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

gsemike

@stever said:
I like the Rancheros and El Caminos and hope to see a lot more of those when we get moved to NM next month.

I don't mind them but the little Falcon based ones always seemed weird to me. Given the size of trucks then, not sure what you'd do with one

stever

I'm more partial to the El Caminos (and I guess most people are) but the appeal to me is the truck utility, but it's a car. Be perfect for speeding to the garden centers for straw and shrubs (and getting pulled over by the cops while doing so). Mostly it's just fun to see them.

andre1969

Those Falcon-based Rancheros were pretty tough. You could cube a Lincoln in the car crusher, and it would fit nicely back there!

stever

Heh, I see you found the Goldfinger reference too, @andre1969.

andre1969

I wonder how the load rating on an El Camino was back in the day, compared to a full-sized half-ton truck? I'd imagine the '59-60, being full-sized, had a pretty good payload capacity.

The '73-77 models probably had a good payload capacity as well. Believe it or not, my '76 LeMans has a higher capacity than my '85 Silverado does! At least, the GVWR is slightly higher....5622 lb for the LeMans versus 5600 for the pickup. I know the truck weighs about 4200 lb, from driving it on the scale at the dump. Not sure what the LeMans weighs...I'd guess around 3800-4000 lb?

I've seen some of those midsized GM wagons with GVWRs of around 6,000 lb, and rated to tow up to 4,000 lb, so I'd imagine the El Camino variant would be similar?

ab348

The Cutlass is a pretty basic model judging from the interior, and if it was running the 260 V-8, which a lot did, it would be a real slug. Pass.

I love the T-Bird! That seems very nice and the price isn't outrageous.

The Porsche is lovely-looking. At 121,000 miles, though, I wonder if you aren't looking at a second engine rebuild soon?

bhill2

@ab348 said:
I love the T-Bird! That seems very nice and the price isn't outrageous.

It may be because I live in California, but I consider a Tbird ('58 on) that doesn't have A/C to be seriously compromised. It just seems out of character for a personal luxury car.

Mr_Shiftright

The 450SL is a parts car. Run from it like your hair was on fire.

'79 Porsche would have to be exceptionally nice for that price, and even then, more like $22.5K. No problem with the miles. A Porsche engine is good for 250K easy if it's been rebuilt right. $10,000 seems a little light for a rebuild, so I'd want to see the invoices. The 78-83 SC is a very good car---but you know, it's not modern in terms of creature comforts.

60 T-Bird is priced about 1/2 real value so this is a car needing a thorough PPI.

69 Z-28: Well, if you've lost the original 302 on a Z28, you've lost just about everything. Kinda pricey for what's left of it. Let's put a stunning #2 car at $48,000....can to get to THAT from THIS? Figure $8K paint and body, $4K chrome, $4K interior (or more) $5K frame and chassis, $6K date correct motor, then rebuilt brakes, differential, transmission another $6K, add 20% fudge factor---gee, you might as well just go buy a done one.

andre1969

@ab348 said:
The Cutlass is a pretty basic model judging from the interior, and if it was running the 260 V-8, which a lot did, it would be a real slug. Pass.

Yeah, even though that Cutlass has a cloth interior, I think around that time, cloth was actually the base material on them, with vinyl being an option and then a nicer level of cloth being the next option up. I do like, though, how they put a cloth accent on the door panels to match the material on the seats. Pontiac never did that with the LeMans, at least not in '73-77. Regardless of whether you got cloth or vinyl, the door panel was still vinyl. Only difference was that the base LeMans had no carpeting on the door panels, whereas the Grand LeMans used the same lower panels as that Cutlass, with the carpeting glued on. And, they actually went through the effort to use a different lower plastic slab for the carpeted, versus non-carpeted models.

Consumer Reports tested a Cutlass Supreme sedan in '77 with the 260. 0-60 in about 21.6 seconds. It's a shame that Olds didn't offer something in the 301/305 range to bridge the gap between the tiny V-8 and the 350. But, Chevy have the 305 until 1976, and Pontiac didn't have the 301 until '77, so their midsized cars didn't bridge that gap until towards the end of the run of that '73-77 design.

