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

british_rover

A few years ago I did a comparison between this car Bonnevil and a gas engine ford excursion. They have about the same dimensions for length and width the Ford is obviously taller and a little heavier. If I can track down the essay I will post it.

andre1969

how would they get a 200R4 tranny to handle that much power?! :surprise: For the most part, the strongest engines that tranny ever had to deal with was the Olds 307 and Chevy 305. There was a heavy-duty version, though, which was used with the Grand National, and possibly the Monte SS and Cutlass Hurst/4-4-2.

Wild looking car, though! I wonder what kind of fuel economy it gets...would the overdrive really help on something that brutal?

lemmer

LT-1 Caddy

Grand National powered Studebaker

andre1969

I'd guess the LT-1 would also be plenty of engine to move a car like that, when you consider the '57 Caddy only had like a 365 CID or so.

I had to laugh at the Rain-X comment, too. I can identify with that one...had to do it on my '79 NYer now for awhile, when the windshield wipers weren't working. But then, strangely enough, I finally took it to the mechanic, who never could get them to fully work right, but about a week after I got it back there was a loud clunk, and now they seem fine again! :confuse: Now if only the air conditioner and radio would fix itself, and the carb would sprout another 2 barrels... :P

lemko

A guy in my car club built what he believed a 1996 Cadillac FTS (Fleetwood Touring Sedan) would look like. He used the LT-1 engine out of a Corvette (not that the stock Fleetwood engine was a slouch). Made a custom body-colored grille with fewer and coarser cross-hatch bars and a wreath and crest in the center in lieu of the regular Fleetwood's stand-up ornament, used 1996 Impala SS wheels with the regular Fleetwood's centers, and custom badges with lettering similar to that on the STS and ETC. Other mods included a floorshift console and quad exhaust outlets. The car was finished in Crimson Pearl. The result was well done actually quite tasteful - sort of a Cadillac version of the 1996 Impala SS.

qbrozen

speaking of AMC ... here's one on ebay.

so... let's see... i'm bidding on a matching numbers car... but I don't actually GET a matching numbers car if I win .... ummmmm....
Javelin

stickguy

I know I am strange, but I like it. ALthough it would have been nice if they painted under the hood line too, but at least you know it started out green.

Actually, I would have preferred it repainted the original color.

Get it cheap enough and put the interior back together, and it could be a nice piece.

The engine scenerio is funny though.

Best thing? It is about 5 minutes from my parents house. If it doesn't sell, I should swing over when I am up there at Xmas.

But, I guarantee my wife would kill me if I brought this one home!

qbrozen

oh, i'm with you. I like it.
but i don't like the idea of bidding on a car and not knowing if you will get the original engine or for how much.

stickguy

This isn't a Hemi Cuda or rare Vette, so I can't imagine the original engine is that big a deal. It is probably a better car with a modernized 360 anyway. As long as it is cheap and clean, good enough for me.

qbrozen

but isn't a matching numbers real 390 Javelin somewhat collectible. I thought i heard that on one of these TV auctions. This is, of course, driven by the insane muscle car prices in general.

Mr_Shiftright

The more I read about this Javelin the less I like it. Sounds like a half-finished project with extra parts left over.

I wouldn't bid over $5,000 on it and that's being generous.

I agree, "matching numbers" on an AMX might be preferably but not much of a market factor. THere's not an AMX in the world you can't buy for $20,000 and most you can buy for a lot less, even in super sharp condition.

The big block only carries maybe a $1,000---$1,500 premium over the 343.

Don't be thinkin' Mopar here---it's not the same.

bumpy

there was a LOT of drinking involved in this project.

Mr_Shiftright

Hmmm...so he's been running it lean with 14 lbs. of boost has he? This motor has the life expectancy of a gnat.

oregonboy

"Whoa, kewl turbo, dude. But, like, did ya notice that the hood won't close?"

"Yeah man, sure it will. Hand me the Sawzall". :P

james

andre1969

even offer a big block? I was under the impression that they only had one block, with various displacements such as 304, 343, 360, 390, and 401 CID.

Mr_Shiftright

Well big in terms of CID...the term is used carelessly these days....

gsemike

What's the odds that the original engine isn't rebuildable? Who's voting for a cracked block?

I think that it's a decent car. I wonder what the reserve is.

fintail

I don't know if these muscle cars with a weight problem are worth so much

Hmmm pay $1600 for this parts car or $5000 for a legitimately nice one...decisions decisions

If you wanna be a jerk, buy this, keep it exactly as is, and always drive 1 under the limit - you'll create a rolling roadblock

"Semi-wrecked" - this is junkyard fodder

The classiest ride you can get for this money

Mr_Shiftright

'73 Charger---it's not a "muscle car" and it's not worth $10K. Notice to sellers---market plunges after 1972.

