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

qbrozen

true project. Could do worse for $2500. Hell, if I had the space and money right now, I might actually be interested. As long as no rust, I think its a good starting point. I'd probably toss the drivetrain, though.

I think I'll need some help figuring this one out. So its a '99?? But calling it a classic and a barn find. Hmmm... And how does one go about registering a '99 as a '72? Then we've got the line "it will be sold. will only be listed once." Yet we're at $15k and reserve not met. Alrighty then.

I only have one question: Why??

"No major rust anywhere." ... oh, except here, there, over there, some here....

Mr_Shiftright

Oh I've seen those MINIS. They were actually made up to the year 2000. They take a VIN plate from a '72. They are actually modern cars with air bags, etc. They seem to sell, if they are really nice, in the $15K--$18K range. I've driven them, they are primitive by year 2000 standards IMO but kinda sorta fun. Not fast, though. A BMW MINI will slap it silly.

The rest of the cars you posted...ah, well, those typical unrealized dreams, eh? The Mustang might be worth it if it's a solid car, but really, you can buy these all done up for not a lot of money.

The rest of the cars you can just bulldoze into a pit.

lemko

Sheesh! Might as well walk into the bathroom, flip up the toilet seat, hold your wallet upside-down and dump your cash in the bowl and flush. Might as well get your checkbook and credit cards and throw them in for good measure.

qbrozen

A BMW MINI will slap it silly.

That's what I was thinking ... for that kind of money, just buy a new one. i mean, we're not talking about a real classic here ... it just LOOKS classic. Kind of like a kit car in a way.

Mr_Shiftright

Well it's a real MINI in the same way that a Mustang II was a Mustang.

stickguy

might make me a heretic, but I still think a 1974 Mustang II was more faithful to "real" mustangs than a '73 beast was.

no big blocks until the '67 redo either, so pretty comparable.

oregonboy

I still think a 1974 Mustang II was more faithful to "real" mustangs than a '73 beast was.

Now that is an interesting assertion that I have not heard before.
You may have a good case there. I would like to hear your argument.

andre1969

I can sorta see the argument. The Mustangs started getting a bit porky, and more curvy, for '67-68, moreso in '69-70, and downright bloated for '71-73. The '74 was sort of a return to the no-nonsense, secretary's car with a bit of sporting flair, that the original Mustang had been.

I'd imagine that most '65-66 Mustangs just had the 200 6-cyl and 2-speed automatic, while most Mustang II's just had the 2.3 4-cyl and 3-speed automatic. That 200 only put out 120 hp gross, whereas the 2.3 was around 85-90 net. I'd imagine that if you put the two in a drag race, it would more or less be a tie.

Once they started putting 302's in the Mustang II, they had 130-140 hp net , which was probably around 200-220 hp gross. And that's about what the old 289 and 302 put out in the earlier Mustangs, unless you went for the hotter versions.

The Mustang II probably seemed like a great idea when it debuted in 1974, in an era of rabid inflation and expensive, scarce gasoline. It was almost perfect timing.

Scary thing though, is that isn't there usually a 2-3 year lag time, from conception to production of a new car? And sometimes even more? Well, that would mean that they probably started planning for the Mustang II sometime in 1970! So, that means we would have gotten it in '74 whether there was a fuel crisis or not!

stickguy

that was pretty much my logic. the II was actually smaller than the '65 but about the same weight (and by '74 cars were porking up). and close to 500#s lighter than '73.

the 65 was 108/182 WB/length, 74 96/175.

I thought they were closer but as Andre noted, engine wise very similar, and really the concept (just a swoopy "sexy" body on top of the small car platform of the day, just into instead of falcon).

jwilliams2

You are correct. They did start planning the Mustang II in 1970 at the direction of Lee Iacocca. Definately good timing with some luck. And it was based on the Pinto, kind of like the original was based on the Falcon. I believe they sold somewhere around a million of them during its 5 year run.

andre1969

Now, the Mustang II did come up short in a lot of areas. For instance, there was no truly high-performance engine. The original Mustang, at least, offered a hot 289 with 271 hp, and then, as you mentioned, the big blocks came out. And the old Mustang came in cooler body styles...hardtop coupe, convertible, and fastback, whereas the II was limited to a formal notchback coupe or hatchback. But, by that time, hardtop coupes and convertibles were on their way out, anyway.

Nowadays, I look back fondly on a car that has rear windows that roll down, but back in the 70's, people probably had the attitude of, who cares if the windows roll down, it has air conditioning!!

So yeah, given the constraints of 1974, I don't think the Mustang II was such a bad car. And, FWIW, while the fat, bloated '71-73 Mustang offered bigger engines, by '73 it was down to a 95 hp 250, a 136 hp 302, or a 351 that had either 154 or 156 hp (don't know why there's a 2-hp discrepency there?). So, it was hardly a screamer.