Being in Canada, your '77 LeMans had a Chevy 305, didn't it?

ab348

@andre1969 said:
Being in Canada, your '77 LeMans had a Chevy 305, didn't it?

That's correct. Seemed OK, though certainly not past, but about average for the times. Wish I could find some pics of it.

andre1969

@ab348 said:
That's correct. Seemed OK, though certainly not past, but about average for the times. Wish I could find some pics of it.

>

I've heard a lot of criticism of the Chevy 305, although it's mainly by Mopar or Ford fanatics, or even Oldsmobile lovers who prefer the 307. But, the two I've had were decent engines. The first was in my Mom's old '86 Monte Carlo. 305-4bbl, but choked a bit to 150 hp. Still, it got decent performance, and fuel economy wasn't bad for the time. it made it to around 192,000 miles, when I got t-boned delivering pizzas. Still ran pretty good, although it would smoke a bit on start up and hard acceleration.

The other is the 165 hp 305-4bbl in my '85 Silverado. Considering the truck weighs about 4200 lb, and it just has a 3-speed automatic and a tall 2.56:1 axle, I think it performs pretty well. I don't know what an official 0-60 time would be on it, but I've timed it with a stopwatch, and it comes up at around 12 seconds. Which is about the same as my '76 LeMans, which is a bit lighter, but has a Pontiac 350-4bbl. My '79 5th Ave is just a touch quicker. Also a bit lighter than the truck, probably about the same weight as the LeMans, and with a 360-2bbl. For a few years, my uncle had a 1980 Chevy pickup with a 350-4bbl, and it was actually slower than my '85. It was also heavier though; a 3/4 ton model, where mine is just a 1/2 ton. I don't know how much weight the 3/4 ton added. I also don't know how it was geared. Before my uncle bought it off his aunt, it was used to tow a 30 foot trailer, so I'd think it would be geared shorter. But the few times I drove it, it was a dog.

I'd imagine, that the 4-bbl on the 305's I've had probably helped. The 70's 305 was just a 2-bbl, and usually put out 140-145 hp, although it was cut to 130 in '79, when the 4-bbl version came out with 160 hp that year.

isellhondas

Anyone?

http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/cto/4614024675.html

Too far gone but it could have been a nifty little car!

Mr_Shiftright

Maybe a couple of little pieces off that Buick---trim parts, might be worth saving, but not $1500 worth, that's for sure. They aren't worth that much even restored.

xwesx

At least the owner is realistic. "Needs to be loved or put to sleep."

andre1969

Are those Buick Special convertibles rare enough that someone would be willing to take the doors, fenders, hood, etc, even if they have some rust, and patch them up? Or cut the good parts off of them to use as patches on another project?

Or are these cars common enough that a restorer would be able to just go and find rust free doors, fenders, etc, if needed? Or, are these just the types of cars that if you really want one, you can easily just go find a nice one, and not have to deal with the hassle of putting this one back together?

Mr_Shiftright

they are sorta kinda rare by American standards (about 16,000 convertibles in 1962, both Specials and Skylarks) but not particularly valuable. A panel with some rust is suspect throughout, so unless the sheet metal on a panel is very clean, it's unlikely to be used on another car.

I easily found some 62s and 63s for sale doing a search, and it seems like you can get a really nice "local show" car for $20K or under. So, given that, this example is definitely not worth restoring.

fintail

BIN price is optimistic, but this thing looks amazing, and is my favorite exterior color for a W123

Also to think that in 1984, this design was 8 years into the production run, and still had another year to go.

stickguy

that is the model that I think of when I think of what a Benz should be.

berri

I had a 79 Monte Carlo with a 4bbl 305. The engine performed alright, but after I had traded it I got something from the US courts about deficient (undersized0 transmissions being used on them. I'm thinking they actually shoved a Chevette auto tranny in it. Maybe that's the beef?

