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

sda

andre1969 said:

I know I've brought this up before, so sorry for the repeat...but CR tested a '77 Cutlass Supreme with the 260 V-8, and got 0-60 in around 21.6 seconds. I always thought it was an unfair test, because the other cars were an Impala (or Caprice?) with a 305, an LTD-II with a 302, and a Fury (or Monaco? same difference by that time) with a 318. The other three had 0-60 times in the 13 second range.

The most common engine in the Cutlass Supreme that year was the Olds 350-4bbl, which put out a fairly healthy (for the era) 170 hp. A 403 with 185 hp was the top option. However, the Cutlass didn't offer anything to bridge the gap between the 260 and the 350, so there was no way to equip one for a fair fight in this test. For comparison, the 318-2bbl and 305-2bbl both had 145 hp in 1977. The 302, according to my auto encyclopedia, only had 130 hp that year...but still probably had torque comparable to the 305 or 318.

I wonder why CR didn't just get a Malibu with the 305-2-bbl for this test, which would have made it comparable to the Impala.

As for a 260 vs a Chevy 250 6-cyl, both usually had the same hp, around 100-110, depending on the year. From what I could find on Wikipedia, the 250 had 190 ft-lb of torque, while the 260 had 205 ft-lb. I'm sure the 250 was lighter, though. So, put all those factors together, and I imagine performance was comparable.

One of my friends had an '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260. By that time I think it was down to 100 hp. I don't remember it being too bad at the time, but my friend looks back on it as the low point in his automotive history. He started with a '76 Cordoba with a 360, then a '78 Newport with a 400, then the Olds 260, and followed that up with three Panthers: a '95, '04, and '09. So I guess looking at it from that perspective, it was pretty lame.

I knew the Cutlass with 260 was slow, but wow, that is slow. The Regal with the 231 V6 would be an even match. Remember this was when we had the 55 mph speed limit, so you were breaking the law at 60!

andre1969

sda said:

I knew the Cutlass with 260 was slow, but wow, that is slow. The Regal with the 231 V6 would be an even match. Remember this was when we had the 55 mph speed limit, so you were breaking the law at 60!

This probably sounds a bit masochistic, but I'd be curious to see a drag race between '77 Regal 231, Cutlass 260, and Malibu 250. Maybe through in a Fury/Monaco with a 225 slant six, just for kicks.

In 1976, Buick even had the cojones to put the 231 in the big LeSabre! I used to think that was really stretching the limit of that engine too far, but in retrospect, the midsized cars had already gotten so bloated that the full-sizers weren't *that* much heavier. For instance, my book shows the base weight of a '76 Regal 350 V-8 sedan at 4,104 lb. A '76 LeSabre 350 sedan at 4,328 lb. So, in this case, a 224 lb difference.

With the V-6, a '76 LeSabre sedan had a base weight of 4170 lb. I can't pinpoint the weight of a V-6 Century sedan, because this particular book averages the V-6 and V-8 weights on models where both were offered. However, the Regal sedan was only offered as a V-8, although the more popular coupe came with a V-6 or V-8.

I saw one of those V-6 LeSabres about 10 years ago, at a car show in Macungie, PA. It was a 4-door hardtop, kind of a light putty color as I recalled. It was in good shape and priced pretty reasonably, I thought. But once I saw that V-6, I was turned off.

Those small V-8's probably made a lot more sense once the cars started downsizing. C&D or MT did a test of an '81 Grand Prix with the Pontiac 265 V-8, and got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds. I'd imagine similar vintage Cutlass with a 260 or Malibu/Monte Carlo with a 267 would be similar? It's still a pretty sad 0-60 time, but at least it's under 20 seconds!

gsemike

isellhondas said:

gsemike said:

Not a project car question, but let me tap the combined knowledge here.

It's funny how some people say they don't want to haggle but these same people will ask a question like this.