'95 Accord -- 180K with smashed body, cracked windshield and no airbags? -----crusher!

'96 Neon--- crusher!

72 Benz 4.5 -- price is market correct retail, probably a money pit however. First big problem, car is worthless. Buy the 6 cylinder for half the price and be a much happier camper.

fintail

Just make sure the 6 comes from a Mercedes person and not just an old car person.

I was using "muscle car" with some sarcasm, too.

fintail

A nice looking mastodon

Ummm no

If the car is as nice as the pics, a bargain

lemmer

I like the Mastadon, but I wonder how much HP you have to add to even notice the difference.

The SS is a parts car, at best.

That MB looks good.

Would you take a chance on this 944 for say $2000?

andre1969

to see a performance increase out of that '70 Caddy would be to change the rear end. I have a friend with two '78 Mark V's. Both of them are 460-4bbls, which put out something like 220 hp by then. One of them was rebuilt and hopped up a bit, and has a dual exhaust, while the other is totally stock. I can definitely tell the differnce between the two, but they both still have the piggish 2.50:1 rear end, which is going to hold back a lot of that extra power.

The '70 Coupe DeVille probably has a 2.94:1 axle, which is a good balance of power and economy, so you might actually see something out of those performance upgrades. I think a 3:08 and 3.21 axle were also available.

stickguy

For 2K? Sure, what the heck, if you are somewhat handy and are willing to live with/payfor/DIY the odds and ends that all these cars seem to have.

I would be concerned with the starter, and how good is it for a 944 to get push started anyway? If it really is $200 and 5 minutes, do it, since not being able to start the car is a major drawback to selling it.

Let me ammend my comment. For $2,200 if it starts right up and runs as well as presented, go for it.

I always assume that comments about "cheap/easy" fix of something that is a major issue (like it keeps the car from running) are BS, since if it really was that cheap/easy, the owner should just do it before selling.

andre1969

at least it still had a powerful engine, the 340. The 340 actually lost very little power in the 70's, as I don't think it was decompressed as badly as many of the other engines, but the car was still plagued with the added weight. I think by '73 they had around 240-245 hp. The 340 was also an engine that liked to rev and gave good all-round performance, whereas the 360 that replaced it wasn't as good, even if the peak hp remained the same.

By 1973 standards, a Charger 340 is probably as much of a musclecar as anything else that was out there by the time. The Pontiac GTO had a standard 230 hp 400 and an opional 250 hp 455. There was supposed to be a "Super Duty" 455 with 310 hp, but it never made it into any GTO's. Supposedly if it saw the light of day, it would've rivaled any GTO that ever came before it. And that's quite possible, because 310 hp net would be easily over 400 gross.

fintail

Here's a survivor

Nice colors, and dig that upholstery

andre1969

but I do like it in that color scheme. And with the 304, I'm guessing it would be just fast enough to not be dangerous, but still slow enough to not be dangerous...if that makes any sense!

fintail

Better than whatever craptacular 6 they used, I am sure.

Not a real vintage car or collectible, but probably a decent special-interest beater for around-town use. You could do worse. I am sure it is of agricultural simplicity under the hood, too.

andre1969

this old monster appeals to me. Wonder if it would make a decent replacement for my '85 Silverado? Looks like a good workhorse. I guess it would be annoying to live with on a daily basis, though. Probably a lot more rough around the edges and "trucky" than my '85...

andre1969

I shouldn't even entertain the idea of this monster, but I've always thought they were cool.

andre1969

this local dude really came down in price on his1977 LeMans. He had been wanting $7,000, and then it was on eBay at one time with a "buy it now" of $6,000. Now he's asking $3800/neg. If he comes down a bit more, I might be tempted. Not that my '76 needs a little brother or anything.

bumpy

If you want an old truck, go for it. It won't be any more annoying than any other mid-60s truck. Probably geared short as heck, so keep it off the Beltway. Might be a bit of an adventure finding parts for an IH, and they tended to be quirkier in design than a Chevy.

stickguy

now that beast will scare the willies out of the neighbor. And if you can't get to work in it, the world has ended.

Mr_Shiftright

6 X6: I've driven them. They feel like you are driving a building around. A real chore. Bone-jarring, cold, horrifying noise levels. But you will fear no Hummer!



