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

Mr_Shiftright

If your state has smog laws, and your car is within the years required, then you can't "downgrade" by putting an earlier engine in, but you could probably "upgrade" to a cleaner engine, presuming you pass the new engine's emissions regulation. All states do vary these regulations, but usually most things can be worked out with a state referee.

Now if the car is a kit car, that runs into lots of snags because some states will not let you register a replica '65 Cobra as a 1965 car (California allows a teensy number to register each year under their SB-100 law). So your California kit car needs to go to another state to register, like Nevada, where you can probably own your own nuclear bomb. :P

I'm not sure about the Feds regarding removing catalytic converters from ANY year car---

texases

This has me wondering about the regs. Does being more than 25 years old affect anything in the eyes of the feds?

Another site has a '10 cars to import now that they're more than 25 years old' article. Isn't there a lot more to it than just the age? Both EPA and DOT regs? Etc?

xwesx

Here in Alaska, our testing program didn't seem to care how clean the tailpipe emissions were... if you didn't have every piece of emissions equipment on the vehicle, it didn't pass.

A friend of mine put a new engine in his '85 Chevy van back in 2003, and he opted to put various aftermarket parts on it like headers. His had some sort of air pump system on it that he couldn't reinstall due to the headers not having ports for the air lines, so he just left it off. After he tuned it and had it running in top shape, its tailpipe emissions were less than half the allowable rate for his vehicle, yet it would not pass the inspection because it didn't have that air pump system on it.

Lucky for him, he was moving to Finland, so he didn't care about that little hiccup. Now that it is in Europe, that old van is somewhat of a celebrity. :P

qbrozen

That's a pretty in-depth inspection process. NJ's inspection process is nothing more than an assembly line, so to speak.

You wait in line with other cars. When its your turn, attendant #1 takes your license, reg, and insurance card and records the information. Asks you to step out and wait in the appropriate safety zone. Attendant #1 then checks your horn, lights, wipers, then pulls up a few feet to the sniffer.

Attendant #2 takes over. If an OBD2 car, they just hook up the computer and take a reading. If an older car, they may or may not put the sensor in the tailpipe and they may or may not run it on the treadmill while taking that reading. Attendant #2 then drives forward and brakes hard on a set of pads that measure the braking force at each wheel. This same machine then may or may not shake the front end of the car (I have NO idea what this is checking).

Attendant #3 takes over who tests your gas cap, assembles the final paperwork, and puts the sticker on your car.

Once the process starts, it takes all of 7-10 mins.

xwesx

Wow - that sounds like a highly efficient process and a safety-oriented one at that. Kudos.

Our process was more oriented to lining someone's pocket, so the more "fail" stuff that could be found, the better off the shop. :sick:

Thankfully, it is gone for now. The bureaucrats couldn't justify it any longer on the grounds of emissions, so popular opinion finally won out. :shades:

fintail

If this has engine mods I'd be kind of interested

stickguy

You must not have been recently. They elimnated the safety/equipment check parts. All that is left is the emissions part.

I honestly have no idea what they would do if they saw something obvious, even though they technically were not supposed to (or required) to check. Given the apparent mental state of some of the workers, they probably wouldn't notice in the first place though!

andre1969

In Maryland, emissions testing and inspections are two totally different things. Inspection is safety-related, while emissions is, well, emissions-related.

For an inspection, they'll most likely pop the hood to check the engine mounts and other things. Most mechanics probably aren't going to notice if you swapped the 260 V-8 in your '82 Cutlass Supreme for a 403 (same sized block), but I'm sure a few savvy ones might notice if you have a big block Chevy engine in some application where it was never offered. But, I dunno if they'll fail you for that. The inspection is done by an authorized repair shop...car dealership, independent garage, gas station, etc.

The emissions test is done at a state-run facility (meaning that they're often incompetent), and it varies depending on where the car is registered. Some counties don't require an emissions test. If it's OBD II, they just plug into the system, and also test your gas cap. If it's pre-OBD II, I think they just do the tailpipe test. They used to have treadmills for 1984-2007 and just the tailpipe test for 1977-83, but I think there were too many complaints about the treadmills, so they took them out. They don't open the hood, but I remember they used to have a mirror on a stick they'd use to check underneath, to make sure your catalytic converter was there.