I'm not opposed to haggling. I just saw a car that fits the bill that happens to be on a no haggle lot

sda

andre1969 said:

sda said:

I knew the Cutlass with 260 was slow, but wow, that is slow. The Regal with the 231 V6 would be an even match. Remember this was when we had the 55 mph speed limit, so you were breaking the law at 60!

This probably sounds a bit masochistic, but I'd be curious to see a drag race between '77 Regal 231, Cutlass 260, and Malibu 250. Maybe through in a Fury/Monaco with a 225 slant six, just for kicks.

In 1976, Buick even had the cojones to put the 231 in the big LeSabre! I used to think that was really stretching the limit of that engine too far, but in retrospect, the midsized cars had already gotten so bloated that the full-sizers weren't *that* much heavier. For instance, my book shows the base weight of a '76 Regal 350 V-8 sedan at 4,104 lb. A '76 LeSabre 350 sedan at 4,328 lb. So, in this case, a 224 lb difference.

With the V-6, a '76 LeSabre sedan had a base weight of 4170 lb. I can't pinpoint the weight of a V-6 Century sedan, because this particular book averages the V-6 and V-8 weights on models where both were offered. However, the Regal sedan was only offered as a V-8, although the more popular coupe came with a V-6 or V-8.

I saw one of those V-6 LeSabres about 10 years ago, at a car show in Macungie, PA. It was a 4-door hardtop, kind of a light putty color as I recalled. It was in good shape and priced pretty reasonably, I thought. But once I saw that V-6, I was turned off.

Those small V-8's probably made a lot more sense once the cars started downsizing. C&D or MT did a test of an '81 Grand Prix with the Pontiac 265 V-8, and got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds. I'd imagine similar vintage Cutlass with a 260 or Malibu/Monte Carlo with a 267 would be similar? It's still a pretty sad 0-60 time, but at least it's under 20 seconds!

Can you imagine being blown off by a 76 Vega? I believe they did 0-60 in 17-18 seconds. The horror. Motor Trend had my 76 Sunbird with V6 and 5 sp at 13.5 seconds but ran out of room trying to get it to 80. A real hot rod, lol.

Mr_Shiftright

The mid 70s /'72-'76 produced some of the worst running cars in history. They were awful. Hard to start, stalling constantly, rough idle. It took a while to develop workable emissions systems.

andre1969

I've heard that '73-74 was the worst of the worst. Supposedly, the catalytic converters in 1975 fixed a lot of those ills, but by that time all the performance engines were gone.

I think a second round of bad running cars came in 1979-82. The Feds tightened emissions restrictions again for '79, and that meant more choking controls, less power, and more cranky starting/running. Chrysler's Lean Burn was always pretty iffy, and for '81, GM started putting computer controls in their cars, and it took a year or two to work the kinks out of those. I'm not sure when Ford started computerizing things., but probably in that timeframe.

Suddenly though, by '83, it seemed like the gloom was lifting. Either that, or maybe the Feds eased their controls? '83 was also the year that GM and Ford dumped the last of their under-sized V-8's (Ford 255, Olds 260, Chevy 267). I think '83 was the year they started fuel injecting the 302.

I had an '80 Malibu and an '82 Cutlass Supreme, and neither one of them ran all that well. Hard to start, occasional stalling, etc. My grandparents had an '82 Malibu wagon that was plagued with the same issues. Other grandparents had an '81 Granada, but I don't remember much about it. And my two '79 New Yorkers can be cranky, although at this point old age could be just as much to blame as the way they were originally built.