RE: Muscle cars---there comes a point when the name gets abused, and a '73 Charger abuses it IMO. If that's a muscle car, what do you call the ones before it?...super muscle, extra muscle, real muscle? You see the problem. It is "inflationary nomenclature" and just confuses everyone.

Porsche 944: You never ever EVER buy a non running Porsche for anything more what you could easily part it out for.

andre1969

is not a musclecar. Never was. It was certain configurations of the Charger, like the R/T, that made it into a musclecar.

I don't think calling something a musclecar devalues other musclecars. After all, not everything can be best-in-class, and there have certainly been some mediocre musclecars over the years. A 1957 Chevy is just a standard-sized low-line car, but calling a '57 Ford, Plymouth, or Studebaker a standard-sized low-line car does nothing to devalue the Chevy. Just as calling a '73 Charger 340 a musclecar does nothing to devalue a '64 GTO, Hemi Road Runner, etc. Those cars stand on their own merits.

So, while it may not be a very good musclecar, I'd still call a '73 Charger 340 a musclecar. Now with the 440 6-pack, it would've been a better one!

fljoslin

I would call a 73 Charger with a rebuilt to 1969 specs 340 a muscle car. Odds are the engine needs a re-build anyway and at least it would have disc brakes.

Mr_Shiftright

If you broaden the definition of everything, it renders the word meaningless...that's the problem. If everyone is beautiful, in fact no one is beautiful.

So I'd never call a '73 Charger a muscle car because then car guys I have to deal with wouldn't know what I was talking about.

If you tap me on the shoulder and say "look, muscle car! I'm looking for a compact car with a HUGE engine in it, not a revamped taxi cab.

The collector car hobby is already a tower of babble. I'd hate to contribute more confusion to it.

stickguy

I think you just eliminated a bunch of the market with that definition!

Besides, I thought the later Charger/Challenger really was more of a Pony car, not a muscle car. At least it participated in T/A racing against the Camaro, etc.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah that's the idea...narrow the definition to make it mean something. I mean once people start calling AMC Rebels "muscle cars" we might as well all throw up our hands and go home.

stickguy

at least a Machine with a 401 "HO", 4 speed hurst, etc. fits the spiritual idea of a muscle: smaller platform (mid-size?), biggest engine they had to jam in there, pretty basic with the extra stuff added for performance (forgetting the decal package at least..).

Sounds pretty similar to a '64 GTO to me.

motownusa

I think HONDA needs to give the RIDGELINE the boot. The thing is way overpriced, is not a true truck in the sense that it cannot do much offroading or haul or tow more than 5000lbs. It is a mistrey why HONDA decided to make this half baked whatever you call it

Mr_Shiftright

Oh if you mean the "Rebel Machine" that would be okay, sure. I meant just the plain old Rebel 304, which is only 36 cubic inches away from a plain 'ol '73 Charger.

andre1969

is that a '73 Charger is kinda like a '64 Tempest. NOT a musclecar. But a '73 Charger 340 (I forget what the package was called) or a '73 Charger R/T with the 440-6pack IS a musclecar.

Similarly, a Coronet is not a musclecar. A Coronet R/T or Coronet SuperBee is. Basically what I'm getting at is that '73 Charger is NOT your run-of-the-mill taxi special. If that were the case it would be sporting a 100 hp slant six, 140-150 318, or a 400-2bbl with maybe 175 hp. But here you have a smallblock with 245 hp that's outgunning many big-blocks.

The Rebel was AMC's midsize line, which ended up becoming the Matador. The Rebel, in and of itself, isn't a musclecar. However, there were musclecar versions of it.

My '76 LeMans isn't a musclecar. If it were a '75 Grand Am or a '77 1/2 Can Am, it would be.

lemko

...a 1973 Dodge Charger with a 340 is the very most extreme tip of the tail of the end of the muscle car era. By that time they were already moving away from performance to "personal luxury." A 1975 Road Runner is as much a muscle car as a kid's low-end 1993 Civic sedan with a "grapefruit shooter" exhaust and a spoiler made in sophomore metal shop class a serious drift racer.

andre1969

to see if I could find an example of a plain, basic 70's Charger. Looks like they're mainly high-performance versions with the 340, 400-4bbl, or 440. I can't find any low-suds versions with just 318's, slant sixes, or 400-2bbls. Maybe I'm wrong...perhaps the Charger DIDN'T have a slant six in the 70's?

I know that after 1970, Dodge dropped the 2-door Coronet and just called ALL their 2-doors "Charger", which cheapened the name. Maybe they still kept the weaker engines out of them?