Now, when you look at the competition, the Mustang II looks totally lame. In '74, you could still get a 240 hp 360 in a Challenger/Barracuda, and it was a pretty hot setup. You could get up to a 245 hp 350 in a Camaro. The Firebird had a 455 with 250 hp, and a handful of them had the brutal 290 hp setup.

But, let's face it. By 1974, almost nobody was buying Challengers or Barracudas, and the few that were were opting for slant sixes and 318's for the most part. The majority of Camaros sold were probably just 250's or the more mundane 350, which offered 145, 160, or 185 hp. Pontiac really wasn't messing around with high-performance 350's by that time, so all they had was 155, 170, or 200 hp (and my book only shows that 200 as being offered in the LeMans, although I think that was the one they stuck in the Ventura-based GTO that year)

texases

In '73 when they introduced the II, they compared against the original T Bird, not the '65 Mustang. They had displays with the outline of the II overlaid on the T Bird. Don't think anyone bought into it!

And the II just had none of the buzz that the '65 had. Were the '71-'73 heavy pigs? Yep, but the II didn't grab people, more a sad reminder of how bad cars had become.

berri

The 70's were an ugly time for Detroit. The vehicles kept getting bigger to meet consumer tastes and then the oil shock, on top of a crapload of new government regulations. I think mid 70's cars in particular are ones to stay clear of.

stickguy

of course the 70s were a bad time for performance. But conceptually, the II was similar to the majority of the early cars. style over substance (performance).

besides, if you want a real comedown, how about going from a '65 GTO to a 75ish GTOnova?

Mr_Shiftright

Or a '63 split window to a '79 coke bottle coupe. No, no, I can't bear this... :sick:

andre1969

besides, if you want a real comedown, how about going from a '65 GTO to a 75ish GTOnova?

Sadly, they're closer than you think. Here's a rare link that actually casts the '74 GTO in a good light: http://musclecarfacts.net/1974-gto.html

In most respects, performance was similar, but the '74 rode and handled better. I wonder how much of that would have been due to improved tires, though? Also, the '64 was stuck with a 2-speed automatic, whereas the '74 had the advantage of a 4-speed stick. The '64 had a 3.55:1 rear, which meant it was probably making a lot of racket at highway speeds, whereas that '74 was a bit more civilized, at 3.08:1.

Supposedly the low point for the GTO performance was actually 1973, when it was still based on the midsized LeMans, but overshadowed by the new Grand Am. It offered a 230 hp 400, or a 250 hp 455. I found one estimate of 0-60 in 7.9 seconds and a quarter mile of 15.3 seconds with the 455. I think the automatic was the only transmission choice with the 455. It probably doesn't get ridiculed as much as the '74 though, becuase it was still based on the midsize rather than a compact, and still offered large, if somewhat weakened, engines.

Again, the '74 GTO probably seemed to make sense at the time. By that, the fastest domestics around were actually the compact Duster/Dart Sport, when equipped with the 340 and later 360 engines. There were one or two years in there where one of them would actually embarrass a Corvette!

hpmctorque

"I'd imagine that most '65-66 Mustangs just had the 200 6-cyl and 2-speed automatic."

All '60s and '70s Mustang automatics had 3-speeds. Don't know when they went to 4-speeds, but Mustangs never had 2-speeds.

"... I'd imagine that if you put the two in a drag race, it would more or less be a tie."

I'd put my money on the 200 6 over the 2.3 4, without hesitation. The 200 wasn't the fastest pony in the barn, for sure, but the 2.3 was a lame dog.

tjc78

There were one or two years in there where one of them would actually embarrass a Corvette!

That would be funny as heck to see a Dart beating a Vette. I can't remember what year it was but my Grandmother had a Duster with the 360. She zoomed all over with that thing.

andre1969

All '60s and '70s Mustang automatics had 3-speeds. Don't know when they went to 4-speeds, but Mustangs never had 2-speeds.

Thanks, I didn't realize that. When did the Falcon and Fairlane finally ditch their 2-speed automatics completely? What about the big Fords? I knew someone who had a '62 Ford Galaxie with a 292, and it only had a 2-speed.

I'd put my money on the 200 6 over the 2.3 4, without hesitation. The 200 wasn't the fastest pony in the barn, for sure, but the 2.3 was a lame dog.

