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

Mr_Shiftright

4 cylinder Benz diesels are nasty. Don't go there. You really can't beat a W123 oil burner.

I need a new toy as well. My friend has a very nice 914 that needs an engine. I was thinking of getting help to build a nice 2.5 liter but rather than risking too large a big bore kit, use a stroker crank instead. You got to be very careful with those flat top pistons in VW big bore kits. Way too high compression and....KABOOM!

steine13

4 cylinder Benz diesels are nasty. Don't go there. You really can't beat a W123 oil burner.

??? So you're saying buy a diesel, buy a gasser, or don't buy ANY 4cyl 123?

The most popular was the 230E, and a good engine to boot, but it wasn't sold in the States, I don't think...

-Mathias

jrosasmc

So you need a toy. Hmm, I've got a few suggestions...how about an FJ40 Toyota Land Cruiser or a first-gen Ford Bronco? Wouldn't you like to have an old four-wheeling vehicle?

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah I think all 4 chylinder diesels are nasty, because of two things. One, if you have a large displacement 4 cylinder engine gas or diesel(above 2.2 liters) you start to run into vibrational problems, and below 2.2 you have no power. A 5 or 6 cylinder diesel is a much better application of the diesel principle IMO.

You may have noticed there are very few 4 cylinder passenger car engines gas or diesel that violate the 2.2 rule.

TOYOTA FJ40 --- I'd love one of those but people want way too much money for them, given what you get--stone age machinery. Shoot, I could buy an old Land Rover for that money and look twice as cool and be twice as primitive!

I'd buy a Jeep to kick around in if they weren't so unreliable and so expensive to fix.

Yeah sure, you see a decent FJ40 around, gimme a holler.
I do like to bang around in the Sierras occasionally.

qbrozen

What jeep are you referring to that is unreliable and expensive to fix? Can't be an AMC CJ.

lemko

That 123 looks like the one that's been for sale in my neighborhood for about 3 years. Same color.

Mr_Shiftright

Why can't it?

qbrozen

because the straight 6 and differentials are bulletproof. And, even if you disagree with that, they are FAR from expensive to repair.

I rebuilt my whole tranny for $150 in parts. Replacement parts for just about anything on the vehicle are plentiful and cheap. Not to mention its so darned easy to work on.

My CJ was by far the least expensive to repair vehicle of anything I've ever owned. And I think there are hundreds of thousands of owners out there that will agree with me.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't have much experience with CJs so I don't know. I know Wranglers and Cherokees are very problematic. I worked on a few and I have never worked on a more awful car in my life I don't think...maybe a Fiat. You just touch something and it crumples in your hand. Lotsa cheap stuff on those vehicles. Most of my friends have come to grief with them.

It's amazing though the prices you can get for old Wranglers. They seem wildly overpriced to me for what you get (and don't get).

A CJ V-8 might be fun..... :P

jrosasmc

When you say Cherokees do you mean the small XJs (1984-96) or the first-gen Grand Cherokees (1993-98)? I know that the earliest GCs had their share of teething troubles because they were a new design.

lemmer

Jetstar 88 - price seems high to me.

Chevy Truck - is this guy serious?

Ancient Prelude.

au94

I would think the Olds is right at top dollar at 5500

No clue on the truck. I'm sure it has some value, but you could probably get closer to the 45k number if it had been rodded

Love the Prelude! A buddy of mine had one in HS and for some reason he thought it would be cool if the girl he was chasing saw him working on his car, doing something manly etc, who knows what he was thinking, we were teenagers. Anyway he proceeded to take of the carb, manifold etc as he schmoozed with her in the drive way, then could not get the car to tun right ever again. Really sad part was, he did not have the $$ to take it to a mechanic and the girl never gave him the time of day.

qbrozen

see, now, that's what I figured you meant, but just wanted to get it out of you.
To clarify, though, I said AMC jeeps ... the Wrangler was NEVER an AMC vehicle. Most Jeep enthusiasts would have your head for such a mixup.

andre1969

that Olds 88 only has a 2-speed automatic! I thought that big Oldsmobiles by that time used a 3-speed automatic called the Slim-Jim/Roto-Hydramatic?