But then, the later 80's cars my family had...'85 Silverado, '85 LeSabre, '86 Monte Carlo, were a lot less cranky. The truck is pretty hard to start nowadays, partly because I overheated it back in 2013, and it never got fixed right. Once it actually starts, it's fine. But, I don't blame its current condition on the way GM built it...I blame it more on old age. And myself for letting it overheat like that!

texases

The '73-'79 period was the dark ages, both for drivability and performance. I looked at 0-60 times, they're the highest during those years. Come 1980 they start a long continuous drop. That improvement resulted not from any relaxing of the Fed's rules, but from technology, principally computer controlled EFI.

jpp75

andre1969 said:

I've heard that '73-74 was the worst of the worst. Supposedly, the catalytic converters in 1975 fixed a lot of those ills, but by that time all the performance engines were gone.

I think a second round of bad running cars came in 1979-82. The Feds tightened emissions restrictions again for '79, and that meant more choking controls, less power, and more cranky starting/running. Chrysler's Lean Burn was always pretty iffy, and for '81, GM started putting computer controls in their cars, and it took a year or two to work the kinks out of those. I'm not sure when Ford started computerizing things., but probably in that timeframe.

Suddenly though, by '83, it seemed like the gloom was lifting. Either that, or maybe the Feds eased their controls? '83 was also the year that GM and Ford dumped the last of their under-sized V-8's (Ford 255, Olds 260, Chevy 267). I think '83 was the year they started fuel injecting the 302.

I had an '80 Malibu and an '82 Cutlass Supreme, and neither one of them ran all that well. Hard to start, occasional stalling, etc. My grandparents had an '82 Malibu wagon that was plagued with the same issues. Other grandparents had an '81 Granada, but I don't remember much about it. And my two '79 New Yorkers can be cranky, although at this point old age could be just as much to blame as the way they were originally built.

But then, the later 80's cars my family had...'85 Silverado, '85 LeSabre, '86 Monte Carlo, were a lot less cranky. The truck is pretty hard to start nowadays, partly because I overheated it back in 2013, and it never got fixed right. Once it actually starts, it's fine. But, I don't blame its current condition on the way GM built it...I blame it more on old age. And myself for letting it overheat like that!

We had a 1976 Oldsmobile 98 when I was growing up, my parents bought it new in 1976. It didn't run great, ate a couple of catalytic converters and had A/C and electrical issues, they sold it in 1984 with just under 100,000 miles on it. Compared to the 1988 Lincoln and future 1992 Chevrolets my brother and I owned the Olds was perfect....but that's more a testament to how bad the future cars were than how great the 98 was.

bhill2

Mr_Shiftright said:

The mid 70s /'72-'76 produced some of the worst running cars in history. They were awful. Hard to start, stalling constantly, rough idle. It took a while to develop workable emissions systems.

That era provided me a chance to exercise one of my baser characteristics. I had a '72 Volvo, which had an early electronic fuel injection set up. When I got people in the car (especially people who had a late-model US make) I would switch on the ignition, let the fuel pump come up to pressure, and then snap the key into the start position and let it go. Especially if the engine was warm, the car would start and settle into a steady idle. I would then put it in gear and move off smoothly and with no hesitation. It pleasured my reptilian brain.

texases

The '79 Scirocco was my first FI car, LOVED it.

My first experience with FI was in '74 or so, a customer came into the gas station with a Volvo, smelled of gas. One of the injector seals must have gone, there was a puddle of gas around the injector...don't light that cigarette!

ab348

bhill2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

The mid 70s /'72-'76 produced some of the worst running cars in history. They were awful. Hard to start, stalling constantly, rough idle. It took a while to develop workable emissions systems.

That era provided me a chance to exercise one of my baser characteristics. I had a '72 Volvo, which had an early electronic fuel injection set up. When I got people in the car (especially people who had a late-model US make) I would switch on the ignition, let the fuel pump come up to pressure, and then snap the key into the start position and let it go. Especially if the engine was warm, the car would start and settle into a steady idle. I would then put it in gear and move off smoothly and with no hesitation. It pleasured my reptilian brain.

We had a '73 Volvo 144, but it had a carb. Damn thing wouldn't idle unless you pulled the manual choke knob out a bit.

fintail

Sounds like my fintail, with MFI. Turn the ignition on and let the pump "prime", then turn it to the start position, and the engine almost always fires right up, and runs smooth and steady, even when idle for weeks.

