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

fintail

With that SVO, I get the feeling it sat outside for a long time.

explorerx4

Not sure how long it's been advertised, but I'm going to wait a few months to see if it sticks around.
Under the hood doesn't look good and there are definitely some unobtainium trim parts, but after looking at the pictures a few times, the exhaust system looks new.
Not my favorite color and no sunroof, but you just don't see them for sale.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think the SVO is a particularly high demand car. I mean it's more like a Merkur isn't it? A turbo Pinto?

hpmctorque

Well, maybe not great, but better than the Pinto, since the SVO rides on the Fox platform (think Fairmont/Zephyr).

Mr_Shiftright

Oh the Fox platform----so I can watch my windshield dance from side to side when I cross over railroad tracks?

I dunno about that car--it's a rough engine on a primitive chassis and not particularly attractive body---I'm groping here for the appeal on some level.

Oh maybe it's just ME :shades:

explorerx4

I have a Fox body convertible, so I was thinking I would be upgrading to a stiffer platform.

stickguy

You like the big Buicks, right? not my favorite color, but looks like a nice clean survivor. At an ambitious price.

http://southjersey.craigslist.org/cto/2934369210.html

fintail

Had a senior moment today - went to pick up the fintail...checked under the hood as I usually do, coolant oil and wires etc, removed the oil cap to make sure nothing looked bad, then went to close the trunk, and drove away. When I got home I could smell something odd. Notice I didn't say I replaced the oil cap. Luckily it fell into the plumbing for the FI and got caught. Surprisingly little mess made, just a small amount of oil on the hood directly under the hole, and a little around it, 5 minute clean up. Made me feel less than sharp anyway.

A random guy approached me in a parking lot and started talking about the car, I am still surprised at the attention it gets. He knew a little about old MB - he knew W110 vs W111 and all that, but he was in a 70 Chevelle. Running pretty well although it is pulling its warm weather stunt of being hard to start when hot, acts like it is flooded. Usually will start on the second turn of the key.

hpmctorque

That SVO has next to zero appeal to me now too, but the operative word is "now." I can't think of a single '86 model car in the SVO's price range that would appeal to me now. Of the '86 Mustangs, a V8 with the 5-speed would be a better choice, in my opinion. Being lighter and better balanced than the V8, I imagine the SVO handled better, but was also less reliable and durable.

A naturally aspirated Z or Supra probably wouldn't have cost much, if any, more than the SVO. Either would have been preferable, but a little slower. The turbo versions were in a higher price range than the SVO, and, therefore, not directly comparable.

Am I forgetting an obvious one?

Mr_Shiftright

Buick Grand National maybe?

You can help the Fox platform with frame stiffeners, but you should weld them in, not bolt them in.

Wasn't the '86 Stang the first year for fuel injection on that motor? That's a good thing.

stickguy

andre1969

I thought Ford started offering fuel injection on the 302 in 1983, but maybe that was just on cars like the Crown Vic and T-bird? I just looked at my 1985 Consumer Guide, and it's showing a Crown Vic with a TBI 302 and 140 hp, and a Mustang with a 302-4bbl carb, and 210 hp.

And, somewhat splitting the middle, is a Continental Mark VII LSC with a 180 hp 302 TBI. And interestingly, it's billed as just a "Continental", rather than a "Lincoln" Continental!

hpmctorque

Wouldn't the Grand National be considerably more expensive, and, therefore, not comparable to the SVO?

Don't know about the fuel injection, but '86 sounds about right.

lemmer

Let's hope the SVO fan club isn't as nutty as Fiero/DeLorean/Etc. types. They might hunt you down. But I agree.

Mr_Shiftright

1986 was the first year for the 5.0 HO engine to get MPFI--I think some earlier years had it in smaller engines.

1986 was also the end of the SVO. The SVO club is certainly welcome to love their cars, but facts are facts, and the fact is that the SVO was taken off the market because the V8 Mustangs gave you equal or better performance for a lot less money.

I think the Buick GN and the SVO were priced just about the same---the GN might have actually been cheaper! :surprise:

So you see the SVO "problem"---you could buy equal or more HP, and more "car", for less money

DeLorean: Well what can I say? There's really nothing whatsoever exceptional about the car--it's a Volvo with funny doors and a vastly unfulfilled promise.

hpmctorque

Didn't realize that the GN cost the same or less than the SVO. I agree with you completely, then, that the GN is the better car.