Mr_Shiftright

52 Chevy Truck -- the man is stark raving mad. It's $25K all day long if it's REALLY nice inside and out and under.

JEEPS: Yeah, I think the first gen Cherokees were very problematic cars as were early Wranglers. I wouldn't touch one for free personally.

andre1969

on Grand Cherokees, even the one traditionally bulletproof component...the 318 V-8, wasn't all that great. Supposedly when the 318 got the Magnum treatment around 1993, while it boosted power tremendously, they just weren't that reliable. And it had nothing to do with not being able to handle the increased power, as the 318 was only boosted to 220 hp, while the 360 went to 230. There were years in the 70's when the 360 had more horsepower than that...and that's NET hp, not gross!

andre1969

so what transmission should that '64 Olds have in it? Would a 2-speed be correct? I kinda like the car...been ages since I've seen a 4-door hardtop in that style.

Mr_Shiftright

I think it does have the dreaded Slim Jim. The 2 speed Jetaway started I think in 1965.

This site might help ID the transmission from #s and pan shape.

http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/oftrn.htm#TRAN Auto Transmission Identification

ghulet

...that the 'Jetstar 88' (not to be confused with the Jetstar I, which was kind of a cut-rate Starfire) was the bottom-line 88, so it shared a lot of running gear with the Cutlass (not the frame, but engines and transmissions).

stickguy

My friends roommate had a gen 1 lude a while back. I believe it got rusty and broke in half.

stumack1

So how is it that the Jeep Wrangler, designed and engineered by AMC, with AMC engines and components, and introduced in 1985 (2-3 years before the Chrysler buyout) is not an AMC vehicle??

andre1969

but I'm guessing it's just that Jeep was a brand owned by AMC, but not badged as an AMC? In the 80's the Jeep and AMC brand were almost bi-polar opposites. One was cool, while the other was just left-over regurgitations of the AMC Hornet.

It was "cool" to have a Jeep. But not to have an AMC, I'm guessing. :P

qbrozen

I'd have to look again, but I'm pretty sure Chrysler bought it in '83.

Oh, wait, i just looked it up, it was '87. Which is the first year the Wrangler was produced, by the way. So still not an AMC, technically, although AMC had alot to do with the development (which took many years, apparently).

Just learned some details I never knew from this site ... although I can't verify its accuracy.
http://4wheeldrive.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeep22.freeserve- - - .co.uk%2Fyj.htm

(and i definitely disagree with the author's assessment that the Wrangler is superior. In my biased opinion, it became more "delicate" over the years under Chrysler's command.)

qbrozen

The 4.2 I6 that was found in the CJ was also found in other AMC vehicles, IIRC.

the 360 in the Cherokee was also in their cars, was it not?

jrosasmc

Having been around Jeeps long enough to know their history a bit I can make some comments to you guys-

The 258 I-6 in the CJ was also found in other AMC products and was carried over to the Wrangler when it was introduced in the spring of '86. I recall the 258 as a crude engine that spewed out a lot of emissions and gave wimpy acceleration. It wasn't until the introduction of the 4.0 PowerTech in '87 that we got the familiar six which we all know and love.

The Cherokee had the 360 only from '74-'83, its first generation, when it was based on the Wagoneer. The ZJ Grand Cherokee had the 318 from 1993-98.

jrosasmc

How about this one- A friend of mine wants to give me his '95 Range Rover for free. That's right, free. He got a newer car so he doesn't need the Rover anymore, although I'm not so sure I want to be dealing with an older high-miles British product. The beast has 150k miles on it (high for a Rover IMO) and I know that he's had a lot of work done to the drivetrain.

Shifty, you're more familiar with that old Rover V-8 in all its iterations...how is it in terms of reliability and longevity?

Mr_Shiftright

Well it's certainly been around long enough. I don't think all the Range Rover's problems were about the engine itself, but rather everything attached to it. But that old-fashioned V-8 certainly made that heavy vehicle a dog to drive, especially at altitude.

Old Range Rovers are REAL scary....but free might work....although, like dangerous drugs, the first free one isn't really "free". :P

WRANGLER---Ohhhhh, Chrysler took it over in 1987...that explains EVERYTHING. Ever try to work on one of those early computerized carburetors? nasty business, nasty....

I wouldn't mind a brand new Wrangler though, in Hawaii, for about two weeks....

jrosasmc

I do remember the first old Range Rovers in the US in 1987-88...they did not have a good reliability record, especially with the electrics.