We had a few 60s Fords in the family when I was a kid, and most weren't too bad carb-wise, but the 66 Galaxie was terribly cold blooded - the fintail was astoundingly easy to live with in comparison, even though it is older.

bhill2 said:

That era provided me a chance to exercise one of my baser characteristics. I had a '72 Volvo, which had an early electronic fuel injection set up. When I got people in the car (especially people who had a late-model US make) I would switch on the ignition, let the fuel pump come up to pressure, and then snap the key into the start position and let it go. Especially if the engine was warm, the car would start and settle into a steady idle. I would then put it in gear and move off smoothly and with no hesitation. It pleasured my reptilian brain.

stickguy

I remember that chock knob from our 1969 144. Not a knob, more of a 1/2 circle pull. you had to be "one" with the car to fiddle that just right. Still, it was better than my various domestics with automatic chokes. Stomping on the gas trying to get it to trip off when it kept racing. EFI was a wonderful invention for drivability.

sda

stickguy said:

I remember that chock knob from our 1969 144. Not a knob, more of a 1/2 circle pull. you had to be "one" with the car to fiddle that just right. Still, it was better than my various domestics with automatic chokes. Stomping on the gas trying to get it to trip off when it kept racing. EFI was a wonderful invention for drivability.

Yep, mom would often squeal the tires as she backed out of the garage in her Cutlass when the choke and high idle were engaged after a cold start.

andre1969

sda said:

Yep, mom would often squeal the tires as she backed out of the garage in her Cutlass when the choke and high idle were engaged after a cold start.

There's a hill on my street, on the way to work, that's probably about 50 feet high, with the crest about a quarter mile from my house. I've had cars where, if the fast idle wouldn't cut down, I could leave the house, make it over the hill and onto the main road on the other side, without even touching the gas pedal. I could probably get all the way to work without touching the gas pedal, except that out on the main road the other drivers go pretty fast. 45 mph speed limit, but speeds more like 55-60. It would take a good stretch of road for one of the cars to idle up to 45...

And yeah, sometimes if I'm moving the cars around in the garage, I like to make sure the fast idle has kicked off. Otherwise they'll occasionally chirp when going into gear.

stevedebi

bhill2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

The mid 70s /'72-'76 produced some of the worst running cars in history. They were awful. Hard to start, stalling constantly, rough idle. It took a while to develop workable emissions systems.

That era provided me a chance to exercise one of my baser characteristics. I had a '72 Volvo, which had an early electronic fuel injection set up. When I got people in the car (especially people who had a late-model US make) I would switch on the ignition, let the fuel pump come up to pressure, and then snap the key into the start position and let it go. Especially if the engine was warm, the car would start and settle into a steady idle. I would then put it in gear and move off smoothly and with no hesitation. It pleasured my reptilian brain.

We had a 1972 Volvo 144, and that procedure was actually in the owner manual. You were supposed to wait about 40 seconds for the oil pump to lubricate everything.

Mr_Shiftright

Great little motor, indestructible front end, easy to repair, interior assembled by blind men in Sweden, seats covered in some kind of perishable frogskin, and painted with what must have been indoor latex.

bhill2

stevedebi said:

bhill2 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

The mid 70s /'72-'76 produced some of the worst running cars in history. They were awful. Hard to start, stalling constantly, rough idle. It took a while to develop workable emissions systems.

That era provided me a chance to exercise one of my baser characteristics. I had a '72 Volvo, which had an early electronic fuel injection set up. When I got people in the car (especially people who had a late-model US make) I would switch on the ignition, let the fuel pump come up to pressure, and then snap the key into the start position and let it go. Especially if the engine was warm, the car would start and settle into a steady idle. I would then put it in gear and move off smoothly and with no hesitation. It pleasured my reptilian brain.