Yeah, you probably are right about that. I did a ilttle digging, and found that Motortrend got a '65 Mustang with the 200-6 and automatic to do 0-60 in 14.3 seconds. (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1965-1966-ford-mustang4.htm , about half-way down the page)

I found another page ( http://mustangs.about.com/od/modelyearprofiles/a/1974-profile.htm ) that mentions 0-60 in 13.8 seconds for the 1974 Mustang II, but doesn't say what engine. But I found another page ( http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1974-1975-1976-1977-1978-ford-mustang5.htm ) that mentioned 0-60 in an estimated 13-14 seconds, with the 2.8 V-6 and 4-speed stick, so I'd imagine that 13.8 seconds was for the same drivetrain.

So, if the V-6/4-speed is only about 1/2 second quicker than the old 200/automatic, I'm sure the 2.3/automatic would be WAY behind!

andre1969

That would be funny as heck to see a Dart beating a Vette. I can't remember what year it was but my Grandmother had a Duster with the 360. She zoomed all over with that thing.

My guess is that once the Mopar 340 came out for 1968, it could come close to, or even beat, some of the more entry-level Vettes. In '68 for example, it had 275 hp, compared to 300 for the base 327 in a Corvette. However, Chrysler under-rated the 340's hp, partly for insurance purposes, and partly because, if the true hp was published, it would have embarrassed some of their big-blocks! When they started advertising net hp instead of gross, the Corvette's engines were down something like 25-30%, compared to only around 10% for the 340.

The 340 was finally dropped after 1973, and replaced with a hot, 245 hp version of the 360. The 360 wasn't quite the revver the 340 had been, so performance was down, but it was still pretty quick for the time.

By '75, the Corvette big block was gone, leaving only a 165 hp or 205 hp 350. 1976 wasn't much better, with 180 or 210 hp. I'd imagine that by then, a Duster 360, which still had 220-230 hp, would have beaten any of them.

Mr_Shiftright

Driving a car with the 2.3 engine was like driving a washing machine full of golf balls attached to a differential and gearbox that felt like it had 4 overdrive gears and no low.

hpmctorque

Sorry, but I don't recall when the various Ford models stopped offering the 2-speed automatic. Would have to reserach it.

hpmctorque

Yeah, that about describes it.

bhill2

According to the Standard Catalog, not a perfect reference, Ford lost the 2-speed auto (Ford-o-Matic) in the full size cars after '62 and in the Fairlane/Falcon after '64.

stickguy

well, it did offer a V6 option also, so that probably could hang with a 6 cyl early mustang.

and the duster 340/360 was quick. I remember one of the magazines (probably car and driver) doing comparos back then, and the dodges (duster and lil red truck) tended to win the top speed and/or acceleration tests. The truck had the advantage of not being choked down.

lemko

I wouldn't the last time Ford would compare a lame car to the original two-seater T-Bird. They had ads showing the truly awful EXP with the classic Thunderbird.

lemko

Pity the Olds 442!

It went from this:



To THIS!!!



YECCH!!! :sick:

texases

That had the 'Quad 4' engine, right? One that looked so good on paper, never to live up to its promise... :sick:

lemko

The Quad442! A terrible joke of a nameplate for a terrible joke of a car.

fintail

And it only took about 20 years.

However, the GM cars of today compared to 20 years ago are sharply different too. Compare a Malibu to a Lumina.

bhill2

Yes, using muscle car nameplates (442, Cobra, Charger, AMX - they all did it) on the stuff turned out in the late '70s and the '80s was a bad joke. It fooled exactly no one and the companies just ended up deservedly being laughed at.

au1994

yes, GM has progressed in 20 yrs, the Lumina to current Malibu comparision is a good one. Unfortunately for GM, the competition, which they were already miles behind 20 yrs ago, has progressed as well and GM has not done much to close the gap.

Want or need a big truck or SUV? They're still your guy, but unless you are shopping on a number only, the Malibu is still not up to snuff with the Camcords.

fintail

True...the competition is stronger than ever now, and the Koreans are in the game too. GM gets a decent grade for effort, but with wheezy things like the Impala still out there, the game isn't finished yet.

ab348

Come now. Picking the one outdated example is hardly fair play, is it? CTS, Malibu, Regal, Lacrosse, Cruze all compete very well and are better than most. New Malibu and Verano out soon also. Hyundai - the jury is still out, time will tell if they are such a good value as they seem.

fintail

Yeah, but do the others have old school things like that still fighting for the volume role? The Camcords of the world laugh at it. Big and cheap (when used anyway) few other merits.

I think I would take the Regal out of any of the more affordable options...rare and German.

Oh yeah, and on the topic of project cars - dropping the fintail off at the shop next Monday for the parking brake fix, radiator refurbishment, oil change, and a few other check ups. I wonder how long it will be laid up, and what the bill will be.

au1994

Fair enough. I'll give you the Regal. Certainly looks good enough and seems to be well put together. Buddy at work just got one and its nice.

CTS...styling is love it or leave it and the pricing puts it square into baby Benz, BMW territory and I'd still (and did) take the latter.