I had a 79 Cutlass with a 4bbl 350. That was a kind of heavy car and the engine was rather a pig. I can't imagine anything smaller in it. Honestly, my 4 banger Camry has more guts.

andre1969

GM came out with a lightweight transmission called the THM200, which was lightweight. IIRC, it was engineered for engines up to around 260 ft-lb of torque, and 6,000 lb of GVWR. I believe it was used in the Chevette, but in theory it could handle most engines in the 301/305/307 CID range. And I don't think any downsized car had a GVWR of 6,000 lb. I think some of the C-bodies, and perhaps the B-body wagons, might have pushed 5500-6000 lb in GVWR, but something like a Caprice sedan or coupe was only around 5000-5500, depending on engine/axle ratio/suspension upgrades, etc.

However, the transmission was built to a fairly tight tolerance at the time, and couldn't take much abuse. Tight tolerances in those days weren't always a good thing, because the technology just wasn't there to make production consistent, so they did have a somewhat high failure rate. And in the bigger, heavier cars, they tended to fail more often.

Eventually though, that transmission was improved enough that the 4-speed version, the THM200R4, was used in cars like the Buick Regal Grand National, most of the B-body wagons, etc.

I think the THM200 had quicker first and second gear ratios than the beefier THM350. I think first was around 2.74:1, compared to around 2.52:1 for the 350 transmission? I wonder if that would be enough difference to make a 305-4bbl a bit quicker off the line than an Olds 350-4bbl?

Also, was your '79 Cutlass the Hurst model? I've heard that GM initially didn't allow any of those downsized intermediates to have a 350, because they didn't want to deal with certifying them for emissions testing. However, there was one year that Olds got around it, by building 2499 Olds Cutlass Hurst models with the Olds 350-4bbl. It had already been certified for larger cars like the Delta 88, Ninety-Eight, and Toronado. If they built 2500 or more, it would have had to have been certified.

However, I've heard that there was a year or two that Chevy put their 350 in the Malibu wagon. And back in the late 80's, I knew someone, a substitute teacher at my high school, who had a '79 Malibu coupe, and he said it had a 350 and that it came from the factory that way. Oh, and Chevy offered a police Malibu from 1979-83, and it was available with a 350. Even though the downsized Malibu came out for '78, that year, the Nova was still Chevy's "small" police car.

GM also did some funny things in those days, like putting the small THM200 in the V-8 cars, but using a THM350 in some of the inline-6 and V-6 cars. The reasoning, I've heard, is that the 6-cyl cars would still pass the fuel economy requirements with the beefier transmission so they'd often just throw in one or the other, but the V-8 cars wouldn't, so they would to take a chance with the lighter transmission on the V-8 cars.

I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme with the THM350 transmission and a 231 V-6, and oddly, it failed. But I had an '80 Malibu with a 229 V-6 and the THM200, and never had any issues...Mom bought it new, and I sold it with 100,000 miles on it. My '86 Monte Carlo and '85 LeSabre also had the 4-speed variant, and never any issues, although I do remember at one point, when Grandmom and Granddad still had it, the LeSabre had some problem where the 4th gear wouldn't always disengage when you slowed down, and it would stall the car. it was just some sensor, though.

isellhondas

We had a 1977 Chevy Caprice with the 305 engine and a turbo 200 transmission.

A guy I knew who owned a transmission shop said he could not believe GM would use that puny transmission in a full sized Chevy with a V-8 engine!

He said he had attended a class when the TH200's came out and the instructor's first words were "You guys are going to be making a lot of money working on these"

I didn't keep that Chevy long enough to have trouble with the transmission.

andre1969

I think one reason Pontiac Bonnevilles and Catalinas from the 1977-81 timeframe are somewhat rare is that they tended to use 301 V-8's, mated to the THM200 transmission. So, they got the suckiest engine AND the suckiest transmission! I think the Olds Delta 88 used the 301 for one year, although the LeSabre used it for a few years I think. However, Deltas and LeSabres, in '77-79 at least, were more likely to have 350 V-8's.

Oh, one other nail in the coffin for the THM200? GM actually had the gall to recommend a 100,000 mile service interval for the thing! It might be common for a transmission to go that long between servicings nowadays, but we really weren't ready for that in the 1970's!