I haven't had to take an older vehicle in for the test since my '85 Silverado back in 2009. I remember they had the treadmill then, but can't remember if they looked under it or not. I since put historic tags on it, so it's now emissions-exempt.

FWIW, in Maryland, if you put historic tags on a car (20 calendar years or older, so right now it's 1992 and older, and 1993 as of 1/1/13), you don't need an inspection or an emissions test. The inspection is a one-time thing, that you need when you first buy a used car, to get regular tags for it. And the emissions test is every other year.

Oh, and if you guys in Jersey have a machine that shakes the front-end of the car sideways, it might be checking for play in the ball joints?

qbrozen

It wasn't all that long ago. Definitely sometime in 2011. But that's why I said "may or may not" to so many of the tasks. It truly is random. Only once did they ever open the hood on any of my cars. Only twice have they run it on the treadmill. Only once or twice on the shake test. Pretty sure they've always done the brakes, though. And they always do the lights.

How recently did you go? They really didn't even check your lights??

I really think there is some relation to the age of the car as to what they perform, but I certainly can't figure out what it is.

stickguy

2 weeks ago.

I have seen them stop on the brake thing, but I think that was just because they are used to slamming on the brake.

And I don't recall hearing any horns honking.

But, I am sure that a while back they did officially eliminate the safety inspection part.

xwesx

That's silly. The safety inspection is the most practical portion of the entire inspection! Brakes, steering, suspension, horn, lights, wipers... those are just as important to the vehicle's occupants as they are to every other driver on the road.

fintail

Here in WA, as you probably know, all inspection is minimal. Metro areas have emissions tests, others have nothing. I think if you bring in a car from out of state it has to pass a basic inspection, and maybe if a car with a rebuilt title is re-registered - but I think nothing structural is tested. That makes for some interesting vehicles on the road, especially in rural areas. Suspension, horn, lights, wipers - decadent!

Mr_Shiftright

It would be interesting (but probably not accurate) to plot vehicular injuries per capita in each state and then correlate that to whether they have a safety inspection.

I say it might not be very accurate because obviously you're going to have more wrecks per capita in Alaska than in Iowa I would think.

xwesx

Possibly, but that might not be a result of inaccuracy..... :P

Speaking of rural Washington, back when I was young and... well, young ... I drove my Econoline van into Pendleton (17 miles from my home in Helix) sans windshield. I looked up the vehicle code for Oregon and didn't see anything there about the windshield being required equipment, so I called the local OSP office and asked them about it. They concurred, but did note that "functional wipers" were required.

So, I slapped the wipers on there (which then sat on the dash) and headed into town! My plan was to have some body work done and the vehicle painted. Alas, four months went by and when I called to find out the status, the owner seemed shocked that somebody actually owned it! He said he had been asking his guys for a couple of months about it and wanted to get it out of there. I told him the name of the guy who gave me the quote and told him the amount, and he scoffed, then said that employee had been fired a few months prior. He wasn't willing to honor the quote, telling me it would be over 3x the original.

I took the hint, showed up the next day (December 6th, 1994... I remember it well!), and drove it home. The only problem was that the temperature was +5F (extremely cold for that area) with a snowfall that and the previous day which turned the area to a sheet of ice. That was the coldest drive of my life. :surprise:

fintail

Yeah. It would be tough - only way would be to examine each crash and see if vehicular failure was the cause, and maybe not trusting the police verdict for the real answer (speed kills and all, you know)

fintail

Wipers needed, but no windshield. That's such a typical government regulation.

I am pretty sure I have seen windshield-less vehicles here before. Also cars missing doors, hoods, ancient pickups rusted til they sag, etc.

stickguy

OK, ever in your life. And probably a good thing!

http://southjersey.craigslist.org/ctd/2882384939.html

fintail

It would actually be worth picking up for a few grand for laughs, but at that price, delusional.

Mr_Shiftright

It looks like a giant case you'd put over a cell phone.

jrosasmc

If you're around, I'll need some advice on a car that's been offered to me

I've been offered the opportunity to buy a 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme - an older gentleman in my neighborhood owns it, and would like to sell it soon because he's moving out of the area in a few weeks. He's the original owner, having bought it new. It's a 2-door Brougham coupe and has several options I prefer, like power windows and locks, a/c and cassette radio.