That jointly developed Volvo-Peugeot-Renault V6 used in the DeLorean was known for having issues. A friend owned a Volvo with one, and it was trouble.

duff333

All, good afternoon. I have a buddy who is looking at a 1971 GMC 4X4 Sierra. Nice repaint a few years back, rebuilt 350 and transmission, rebuilt transfer case (all in last year), has 65K miles on body (which is in good shape), no A/C. Truck drives and looks nice, etc...no rust isues....any rough idea as to what a nice driver truck of that vintage with 4X4 is worth these days??

Also, a guy at work here has a DeLorean...I wonder how much they'd be worth if Back to the Future never used that car. Maybe have??

Thanks

Mr_Shiftright

Well aside from electrical problems, leaks, no power and a finish that makes every one you sell look exactly like every other one you sell----it's fine!

Hey, 130 HP, 0-60 in 11 seconds and 18 mpg---what's not to like? :P

You know, when nobody builds a car using glued-on stainless steel panels for the previous 100 years, that should tell you something.

andre1969

My old car book is showing the SVO MSRP as...

$15,596 in 1984
$14,521 in 1985
$15,272 in 1986.

In comparison, for the Grand National...

$12,118 in 1984 (this was actually the T-type...Grand National was a package on top of that and I'm not sure how much extra it was)
$13,315 in 1985
$14,349 in 1986
$15,136 in 1987

My old car book also mentions that the V-8 Mustang GT was faster than the SVO in any given year, and a lot less fussy to drive.

As for pricing, I wonder if the SVO came pretty-much fully-loaded, with power windows and all the niceties? The Buick Grand National was actually pretty basic. You still had to pay extra for power windows, locks, upgraded stereo, T-tops, etc. Air conditioning might have been standard, but I'm not sure. It was still optional in the regular Regal Custom/Limited.

For some reason, when Pontiac came out with that lame Grand Prix 2+2 aeroback for 1986-87, it came fully loaded, and as a result, cost more than a Grand National, Monte SS, or Cutlass 4-4-2. But, whereas the Monte used a 180 hp 305, the 4-4-2 had a 180 hp 307, and the Grand National/T-type had a turbo 3.8 putting out 200+ hp, the GP 2+2 just used a tame 150 hp 305-4bbl. The same engine that would have gone into a regular Monte Carlo, Bonneville G, or Grand Prix. And the 305 that went in the Impala/Caprice and Parisienne was actually stronger, with 165 hp.

gsemike

The SVO is an interesting car because a number of the styling cues became standard for all Mustangs in 87 such as the front treatment and spoiler. But whether the miles are legit or missing a 1 at the front, that one is rough for the money. The headlights are completely yellow, the color is faded out from the spoiler and why shoot the backseat instead of the front? The car could have 218k with the backseat having been say in 3 times.
It was an interesting idea that wasn't very well executed and got buried by it's GT brethren.
Even in today's dollar, find a turbo regal T Type for the same dough. They seem to command less than GNs but are I believe, mechanically identical.

gsemike

I changed the air filter on my wife's 04 Sienna over the weekend. Do they make it a b**** to change these things on purpose???? What exactly was wrong with one wing nut?

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, things were just as bad in the old days...to remove the air filter housing on a Fiat you had 8 bolts, all locknuts (so you have to turn them all the way out with a wrench, no fingers allowed) AND they were 3 different sizes!

Wingnuts might rattle loose and get caught in a lawyer's briefcase!

hpmctorque

Interesting, thanks.

The way they're optioned could make a significant difference, in terms of an apples-to-apples comparison. If they were the same price, my choice for '86 would be GN, first; Mustang V8, second; SVO, third. The Monte, 4-4-2 and GP don't do much for me, although of these three I'd prefer the 4-4-2. Come to think of it, I'd put all five above the SVO. Now, between a SVO and a Merkur...no, I won't go there.

xwesx

Hahahaha; that happened to me once (when I was much less "senior" than I am now) when driving my '69 Chevy pickup on our cross-country trip. I checked the oil in Fort Nelson, BC on the way home, and found it to be low enough to warrant another quart. I added the quart, closed the hood, finished the fuel stop, and off we went! Then, in Watson Lake, I went to check the oil again and found it was about a quart low again! I was surprised, since it tended to run 1,500 miles per quart, and then received a bit more of a surprise as I went around the other side to pop off the filler cap.

Lucky me, it was mid-day on a week day, there was a NAPA in town, and they had a replacement cap in stock. My original cap ended up littering the highway somewhere in the intervening 320 miles.

-----

Yesterday, I put a new starter in my old '69 Econoline. While it cranked magnificently afterward, it still didn't want to light up. It was getting fuel, so I figured it was a weak spark and was probably time to replace some things anyway. $120 and two hours later, I had a new coil, points, spark plug wires, and spark plugs installed in it.