Chrysler bought AMC/Jeep in Jul 1987.

xrunner2

How about this one- A friend of mine wants to give me his '95 Range Rover for free. That's right, free. The beast has 150k miles on it

How long have you been friends?

My analogy to this is like a guy's animal loving wife coming home and saying she can get a free 15-year old horse. Maybe running/walking well when you get it, but as you get attached to it and have to pay monthly boarding and vet bills, it will kill your monthly budget.

Mr_Shiftright

It would be my candidate for the worst car in the world (currently still manufactured category)

lilengineerboy

The 93-95 RX7 was a temperamental hard to drive unfinished race car that got sold to the public to early. They ran hot, over-heated, and blew their apex seals. They were fun, but expensive to maintain and repair.
The 240z rocks.
The 240SX gets a SR20-DET and actually turns into car someone would want as opposed to a sporty looking secretary car with a truck motor. Rear wheel drive, not to heavy, and responds well to drifting or racing.
The AE86 (85-86 Corolla GTS) is a rear-wheel drive drift machene. The are pretty much the shizzle in Japan right now. An example in good shape seems to be running about what they cost new 20 something years ago.
The early RX-7s were slow, but reliable and robust, if thirsty. Those will have their day.
92 Galant VR4- yeah I think I am the only one who loves this car, but its about as fast as a GSX and you can put your kids in the back. Hmm, kinda like an M3 4door or a Mazda6 mazdaspeed or something.
91-94 Sentra SE-R The car stole Honda's sport compact thunder for a while, also can take an SR20DET, ruled the roost until V-tech came out.
99 Civic SI- yeah, I would say bug eyed Integra with B18c before the 99 Civic w B16a.
87-89 Impulse---He meant 91-92 Impuse RS, shared motor with a Lotus Elan, and suspension as well.
Where is the Mazda 323GTX, Dodge Colt Turbo/Mitsubishi Mirage Turbo, 90-95 300zx, and early Miatas (yeah I know there were a lot of them, but there were a lot of Thunderbirds too).
I think the Japanese cars are going to be hotter for my generation and below than most of you guys. People like what was in their High School parking lots that they couldn't get or didn't have, or tha they did have and had to sell because of this or that. There is a lot of nostalgia in that.

jrosasmc

Lilengineerboy, if you don't mind me asking how old are you? You seem to have a very good grasp of your Japanese car knowledge, unlike most people. Yes, I agree with you on the majority of your comments about the above cars, especially with the '93-'95 RX-7...they really had mechanical troubles because of that turbo motor.

I'm a Japanese car fan as well, however I'm also a 4x4 enthusiast so I like my vehicles to do a little off-roading. I'll give you a brief test ok...what do you make of these:

'84-'89 Toyota 4Runner
'85-'91 Mitsu Montero
'87-'94 Nissan Pathfinder
'60-'83 Toyota FJ40

british_rover

Hey now the new body style Range Rovers(2003-2006) are nothing like the old body style you can't even compare them at all and they don't share a single component with the older body styles.

Mr_Shiftright

They are apparently very capable off road, not that anyone in America does that with them, but they still seem to always end up in the very bottom of the list in every reliability survey...fighting it out with Kia ahd Mini for King of the Basement. Range Rover is doomed, mark my words.

jrosasmc

Truthfully what is the best off-road vehicle that you have driven on the trails on a semi-regular basis?

Mr_Shiftright

I'm not a serious enough off-roader to know although I did drive a tank retriever for a while in the Army and that was pretty good in the rough stuff :P

gsemike

My friend works at a joing BMW/Rover dealership as a mechanic and says that as long as there are Rovers he'll never worry about having enough work. The dealership is in Manhattan so there isn't a great deal of off roading to be done. The trucks barely fit on Manhattan streets but he says that they sell plenty and he fixes every one of them.

As far as off road capability, I don't think that anything beats the Hummers. Since the H2 is based off of Suburban architecture, wouldn't it be pretty reliable?

Mr_Shiftright

Yes Hummers are great off road but they badly designed. Given its huge size there is no room in it! How did they DO that! It's not easy to make something so big so useless.