Now here's where I have to seriously think about it - the Cutlass has the dreaded 231 V-6. I would've liked for it to have a 307 but you can't pick and choose. I know you had an '82 Cutlass with the V-6 which was somewhat troublesome in your case - did GM make any changes to the engine between '82 and '86 that made it more reliable and/or more powerful? The guy is asking $600 for it but I'm still thinking about it. It has 170k on it.

lemmer

For $600, drive it around for a few months. If you hate it, sell it.

tjc78

Well, with 110HP you aren't going anywhere fast. I think by 86 most of the bugs were worked out. It's made to 170K and still chugging along. For $600 if you get a year out of it with nothing major you could still get a few bucks for it in scrap if it dies.

I don't think the engine is the problem BTW its the crude emissions BS in the early models that caused the troubles.

stickguy

I smell a crate motor coming...

Mr_Shiftright

you could re-sell it without a motor for $600 if it's clean

ab348

If you are anywhere close to the rust belt, check the rear frame rails and body mounts for rust. A real problem on those cars.

As others have said, if it is good otherwise those are very popular as project cars.

andre1969

did GM make any changes to the engine between '82 and '86 that made it more reliable and/or more powerful?

Actually yeah, GM did make some changes. In 1985, the 231 block was completely re-done and beefed up. The 1984 and earlier block had a lot of narrow oil passages, right angles and such, and just poor lubrication in general. The turbo block was beefier, but I don't know if it had the same issues with the oil passages or not.

Anyway, for 1985, they made a whole bunch of changes to the 231. That year they had three basic versions...the 110 hp 2-bbl carb that went in RWD cars, the 125 hp fuel injected one that went into FWD cars, and the turbo. I believe that year, they all used the turbo block, and they also re-worked the oil passages and did a whole lot of other improvements that helped with reliability, big-time.

As for more power? No, the 2-bbl stayed at 110 hp and around 190 ft-lb of torque until the end. However, as the emissions controls improved, they did make better use of that 110 hp. So later models were a bit faster. Not a huge amount, though. Whereas my '82 might have taken 14-15 seconds to get from 0-60, a 1986 might only take 13. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Regal with the 231 2bbl/3-speed automatic and 2.41:1 axle, and they got 0-60 in "about 13 seconds" (their own words, but they didn't list the exact time).

I'm also guessing this car just has a 3-speed automatic, rather than the 4-speed overdrive THM200R-4. I don't think they ever offered the 4-speed with the 231, because in those heavier cars it would have been too gutless in overdrive. However, I don't know which 3-speed it would have used by '86. My '82 actually had the more desireable THM350C instead of the lightweight THM200C, yet I had to have it rebuilt. In those days they might have mixed and matched, and just threw in whatever they had available, so some might have had the 200, and some had the 350.

My '82 was a nice cruising car. While it was a dog from 0-60, once it actually got moving, it wasn't bad. It was comfortable too. Pretty roomy, good driving position (for me, at least), and smooth riding. I thought it handled well too, but after getting used to more modern, competent cars, if I revisited one, it might not be as good as I recall!

Anyway, good luck! Sounds like it might be a nice car! There's a guy at work who has an '87 or '88 Cutlass Supreme with the 307, and he has something like 220,000 miles on it. It's getting some rust in the rear quarters and bumper, and I think its transmission was rebuilt, but I believe it's the original engine.

stickguy

http://southjersey.craigslist.org/cto/2880528904.html

Not my cup of tea chevy, but you have to love his spunk. Inherit an old mans 70s chebbie, and try to convert it into a BMW!

andre1969

I kinda like that '75 Impala, except for the roofline. That year the Impala coupe actually had two different rooflines. The cheaper model, the Sport Coupe, was a true hardtop with roll-down rear windows. The more expensive Custom Coupe had the large, triangular stationary rear windows, which it shared with the Caprice. I think the hardtop style looks cleaner. With those fixed-window coupes, I never liked the way the rear window sill was higher than the door window, so at the B-pillar area, it looks a bit like two different cars were grafted together.

Not the best resolution in the world, but here's a '75 Impala Sport Coupe.

Normally I'm not a big fan of white cars, influenced partly because most of my stepdad's cars were white, plus that white '68 Dart I had for almost 18 years. But, with the blue landau roof and the blue interior, I think it's attractive.