To my amazement, the van started the moment I turned the key, and it ran smooth as butter (for a 302 V8). I was pleased and left wondering why I hadn't done that a few years ago!

Long live antique cars!

explorerx4

It's funny, I gave up on the Mustang SVO topic, but it got a second life.
I had an '86 Mustang GT, yes first fuelie V8 Mustang.
Closest i ever was to fantasizing I was Steve McQueen.
Still want one of those late SVO's.

Mr_Shiftright

I think one has to view the SVO as a product of its time--the desperate 80s, when most cars were not sexy, not fast, and not desirable. The SVO was an attempt, I think, to breath a little life into a moribund Mustang, as least until the V8 HO could get its mojo back.

stickguy

this was also the time when the domestics started feeling heat from the europeans (outside of the cheap small car arena). So, there was a push for "euro" models (heck, Chevy even called their's "eurosport") So I looked at the SVO as trying to appeal to a different type of buyer than a traditional gut-thumping V8 GT afficianado.

texases

I bet there's a turbo 4 in one of the 'new' 50th anniversary Mustangs...just a LITTLE better than that old SVO rock crusher.

gsemike

Right. Wasn't that SVO the same old pushrod 4 with a turbo on it?

texases

It was the SOHC 4 with a turbo, 2.3 l, I think. First showed up here as an option for the Pinto, friend had one in a Capri (European). Later on the turbo version was in the SVO and Merkur. While it put out OK hp, it was known for its noise.

andre1969

It was the SOHC 4 with a turbo, 2.3 l, I think. First showed up here as an option for the Pinto, friend had one in a Capri (European).

Yep, that was it. I think the confusion arises because in 1984, Ford took what had been their old inline-6, cut off two cylinders, and came up with a 2.3 pushrod 4-cyl that went into the Tempo/Topaz. I think it also went in Bronco II's and Rangers, and a few years later, a 2.5 enlargement went into the Taurus for a few years.

fintail

You're lucky in that you were able to replace that cap right off the shelf - I don't know if I could pull into a NAPA and find an oil cap for an engine on an odd German car that went out of production in 1965 (although maybe it is interchangeable). I'm just happy it didn't make a big mess - when a transmission cooling line broke years ago, it made a horrible mess under the hood.

I think these old cars will be around when we are all long gone.

tjc78

I had an '86 Mustang GT, yes first fuelie V8 Mustang.

I just looked this up, I always thought the earlier Stangs had Ford's CFI (crappy fuel injection :P ) like the TC/Vic/GM.

andre1969

I just looked this up, I always thought the earlier Stangs had Ford's CFI (crappy fuel injection ) like the TC/Vic/GM.

Yeah, I remember having to look that up as well. For some reason, I was thinking that the Mustang GT had fuel injection in '85 and the Camaro IROC had a 4-bbl, but looking in my 1985 Consumer Guide, just reinforced that sometimes I get a bit lysdexic! :P Had 'em backwards!

For some reason I was thinking that the fuel injection Ford used starting in '83 was PFI, but it was just TBI...essentially a carburetor with a fuel injector nozzle in it. For some reason though, in those days it often seemed like Ford did just as good with a 302 and 140 hp or so as GM did with a 150-165 hp 305. Maybe Ford tended to use slightly quicker gearing?

tjc78

Ford did just as good with a 302 and 140 hp or so as GM did with a 150-165 hp 305. Maybe Ford tended to use slightly quicker gearing

Most of the cars had 2.73s or 3.08s. I think the CFI 5.0s (even the later SEFI models too) had most of their torque down low so they got out of the gate pretty good. The early box Panthers never felt slow to me and my 89 LTC with duals certainly wasn't fast, but more than adequate for what it was.

andre1969

Now that I think about it, GM's 4-speed automatics of that era also tended to upshift a bit early, unless you really, really stomped on them, or shifted them manually.

My grandmother's 85 LeSabre had the 307 and a 2.73:1 axle. In normal driving it felt sluggish, but if you did the aforementioned, performance seemed to open up quite a bit.

The 307 was also pretty torquey, something like 255 ft-lb, and it was around 1600-2000 rpm. I think it also hit its 140 peak hp at around 3200 rpm. Another thing I noticed about that car, is that once you got it above 85 mph, where the speedometer pegged, it seemed to catch its second wind! I wonder if that's simply because it was geared so tall, that 85+ mph was where it got back into its peak power range in 4th gear?