When your THM200 goes out, I've heard it's actually cheaper to have a THM350 put in, rather than have it rebuilt.

fintail

A friend of mine had an 83 Monte Carlo with a 305/TH200. It actually lasted about 20 years - I think it failed around 2001 (he's my age, 2nd owner of the car). I am pretty sure it was replaced with a 350, like Andre mentions.

andre1969

@fintail said:
A friend of mine had an 83 Monte Carlo with a 305/TH200. It actually lasted about 20 years - I think it failed around 2001 (he's my age, 2nd owner of the car). I am pretty sure it was replaced with a 350, like Andre mentions.

That reminds me...another thing GM did back then that was kinda annoying...delaying putting the 4-speed automatic into their smaller cars. When it came out for 1981, it was only offered in the B/C bodies, as well as the Eldo/Toro/Riv/Seville, but not in the midsized cars.

I don't think it went into the midsized cars until 1984. It seems to me that if they would've offered it earlier on in those midsized cars, it would have helped boost their CAFE ratings in those fuel-conscious times.

Also, interestingly, it was never offered with the small 260/265/267 V-8's, although Cadillac offered it with the 249 V-8. It was, however, offered as an option with the Buick 252 V-6, and the Chevy 262 V-6. Oh, and the Chevy 229, and the RWD Buick 231-2bbl V-6 never offered it, although the turbocharged Grand National did.

I wonder if it was never offered with the 229 and 231 V-6 because those engines were already so weak, that they'd be absolutely useless once they went into overdrive? They both had around 110-115 hp depending on year, but I think the 229 only had around 175 ft-lb of torque. The 231 had 190 ft-lb, which isn't far off from the 195 that the Caddy 249 V-8 had, so it might have adapted to it better.

Still, I guess they had their reasons for not offering the 4-speed automatic with some of those engines.

explorerx4

Took me 7 weeks to go through a tank of gas, more or less, in the Mustang. It's only the second fill up this year. Mileage worked out to 21+, so it's back to running good and I'm pretty happy about it.

andre1969

I started up my '79 5th Ave and took it to the gas station for a fill-up yesterday. This was the first time it had been started since the Carlisle Mopar Nationals...5 weeks ago! It started on the second or third try...not too bad IMO for that kind of car. Heck, even when new, they wouldn't always start on the second or third try!

The last fill-up before that was the Friday before I took it to Carlisle, and this time I just went up and came back on the same day, so that tank was mostly highway miles, although there was a little stop and go local driving in there, along with some back roads and such. Fuel economy came out to about 17.3 mpg. Not bad at all in my opinion, for that type of car.

The best I've ever done with it was around 22 mpg, but that was on a pure highway run (stopping to refuel, getting back on the highway, and not having to stop for anything at all until the next gas station) And even then, it won't do that consistently. 18-19 mpg is more like it, usually. And around town, I'm lucky to hit 10. FWIW, I think its original EPA estimate was something like 14/22, 17 combined. At least, that's the rating for the typical 1978 Mopar intermediate with a 360-2bbl (Fury, Monaco, Cordoba, etc). For some reason, the EPA website only lists the city rating of '79 cars, and they have my New Yorker down at 14. In those days though, 14/22 was the raw number...I wonder what that would correlate to in today's downward-revised ratings? Maybe 10/18?

stever

Need help with buying 1971 Chevy Nova

Mr_Shiftright

Lotsa red flags on that one!

fintail

The fintail can do 5 weeks idle with a first or second turn start without a problem. Although now that it doesn't have a working charging system, the next start might be interesting. It might go back to the shop next week to get a replacement generator, I can't wait for the fun. I spent a day detailing the car, and have demanded it stays indoors, as somehow cars parked at this facility end up looking like barn finds if parked outside, and I am not going to break my back cleaning it again.

fintail

Has to be one of the nicest survivor 6.9s in existence - also maybe the most expensive

Mr_Shiftright

Reaching for the stars there---finest one in the world, like new, pristine, a jewel, perfection---maybe $40K. And one that looks almost as good from 3 feet away? $17,500.

xwesx

@andre1969 said:
I started up my '79 5th Ave and took it to the gas station for a fill-up yesterday. This was the first time it had been started since the Carlisle Mopar Nationals...5 weeks ago! It started on the second or third try...not too bad IMO for that kind of car. Heck, even when new, they wouldn't always start on the second or third try!

