclub.com was showing the 440 6-pack as an option in '73.

So, take those sources with a grain of salt, I guess. In reality, 1971 could very well have been the final year for the 440 6-pack, after all.

jlflemmons

"Did both cars have the same transmission? I had an '80 Malibu with a 229 V-6/3-speed automatic, '82 Cutlass Supreme with a 231/3-speed, and an '86 Monte Carlo with a 305-4bbl/4-speed. "

Both were 3spd. 1978 Regal, 1979 Cutlass

1970 was the last year for high compression engines of the era in GM. '71 saw the compression drop, '75 was the advent of the catalytic converter.

au1994

I don't see how GM could ever replace the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade. Although the Escalade is so garish I wish they would just on principle.

They could skinny them down to one model that you could option up or down, but I just can't see eliminating all together. There is a niche of folks who have a legit need for something like this. I'd say get rid of the Suburban and keep a Tahoe variant.

tjc78

pretty funny.

That site overall is really funny. I never knew there were that many people who were fans of the Panther platform. There are some wild cars on there and its really a nice community of people who help each other out. The guys on there pull parts from junkyards for each other and everything. I only skim through the postings and look at the pictures. If I get another Panther of some sort, I will most likely particpate there too.

The guy with Dee is a mechanic who is like a master in all things Panther. While reading his posts, his knowledge is pretty amazing. He converted a later model 4.6 Grand Marquis to 5.0 (I think just to say he did it).

Another common thing the members do is take a regular 5.0 Vic/GM/TC and use the Mark VII/Mustang parts and convert them to "HO" specs.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, Consumer Guide has a lot of errors---but I have seen other publications citing a 1972 6-pak option. Seems unlikely, since 1971 6-paks are extremely rare.

andre1969

Yeah, Consumer Guide has a lot of errors---but I have seen other publications citing a 1972 6-pak option. Seems unlikely, since 1971 6-paks are extremely rare.

I wonder if there were still a few leftovers, and maybe they just threw them in the 72 models to get rid of them?

xwesx

Or, it could be like Toyota with manual transmissions.... they show up as an option, but good luck actually getting your hands on one!

Mr_Shiftright

I've never seen a '72 six-pack, and I don't recall anyone ever verifying a real one. The brochures might say it, but I don't think it ever happened. ALLPAR doesn't think so either, and they oughta know.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/440.html

xwesx

1972? Yeah, we've seen the option sheets and brochures showing that the Six Pack was alive and well. It wasn't. Oh sure, maybe two or three sneaked out, but where are they? If you've got one, pump your garage full of nitrogen, then call us! We'll be right over!

Hahah; that was a fun read.

omarman

The lead time for publications and the quick changes in production probably caused some confusion. Here's a link to a 1972 Dodge Charger brochure which claims the 440-6 was optional with the Rallye trim. Doesn't prove that any were ever built. But stories keep coming back about the possibility.

The May 09 issue of MCG includes a feature about the "ultra rare" 1972 Charger 440 - 6 pack. I've never read the magazine, but if there are legit examples of '72 model year 6 pack cars then it would be nice to finally see one.

Mr_Shiftright

My reaction would be: "Prove It".

texases

And, not being a 'one of a kind, gotta have it' nut, my reaction would be 'I don't really care if 3 made it off the line and are squirreled away in a barn in upstate New York (or where-ever)'

Besides the neat name, is there a real benefit to the 6-pack? A well-tuned 4-bbl just seems so much simpler.

Mr_Shiftright

It's strictly a "value" thing.

If you don't have a build sheet, you got nothin' when it comes to claims of this sort.

andre1969

Besides the neat name, is there a real benefit to the 6-pack? A well-tuned 4-bbl just seems so much simpler.

I think it might depend. For example, the early 70's 6-pack had something like 330 hp net, while the hot 440 4-bbl only had 280 net hp. So in that case, it looks like there'd be a pretty big jump.

But in other years, it seems the extra carbs really didn't add much. For example, I've seen some years of Pontiac where the 4-bbl would put out 325 gross hp, but the Tri-Power would only put out 333. Doesn't seem like a big boost there, but maybe the extra carbs gave you a broader, less peaky power curve?

omarman

Not really a project car, but the seller's post may need some tidying up. Would he really turn down more money than his asking price?

$25,000 nothing more, nothing less

oregonboy

I'm glad he appreciates his car, because at that price, he's going to own it for a long, long time.