Mr_Shiftright

Well he could trade it for PART of a BMW 745....

stickguy

Oh, I am sure you can find a 740 to trade for. I just wouldn't want my wallet anywhere near it.

745? Lot newer though. That would be a stretch...

ab348

Back in the late-70s, our next-door neighbor had a '76 Impala Custom Coupe in '70's mid-tone metallic green. He traded in a '68 Impala 4-door in Butternut Yellow for it. At the time I thought it was an upgrade, but now, I'm not so sure. Those '70s Chevys were big unwieldy boats if our '74 Impala was any indication.

andre1969

Those '70s Chevys were big unwieldy boats if our '74 Impala was any indication.

I've had a little seat time in that era B-body, but not for any real extended time. The biggest of the bunch was a '76 LeSabre 4-door hardtop that a used car lot had for sale. After I got my '69 Dart GT painted and looking good, I wanted to get a beater to drive around in. Well, it turns out they wanted more for this LeSabre than what I paid for the Dart! $1600 I think, and this was back in 1990. At the time, I didn't have a problem with the way it handled, but if I had to revisit it through more modern eyes, I might.

A year or so later, I drove a '72 Impala convertible that another used car lot had. I liked it, but they played a few games with the price, and couldn't find the trunk key. Once they finally did, and I saw how much body work had been done, I passed. About a year or so after that, a lady who was in my church let me drive her '76 Caprice 4-door hardtop. And about a year or two after that, I drove a '73 Caprice convertible in an awful school bus yellow that was for sale at, of all places, a Honda dealership!

With the previous generation, most of my experience is with my '67 Catalina convertible. I had a '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop for a couple years, and despite being bigger and heavier, and the same basic design, it seemed to handle a LOT better than the Catalina. I don't know what they did to the suspension in '69-70 versus '67-68, but whatever it was, seemed to be a big improvement! The Bonneville also had 225/75/R15 radial tires, while the Catalina had 215/75/R14 radials (and OEM was just a bias ply). So maybe that had something to do with it. The Bonneville also had disc brakes up front, compared to all drum for the Catalina. The Bonneville also had a smaller, more modern steering wheel, so maybe that even helped somewhat?

That Bonneville actually felt like a modern car in the way it handled...although by "modern" I was comparing it to the likes of a 1992 Caprice or Crown Vic.

There was an article on the 1974-77 C-body Plymouth Fury/Gran Fury in a recent issue of Collectible Automobile. In it, they mentioned that traditionally the Plymouth was always the most fun-to-drive of the big, low-priced cars, and often by a wide margin. It wasn't until 1977 and the downsizing of the Impala/Caprice, that Chevy would wrest the fun-to-drive title from Plymouth when it came to big cars.

I'd be curious to try a '71-76 GM big car again, so I can see how it would compare to my '67 Catalina.

fintail

745s have their own issues too.

If that Impala is really nice, what is it, maybe a 5K car? 745s aren't there yet (but they will be)

fintail

That white Impala reminds me of something - years ago, back in the mid 90s, I went to an estate sale, and the car being sold off from the estate was a 74-75 fullsize Chevy "Spirit of America" - white with red and blue pinstripes, matching interior, and I think it had some kind of wheel color coding - a Bicentennial special edition no doubt. It was extremely clean and nice, they wanted $1500 for it. But I can't remember if it was a notchback or that larger version like in the BMW trade ad.

andre1969

I don't know much about the Spirit of America edition, but Wikipedia says that they were all Sport Coupes (the hardtop style). Here's a pic they have, which is the pic I'm most familiar with, as it's in several of my Consumer Guide classic car books...


I was always curious...since the Bicentennial was in 1976, why did Chevy choose to do this Spirit of America stuff for '74? Chevy also offered Spirit of America packages for the Vega and Nova.

fintail

That looks familiar I guess, my memory is hazy. I want to say it had a 400 in it, but I could be wrong. It seemed like a huge bargain and I am sure it sold. I remember I thought about buying it for a moment, maybe to flip it, but I think I was just out of high school then and needed something like that in no way.

Not worth a lot today, but very rare anyway.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh definitely the 745 will be down to $5K. The 7 Series BMWs depreciate like a large rock off a bridge.

texases

You can find 745s for about $11k already...