I put fuel in my '69 C20 for the first time this year on Saturday. I was headed into town to get a load of lumber. Man, I totally should have taken a photo of it before unloading! Hahah. I had six 1.75"x9.25"x20' Versa-Lams in it, along with 19, 15, and 5 sticks of 2x6x16, 2x6x10, and 2x6x12, respectively. Overall, it was a reasonable load, but not too insane (other than over 10' of lumber sticking out the back of the bed!). Sadly, I think the welds on the tailgate are weakening, because one of them popped when I put the versalams on it, so I had to reposition the whole load to take the weight off that side. One of these days, I'll remember it is 45 years old and maybe start taking it easy on the old girl.

I was amazed at how many people "saw me" in town this weekend. Seems like everyone I ever knew did so! I even had one person stop me from my college days (the last time I had it out) and start talking about how they "recognized me immediately," etc.

When I first started the truck up a couple weeks ago, it took 8-10 rotations to get it to light, which is about right after sitting for that long. I fired it up once in late May just to do so (didn't move it), and it was last August before that.

I am definitely not going to start talking about "fuel economy." Fuel economy is turning it into a lawn ornament for good! LOL

texases

Just in case you're curious - Edmunds had a BIG repair bill on their "bargain" Benz:

• http://www.edmunds.com/mercedes-benz/cl-class/2005/long-term-road-test/2005-mercedes-benz-cl65-amg-multiple-cylinder-misfires.html
• And they only fixed the required stuff, wonder what the rest of the $14,000 estimate (YIKES) was for....

stever

@xwesx said:
I was amazed at how many people "saw me" in town this weekend.

Time to move.

stickguy

and just hope you weren't out with your GF instead of wife.

Mr_Shiftright

Wait'll you see repair bills from Ferrari owners. This is minor league.

@texases said:
Just in case you're curious - Edmunds had a BIG repair bill on their "bargain" Benz:

• http://www.edmunds.com/mercedes-benz/cl-class/2005/long-term-road-test/2005-mercedes-benz-cl65-amg-multiple-cylinder-misfires.html
• And they only fixed the required stuff, wonder what the rest of the $14,000 estimate (YIKES) was for....

xwesx

@stickguy said:
and just hope you weren't out with your GF instead of wife.

Wait a minute... did you guys see me, too?! I wonder if dark sunglasses and a hat would help.

xwesx

But, now that you mention it, I have an anniversary tomorrow! Holy cow - 14 years.

stever

Well, an animal is the traditional gift for the 14th per Hallmark, but I'd stick to Huskies and not add a cow to the family menagerie. Wiki says it's ivory, so maybe an oosik.

(I suspect the '69 C20 was the main reason people recognized you - there's probably a running bet on when it'll finally die. Sort of like the ice classic - when will it go out).

stickguy

14 years?

Rookie.

fintail

Took the fintail back to the shop to deal with the perished generator - started on the first turn of the key and only a few turns of the starter. Not bad. Ran pretty nicely, too. Gotta love old cars with few electronics.

Mr_Shiftright

Mercedes Graveyard:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/cto/4607137374.html

I doubt he'll sell anything at his unrealistic group pricing. These all look like parts cars to me.

HERE is more realistic pricing for tatty Benzes:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/cto/4615663076.html

AND YOU TOO can sacrifice your leisure time onto the altar of the Cult of Veggie Diesels!

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/cto/4615677686.html

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/4624231146.html

LOOKS LIKE Grandpa hit a few mailboxes, but otherwise a somewhat rare piece:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/4627330558.html

GIMME YOUR WALLET and nobody gets hurt!

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/cto/4627764633.html

I AM SPEECHLESS:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/cto/4626137794.html

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/cto/4621156409.html

METHINKS THE SELLER IS CONFUSED about what he owns:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/ctd/4583603160.html

fintail

Graveyard seller has an extra digit somewhere in the price. $1500 fintail seems harmless enough, just slow. 280SE owner thinks he has an immaculate 3.5. SL would be a money pit, drive til it breaks and part it? 300CD looks like an odd base car, no roof (?), looks like tex, hubcaps. Ponton isn't what I'd call a restoration with attention to detail. Grille on the 300SD is so 80s.