Seriously, $25k for a 1979 Cougar? It may be the nicest one on the planet, but who cares? :P

andre1969

At $25k, I'm sure the seller isn't going to be rid of that thing anytime soon! And at least tell us what engine that is. I can at least tell it's a Ford smallblock, but which one? Is it the powerful 129 hp 302 or the 351, which was available in either a rip-snorting 135 hp setup or a stump-pulling 151 hp version.

I also don't know enough about Cougars to tell if that's the XR-7 or not. I suspect it is, simply because they only sold 2831 base coupes, compared to 163,716 XR-7's.

And is it just my failing eyesight, or does that driver's seat look discolored? It almost looks to me like someone drove it too much while naked, and the oil from their skin darkened the outer part of the seat!

Not a bad car...I have a fondness for these old beasts. But anything BUT a $25K car! Heck, my buddy paid something like $18-19K for his pristine sub-20Kmile Diamond Jubilee Mark V, five years ago when the economy was better. And that was a car that was fully loaded, with just about every conceivable option of the time. And heck, he probably paid too much for that, although it really is a gorgeous car.

As for this Cougar...maybe $4-5k? If it looks showroom new in person, maybe as foolish as $8K?

Mr_Shiftright

Maybe $7500, which would be a home run out of the park for the seller. So really, he's only 350% overpriced.

I hope he enjoys looking at his nice car for a long, long time.

your buddy paid too much I think, but not so bad really. Maybe $3K over, and the market will catch up eventually.

gsemike

and trying to sell their cars Who cares about the mileage when it looks like that? At least the cougar is in good shape.

If this car spent its whole life in a temperature controlled garage on a velvet pillow, it might be worth 20.

qbrozen

sigh.

I finally have the Z up for sale.

oregonboy

I've heard of buyers remorse, but sellers remorse is a new one.

tjc78

my buddy paid something like $18-19K for his pristine sub-20Kmile Diamond Jubilee Mark V, five years ago

Is it the baby blue or the gold? I like the DJE but IMO the 79 Collector's series had better colors available, however, the 460 was no longer available.

I had a chance about 7-8 years ago to buy a 79 Collectors Mark V. It was one owner with about 75K on it in really nice driveable/local show condition for about $3,000. I guess I dropped the ball on that one.....

lemko

Yeesh! Your friend's Mark V is infinitely nicer than that Cougar! The stupid letter tires on the Cougar are an immediate turn-off!

martian

Good points made..and you will remember that the Brits were selling a bike designed in the 1930's-with noisey engines, leaking gaskets, and manual/kick starters. For the same money, the Japanese offered electric start, non-leaking gaskets, smooth (balanced ) engines, and overall modern engineering. The same extended to the cars-a 1970's MGB looked like it was designed in 1920.
You can only go so far with a name-selling a product that is generations behind is a recipe for disaster.

Mr_Shiftright

Looks like about a $4000 to $5000 car. I don't see $20K for this car if they found it brand new wrapped in shrink wrap in the Chevy factory basement. Restored, maybe $15K...maybe. So he's only 400% over market.

andre1969

It's the pale, icy blue color. I just realized, I don't have a pic of it online, but he used to have another one before it. He actually had them both concurrently for a few years, but then the junky one threw a rod. He sold it for around $800.

Here's a pic of the junky one, that I took at the Carlisle Ford Nats back in 2006:


Sadly, it went downhill fast. The paint was starting to crack in places, and actually fall off, and then the exposed metal would rust. The vinyl on the roof and the trunk hump was shredding, and the interior was falling apart. Shame, because it was a nice car when he first got it.

Oops, I take that back...I do have a pic of the "good" one. This was taken in October 2005, at a classic car show in Rockville, MD...


And here's a pic of both of them, parked at the curb...almost 40 feet of Lincoln!

tjc78

Sweet cars. The Mark V is one of my favorite Lincoln models. The color-keyed turbine wheels are a nice touch on those models as well.

hpmctorque

What can you tell us about the white Celebrity in the driveway? While those "A" bodies aren't rare yet, they seem to be disappearing at a pretty good clip these days. Come to think of it, so are first generation Camrys, and they were supposed to be a lot more durable than their GM counterparts.

gsemike

The answer to a question nobody asked

hpmctorque

Hey, that's a great value at only $4,000...if the standard of measurement is stares and head scratches.

oregonboy

P.O.S.