Lacrosse, my dad considered one before settling on an Enclave. Enough said for me. Again, a nice looking car but I haven't seen the interior which is where GM usually fails. For the record, the Malibu is not ugly on the exterior, inside is awful.

Cruze...I know it just sold a boat load over the past month or quarter, but I have been in one of these as a rental and it was awful. Cheap plastic, anemic performance the dash actually had some type cloth padding on it.

andre1969

Cruze...I know it just sold a boat load over the past month or quarter, but I have been in one of these as a rental and it was awful. Cheap plastic, anemic performance the dash actually had some type cloth padding on it.

Funny you'd mention that cloth padding on the dash. I checked out a Cruze at the GM show in Carlisle PA a couple months ago, and my friends actually thought it was a nice touch! Now it wasn't nearly as nice as the stuff you might find in the Louisiana Cathouse Edition of a '76 Electra, but I didn't think it was all that bad.

Otherwise, I didn't think the car was bad. However, it also wasn't a rental car model, either, so that might have had something to do with it.

ab348

Making a choice of a Benz or BMW over a CTS is fair enough, but many people go the other way as well, which is exactly what we are talking about here. The Malibu interior design is among the best in class and in terms of materials and execution it beats most, certainly far from awful. As for the Cruze, compare it against what it competes against. Better than most and certainly it does very well against the class leaders. If you are comparing a Chevy to a BMW then I would suggest your comparison is absurd.

qbrozen

Sure, it's rare .... but I'm pretty damned sure it ain't worth this!

I don't believe I've ever seen one of these.

Different seller here, but I like it. Not enough pics of the interior, though.

Mr_Shiftright

Fiat Dino Coupe -- maybe maybe $25K for a Pebble Beach car (and I do mean *perfect*) but for one that's nice and "freshened up" (always a scary term), I think around $17K is all the money here. Investment value is not good on this baby.

Lloyd Coupe --shoot, I'd bid on that if it were closer. This is the type of car one should not put a reserve on, but rather start out with a higher bid, because you probably ain't gonna get but a few bottom feeders to bit on it. (like me, for instance). :P

Datsun 240Z --- seems kinda bastardized. With fussy Webers and a loud exhaust and lots of cosmetic issues, I'm thinking this is not going to be all that pleasant a car.

I never realized that a "show car" is allowed to have dents and rust and a salvage title. Live and learn.

PASS :sick:

qbrozen

yeah, I like that Lloyd thing, but I don't know thing 1 about them ... and it looks a little rough. I mean, are those rusted floors I see?

texases

That Dino - needs a wiper motor? All that work done and they didn't fix THAT? :confuse:

Mr_Shiftright

That's what I meant by the term "freshening" up---that often translates as "just wash it, make it look good and sell it".

fintail

The Lloyd is neat - they'd love it in Germany, but not worth very much there either. The floors might have some kind of coating too. "TS" is also a good name.

omarman

Hard to believe any VW can look this clean after 45 years in North Canton, but it's up for bids on ebay now. Seller says it had a repaint and rebuild nearly 20 years ago. Current bid is $7K and has not met reserve. I'm not a fan but it reminds me of the neighbor who loved his light blue Type 3 daily driver back in the early 70s. The roof rack and window shades look strange to me but maybe those are recent add-ons? I think these things look better as ancient, retro commuters with fewer accessories tacked on. Besides a VW owner who needed luggage space would want to drive a microbus. :shades:

michaellno

Holy cow, that is one nice looking VW!

Brings back childhood memories as my folks owned a '67 Type 3, bought new. We drove it from California to New York and back in the summer of 1971 - I was 7 and my sister was 4. The rear seat was put down and I rode in the back with the luggage - and the milk can my mom decided to buy in Illinois.

The engine gave up the ghost in '73 and my folks bought a Toyota Corona to replace it.

I can't imagine that this car is worth as much as has been bid on it.

fintail

That's really nice. VW nuts will be all over it. All of the accessories are pretty funny - no way that car had them all when new, likely had none of them. But every VW hipster loves to put a vintage luggage rack on his car today.

Mr_Shiftright

AND...the engine was rebuilt only 19 years ago!

Actually I like squarebacks....those and the THING are the only VWs I do like. These are economical, fairly "peppy", modern (fuel injection), and utilitarian. Is it worth $7K?

Maybe, maybe. I'd say $8500 is absolute maximum. I would comp it against a Volvo 122 Amazon wagon and they can bring that kind of money.

explorerx4

Shifty, If you spent a winter in Vermont driving a 'Thing', it would drop a little lower on the VW desirability list.
Just trust me on this one.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes I know, the east coast has "seasons" and California doesn't...it's that 4th season that I escaped from. :P