My '85 Silverado actually takes off pretty good IMO, considering the weight of the thing. Its 305-4bbl has 165 hp, but it weighs about 4200 lb. And just has a 3-speed THM350 transmission and a 2.56:1 axle. I've seen some publications that only put the LeSabre at around 3500-3600 lb, which seems awfully light to me. I know back in those days, Buick/Olds did tend to weigh a bit less than their Chevy/Pontiac counterparts. Part of it was that the Olds 307 weighed a bit less than a Chevy 305. But supposedly Buick/Olds took a few other weight saving measures that Pontiac/Chevy didn't. Supposedly the bumpers were a bit lighter. And, in the case of the LeSabre at least, they used gas struts to hold up the hood, rather than hinges.

texases

"For some reason I was thinking that the fuel injection Ford used starting in '83 was PFI, but it was just TBI...essentially a carburetor with a fuel injector nozzle in it."

Well, it was more than that in how TBI cars drove. Our '95 Suburban had TBI and never had any fuel-related issues, unlike the electronified carb monstrosities TBI replaced. Not the most fuel-efficient, sure, but TBI allowed for all the computer controls needed to give good cold starts and drivability.

Mr_Shiftright

I think I had specified that it was the 5.0 HO that got fuel injection in 1986. I believe some Mustangs with other engines had it earlier.

tjc78

I looked it up and saw that the 85 V8 had a Holley carb. I could have sworn I've seen Ford V8s of the era with dual snorkel air cleaners that said EFI. Could it be the baby LTD cop cars?

tjc78

My grandmother's 85 LeSabre had the 307 and a 2.73:1 axle. In normal driving it felt sluggish, but if you did the aforementioned, performance seemed to open up quite a bit.

I was looking at a similar vintage LeSabre and thought for sure it felt slower than my 89 MGM. I never got it opened up on the highway to know for sure. 85+ in one of those old boats is always fun!

tjc78

I knew I've seen this before. Here is an example of an 84 GT HO EFI. 84

andre1969

I think I had specified that it was the 5.0 HO that got fuel injection in 1986. I believe some Mustangs with other engines had it earlier.

That's right, I keep forgetting that back in those days, the pony cars usually gave you one or two mediocre V-8 options, to fill the gap between the 4-cyl/6-cyl engines and the top, 200+ hp V-8's.

Nowadays, I guess even the base V-6 in today's crop of pony cars would beat out, or at least equal, the top Mustang/Camaro V-8's of 1985. My Consumer Guide didn't actually list the 0-60 time of the IROC or the Mustang GT it tested that year, but merely said "around 7 seconds", IIRC. The Camaro they tested had an automatic, while the Mustang had a 5-speed.

Mr_Shiftright

1986 was the first year for SFI --Sequential fuel injection, not throttle body...in other words "real" fuel injection :P

tjc78

Yeah on many Ford sites the early fuel injection is seriously frowned upon.

ab348

Back in '82 I had been working my first job for 2-3 years but was still living at home, so despite not making much in salary I was able to bank quite a bit of cash for a young guy. My dad was friendly with a sales guy at the local Chevy dealer and one day he told me that his friend had a new Camaro Z28 he was interested in showing me.

I went over to see him and he had a gold Z28 there, the first model year for the 3rd generation Camaro. It was either a dealer demo or some such thing, so it had a few miles on it but it was still in the current model year. I'm not sure if it had been registered or not. Those were still fairly uncommon around here at the time, especially the Z28, and this one sure looked good to a young guy like me. He gave me the keys and said I could keep it for the day.

I have never been so disappointed in all my life. While the design looked sharp, it rode harsh, like it had no springs at all. The interior was lots of black plastic and fake allen-head screws. This one had the optional Cross-Fire Injection 305 but it felt as if it had no more power than the 305 in the '77 LeMans I was driving at the time. In fact, I remember thinking that aside from the exterior styling, I liked my LeMans better in every way, with its white interior, bright and airy feeling cabin, and smooth ride.

I brought it back to him after about 4 hours and I think he was shocked that he couldn't do a deal, but the car was just totally underwhelming. We tend to forget how choked those early-80s Detroit engines were. The first-year 3rd-gen Camaros epitomized that problem.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, Cross Fire Injection is also why you can't give away a 1984 Corvette C4.

andre1969

Even the name just doesn't sound right. Sounds like an engine malfunction. As in "Stand back, son...that thing's about to crossfire!!"

Mr_Shiftright

they should have stuck with "CENTRAL INJECTION SYSTEM".

lemko

My 1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic had a 4.3 V-6 with that "throttle body: injection. Looked like the shell of a carbuerator with an injector mechanism in the center.

Mr_Shiftright

The Crossfire runs okay once you learn how to set it up but it's tricky to get right. If you're just a "fiddler", you're pretty much sunk.