@Mr_Shiftright said:
Mercedes Graveyard:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/cto/4607137374.html

andre1969

@stever said:
(I suspect the '69 C20 was the main reason people recognized you - there's probably a running bet on when it'll finally die. Sort of like the ice classic - when will it go out).

>

I still get that, occasionally, when I drive my Granddad's old '85 Silverado, which has been in the family since it was new, and spent most of its life in the area. The only exception was from around 1997-2002...Grandmom gave it to my Mom in Southern MD, and then she sold it to me.

I'll have people say to me "Is that Jesse's truck", or "Isn't that your Grandfather's truck". Although, it's happening less and less, as Granddad died in 1990. So most of the people who would remember him have either passed on, themselves, or moved away. But, because we kept the truck for so long, for awhile, I think people thought Granddad was still alive.

stever

Kind of a sweet remembrance. We (or I should say the estate) just sold my MIL's Buick but there's so many of them around here you'd be hard pressed to recognize who owned what.

andre1969

What kind of Buick was it? I'm actually trying to wean myself off of older cars, as daily drivers at least. But, I found a 2007 V-8 Lucerne for sale locally, with only 36,000 miles, for something like $12-13K. And, somewhat rare even for a luxury GM car of that era, it has a sunroof! It's also a light sage green, which may hurt resale a bit, but it's a color I find appealing.

I still have to remind myself though, that even though it seems recent, that's a car almost eight model years old now. In contrast, my 2000 Park Ave was ten model years old when I bought it, so I'm really not moving up that far, on the newness factor.

And, after I had it for a bit, I might end up getting tired of it. For one thing, I don't think the Northstar in a Lucerne is any quicker than the supercharged 3.8 in my Park Ave. It's still going to require premium fuel. And I think the EPA rating is slightly worse. The Lucerne is also a bit smaller inside than my Park Ave, despite the longer wheelbase, so that might make it feel like a step down to me. To be fair though, any car built today is going to be smaller inside than my Park Ave. Except maybe those long-wheelbase A8's, 7-Series, S-class type cars.

stever

2002 Buick LeSabre. The in-law who's the out of state executor worked a lot with our neighbor and her best friend to sort out the personal property and the best friend traded some hours for part of the payment. I think she paid $1,800 and she's having to special order a battery (one of those that goes under the back seat) and the brake and traction control lights are on (one shop said it's a bad ECU, around a $400 fix with the programming). The miles were around 80,000 and the front end was smashed a few winters back. That was fixed but there's a couple of other dents. It was a good driver - I was afraid my wife was going to snag it when we were trying to downsize the fleet.

It does seem like every third car here is just like the MIL's. They sold their Bimmer and got it since it's hard to find GM mechanics in parts of the UP, much less someone who can work on an "exotic".

Michaell

@andre1969 said:
I'll have people say to me "Is that Jesse's truck", or "Isn't that your Grandfather's truck". Although, it's happening less and less, as Granddad died in 1990. So most of the people who would remember him have either passed on, themselves, or moved away. But, because we kept the truck for so long, for awhile, I think people thought Granddad was still alive.

My dad is the same way with his '70 Chevy. Bright orange, so very noticeable around town. He's owned it since new, but doesn't get driven very often anymore.

qbrozen

A couple came up in my search this morn that grabbed my attention. Any opinions on these?

'72 Olds



'64 Dodge

ab348

@qbrozen said:
A couple came up in my search this morn that grabbed my attention. Any opinions on these?

'72 Olds



'64 Dodge

Even though I'm an Olds fan and that '72 is in a nice color combo, I would be concerned with the "rust bubble under the vinyl roof" mention w/o any pics. Vinyl roofs are the source of so many rusted-out '70s cars by trapping moisture against the roof skin it is crazy. Also the front seat upholstery looks like it is ready to go and the steering wheel is baked. The Dodge really appeals to me for less money.