Mr_Shiftright

They probably go down to around $1500 eventually.

fintail

The x45 cars are ones I have noticed locally sometimes with a puff of blue smoke from the exhaust - doesn't bode well.

ab348

Our '74 Impala was not a very compelling car. It was a pretty basic car, dark red metallic with a cloth interior in a pretty unattractive black and gray herringbone fabric. It had the base 350 V-8 and with the emissions controls it never ran right - it would almost die when you gave it some gas at a stop and then jerk forward - a really lean mixture I suppose, since it didn't do that when the engine was cold and the choke was still engaged.

The problem wasn't that it was horrible in any particular way - it was just so damn big! I remember driving it on a 2-lane highway and it was a job to keep on the pavement when oncoming traffic passed. And of course parking lots and the like were a challenge too. It was smooth and quiet the way big GM cars were back then, but was a real chore to drive around town. The best thing I can say for it was that the body styling and exterior design in general was good.

uplanderguy

My parents had a new '74 Impala Sport Coupe, that baby-diarrhea non-metallic pale green with white painted top and light green pattern cloth interior that looked elegant I think. Right next to the car on the dealer's lot was the same car (same price to the dollar), but in dark maroon with a white painted top and the black and white herringbone cloth interior, which I liked much better. I lost that argument to Dad! Bottom of sticker on both: $4,408.00

Dad never went for the Custom Coupe either...saw it mostly as "no roll-down back windows??". At the time I thought the Custom Coupe was more elegant, but in hindsight I like the Sport Coupe a lot better. If I had to order a '75 Impala, I'd order a totally loaded Sport Coupe--a rare sight in '75. Hated the '75 full wheelcovers though...looked like a moon with a trim ring. The '74 wheelcovers were also the '70 wheelcovers.

I remember the car being quiet and very smooth; however, when Dad traded for a '77 Impala coupe in Nov. '76, I preferred it in most every way to the '74. I didn't like the '77's plasticky dash (Caprice dash trimmed much nicer), but the '77 had soft vinyl door panels the whole way down unlike the '74 which had plastic at the bottom half. The '77 was tauter riding, quieter, accelerated better even with a 305, and of course got much better gas mileage.

ab348

Yeah, the downsized '77 B-bodies were real winners. Very nice cars in every way.

uplanderguy

For how much I like the looks of the '73 GM midsize colonnade coupes with the large quarter windows, the '74 and later full-size Chevy Custom Coupes looked clunky in comparison. That center pillar was enormous, and straight up and down, not 'raked' liked the mid-sized cars were. On the other hand, I dislike the B-O-P rooflines even less, although they got you a small roll-down quarter window.

isellhondas

The worst thing they did in 1977 was to install the Turbo 200's in full sized Impalas and Caprices.

The transmission shops loved them! They would sometimes convert them to a 350 THM.

They were almost as much trouble as the 1957-1961 Turboglides that were pure junk and usually converted to a Powerglide.

ab348

I wonder how prevalent the TH-200s were in those cars. I believe it's debut was in '78, not '77 models. I owned two B-bodies, a '79 Impala and a '78 Olds Delta, and they both had TH-350s.

fintail

I have a friend who had an 83 Monte Carlo for his first car, I think it had a TH200 or TH250, 305. I don't know the mileage when it failed, but I remember it failed. He had a TH350 installed, I think. I think he still owns the car, sitting out to pasture on his dad's rural land.

texases

"The problem wasn't that it was horrible in any particular way - it was just so damn big! I remember driving it on a 2-lane highway and it was a job to keep on the pavement when oncoming traffic passed."

Reminds me of our drivers ed cars in '72 - LeSabres, my teacher complimented me on keeping it 'on the pavement' on his favorite narrow two-lane 'torture test'.

isellhondas

We bought a beautiful used 1977 Caprice Classic from a GM exec whose wife drove it sparingly. It was a 305 with the TH 200.

We sold it when it was only about four years old and before the transmission gave us any trouble.

That transmission should heve never been installed in the larger cars!

berri

Was that the infamous Chevette Transmision GM put on some V8's? You would have thought after the just previous Chevymobile engine debacle that the company would have learned. Bigness = Arrogance.