Never driven an H2.

gsemike

I believe that the original Hummers have huge center tunnels that really cut into the interior space but allow them to tuck all the drivetrain components up high. That's what gives it such high ground clearance. If you've ever sat behind one in traffic, it looks like you could drive a small car right under it.

british_rover

We got a H2( so not a real hummer) stuck on our test track. Now keep in mind that this track is desigined so even a little Freelander can scoot across it as long as you hit the perfect line. We got the hummer stuck in the first 10 feet while try to cross a 24 or so inch deep ditch. The frame in the H2 is so weak that trying to cross the ditch tweaked it so bad that the driveline got into a bind. We could not back up or go forward at all. Eventually we were able to rock the H2 out of the bind and back out of the ditch but it took a long time.

Oh and if you think Land Rover and Range Rover are dead let me quote you the US YTD sales records.

Range Rovers for all of 2004------------------8,810
Range Rovers to end of 3rd Quarter------------9,370

Total sales all of 2004----------------------23,454
Total sales tell end of 3rd quarter 2005-----30,930

Land Rovers plan is to launch a new model every year for the next five years. The LR3 was last year the Range Rover Sport is this year and the new freelander(name to be changed) is next year. After that the Defender will come back to the US and the year after that there will be an all new model that will probably be called the Landy. The concept art I have seen makes it look like a small dune buggy like vehicle.

lemmer

I figured that an H2 wouldn't offroad any better than a jacked-up Tahoe, since it is just a jacked-up Tahoe.

How do Grand Cherokees and the like do on your course?

andre1969

how the H3 is going to fare as an off-road vehicle? The first one I've seen on the streets had rear-ended a Plymouth Voyager, and even with a bulky-looking optional bumper, the H3 looked like it lost in that tangle.

My roommate bought a toy remote control H3 about a month ago. That sucker gets stuck in the driveway all the time! :P

gsemike

Can and driver raved about the H2 off road capability and they're not known to rave about GM products.

I'm sure that the 5 cyl in the H3 will be an animal off road.

qbrozen

Ouch! banging on my much beloved 258.
Wimpy acceleration? How fast do you want to go in something with no doors or roof? The HP was low, but the torque was enough to spin my 32x12 tires, so I never complained. Emissions? Eh, I wouldn't know because I really didn't care at that time. As you can probably tell, I have very fond memories of my Jeep. Possibly I am remembering it more fondly than I should, I'll admit.

Seriously, though, "the 4.0 we all know and love"? Man, I know PLENTY of people who would disagree with that!

andre1969

that memories of the 258 would differ depending on what vehicle it was in. For the most part it was only good for around 110 hp. In something like a Jeep Wrangler though, they probably gave it excellent gearing, and if you had a stick shift, that probably made up for a lot of sins.

But then, put a 258 in a 1976 Hornet wagon with a Chrysler Torqueflite and loafy economy car gearing, and you're not going to put too many smiles on people's faces!

british_rover

I have a grand cherokee now but I have not taken it on our course yet. I think it would do ok I would just have to hit that ditch just right to make full use of axel articulation. That is the trick in the Freelander as well that little car has such a stiff Chassis and such high suspension travel for its size you just hit the right angle and glide over the ditch.

Mr_Shiftright

Well I do hope Rover products improve. If you type in "best and worst cars" into google you will find some Rover product on each and every list and it's not in the "best" category either.

They seem to start out okay in overall customer satisfaction (average, mediocre, with plusses for some amenities) but they don't seem to age very well at all.

jrosasmc

Have you personally worked on Land Rover products yourself?

Now here's a great 4x4- mid-80s Toyota pickups with 22R engines and big meaty tires.

Mr_Shiftright

Toyota 22R --Not enough power though, for serious off-roading I don't think. Good engine though for light work.

jaserb

Once upon a time, when I was a dumb teenager, I had to get a 260Z in sketchy condition from Great Falls, MT. to Salt Lake City. We debated whether we should try to drive it, or tow it with the other vehicle making the trip - my cousin's 1986 (or so) Toyota 4x4 with the 22R. We decided to drive it, and good thing. As it was I'd practically have to pull over after every big hill to let that gutless little thing catch up. We'd have made better time towing the truck with the Z.
My cousin also had a 4 runner with the same motor, lifted, with a set of 35" tires. Seems like the truck was carbureted, the Runner was injected. That 4 runner is tied with my friend's 240D as the most terrifyingly slow vehicle I've ever driven.
The 22R is totally underpowered and overrated. The 2.4 Mitsubishi in my Ram 50 is a 350 Chev by comparison.

-Jason