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think any car made after 1973 is a muscle car, and Hemmings Muscle Machines Magazine more or less agrees with me. Their "Muscle Car Price Guide" does, however, list a few cars newer than 1972, but I don't agree with THEM about that...I mean, a "muscle car" has to be ferocious or forget about it. Some big bone-crusher from the WWF is not the same as a yoga instructor. :P

gsemike

Wasn't a 1987 Buick Grand National a real muscle car or at least wasn't the GNX?

My first car ever was a 1973 Charger with a 318 2 barrel. It wasn't a muscle car but do I ever go through passenger side back tires. That car could spin em till the cows come how.

I have definately seen that line of Charger with slant 6's but it would have had to be extremely rare. I have an affection for the car for obvious reasons but would kill for a 440 model.

Mr_Shiftright

Well it might have made a lot of smoke but probably wasn't very fast on the clock...after all 150HP pushing 3,500 lbs is not a great power to weight ratio....only 1:23...whereas with the 340 you're down to 1:14.

Contrast that with "real muscle", a 1970 440 is 1:8.9 and a 426 is 1:8.2

To me, any credible "muscle car" has to have an impressive power to weight ratio.

jrosasmc

When I was reading the latest issue of "Bimmer" magazine they noted in an article about the 8 Series that its V-12 engine (first seen in the 750iL) was one of the last "overbuilt" engines in the automotive industry. I know that V-12 does have its virtues and vices though- I also came up with a brief list of some engines that I consider to be "overbuilt" and maybe you would agree with me or attest to them on these:

Toyota 22R: Simple and sturdy motor.

Jeep 4.0 straight-6: Very reliable and powerful but gas-hungry.

Mercedes V-8s ('70s thru '90s): Way over-engineered.

Volvo B21: The company's first OHC engine that debuted in '76- ran forever.

Porsche 911 flat-6: I wanted to save the best for last...those beasts run and run and run.

andre1969

you have to convert from gross to net hp, or any comparison is meaningless. And many of those gross hp numbers were fudged considerably, so an inexact science. A good rule-of-thumb is to take 75% of the gross figure, and that's net. However, there are many exceptions. For example, the 340 was under-rated back in the 60's, partly for insurance purposes but also partly because it was capable of embarrasing many big-blocks. And what's the sense of having some of those big-blocks if the smallblock was putting out close to the same hp? So the 340-4bbl was under-rated at 275 hp. When it was rated in net hp, it still came in at 245 hp, or 89% of gross. The 426 Hemi was also under-rated a bit, at 425 hp gross. Net, it came out to 350 hp. Of course, this was the "street" version of the 426...racing versions were much more powerful.

In 1973-74, Chrysler was still building 440-6packs, which put out 330 hp net. That would've been good for an easy 440 hp or so back in the 60's, in gross terms. Pontiac was also building a handful of 455's that had 300 hp net, which would be good for around 400 hp in gross terms.

Now when car companies started putting out these boat anchor 400's that only had around 150-175 hp, and 440's, 454's, 455's, and 460's that were so choked down they hardly broke the 200 hp barrier, it was pretty much over. But there were still a few bright spots in the 70's, although they became much fewer and far between as the decade wore on.

An early 70's 318-2bbl actually isn't a bad performer for its class. Back then you usually had to go to a 350 with a GM car or a 351 with a Ford to get similar performance. I'd guess 0-60 in an early 70's Charger with the 318 would be around 12 seconds. Supposedly performance on the Mopars really started to suffer when they went to Lean Burn, which I think was 1975 for the smaller engines. I don't think the advertised hp went down much, but real world performance did...even when the thing was functioning properly! They also started putting taller gears in the cars later on, which hurt performance. In the early 70's, I think it was common for 318 cars to have 2.76:1 or 2.94:1 gears, but later on 2.45:1 became the norm.

I'd consider the Grand National, as well as the Monte SS and the Olds Hurst/4-4-2 from the 80's to be musclecars, as they had considerable performance upgrades from their more mainstream counterparts. And the Grand National would easily embarras most 60's musclecars. I guess that's not saying much anymore though, because these days a V-6 Accord or Altima with an automatic tranny would, as well.

It would be interesting though, to see how some of those old musclecars would do with the better tires of today. I'm sure that makes a lot of difference. And a tranny with a few more gears like what they have today. These days you can give an automatic tranny a first gear of something like 5:1 or more, coupled with a differential of around 4:1, which would give you a tremendous multiplication. Back in the day, your typical automatic first gear was around 2.45:1 for Mopars, and I think around 2.7:1 for GM cars. And then the axles were usually, at the most, around 4-4.5:1. They had to compromise somewhat because of the fewer gears, and not having overdrive to keep the revs down at highway speeds.