We had a 1972 Volvo 144, and that procedure was actually in the owner manual. You were supposed to wait about 40 seconds for the oil pump to lubricate everything.

I have forgotten that statement in the manual. I just waited until everything stopped humming, then hit the starter.

stever

There were two '74 Volvo sedans in my family and they were awful runners (one got wrecked and replaced by another used one in a post accident fog). The rubber bellows component of the fuel injection was especially prone to cracking.

benjaminh

Kinda interesting story from TTAC about a 1996 Subaru with 270k miles that finally met its end....

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/03/barks-bites-subaru-hardly-knew-ye/#more-1024529

"....I received the autopsy call yesterday morning. I felt bad for the lady on the phone—she was clearly under the impression that the little wagon was my only means of transportation, and she was calling with horrific news. First of all, the timing belt was bad—they couldn’t even get the car to start. Secondly, as I feared, the axle had broken. But it hadn’t just broken; it had snapped with such amazing force that it had sent a seven-inch piece of itself spinning into the left front rim, ripping a tremendous hole in it in the process which is what caused the tire to blow. It had also damaged the right front wheel. Both tie rods were destroyed, too. Total repair estimate: at least $1200, including labor.

I weighed my options carefully. I could:

1. Junk the car and be done with it.

2. Pay the garage more than twice what I had originally paid for the car, and still have a nineteen-year old Subaru that was likely to have some other things break in the near future.

3. Do what all TTAC commenters would have done, which is break out my impressive array of tools, put the car up on the lift in my garage, and spend thirty minutes repairing all of the issues myself.

Guess which one I did? Number one, obviously."

boomchek

fintail said:

Sounds like my fintail, with MFI. Turn the ignition on and let the pump "prime", then turn it to the start position, and the engine almost always fires right up, and runs smooth and steady, even when idle for weeks.

We had a few 60s Fords in the family when I was a kid, and most weren't too bad carb-wise, but the 66 Galaxie was terribly cold blooded - the fintail was astoundingly easy to live with in comparison, even though it is older.

bhill2 said:

That era provided me a chance to exercise one of my baser characteristics. I had a '72 Volvo, which had an early electronic fuel injection set up. When I got people in the car (especially people who had a late-model US make) I would switch on the ignition, let the fuel pump come up to pressure, and then snap the key into the start position and let it go. Especially if the engine was warm, the car would start and settle into a steady idle. I would then put it in gear and move off smoothly and with no hesitation. It pleasured my reptilian brain.

Modern Ferraris actually do that (prime the fuel pump). When you open the driver's door, whether the key is in the iginition or not, you can hear the sound.

stevedebi

boomchek said:

fintail said:

Sounds like my fintail, with MFI. Turn the ignition on and let the pump "prime", then turn it to the start position, and the engine almost always fires right up, and runs smooth and steady, even when idle for weeks.

We had a few 60s Fords in the family when I was a kid, and most weren't too bad carb-wise, but the 66 Galaxie was terribly cold blooded - the fintail was astoundingly easy to live with in comparison, even though it is older.

bhill2 said:

That era provided me a chance to exercise one of my baser characteristics. I had a '72 Volvo, which had an early electronic fuel injection set up. When I got people in the car (especially people who had a late-model US make) I would switch on the ignition, let the fuel pump come up to pressure, and then snap the key into the start position and let it go. Especially if the engine was warm, the car would start and settle into a steady idle. I would then put it in gear and move off smoothly and with no hesitation. It pleasured my reptilian brain.

Modern Ferraris actually do that (prime the fuel pump). When you open the driver's door, whether the key is in the iginition or not, you can hear the sound.

Sounds a bit like my C-Max Energi, except that mine charges up the braking system when the doors are unlocked. Because it runs on EV, the braking system is different from a normal car.

xwesx

That article about "SuBaruth" is a classic example of the fate that awaits nearly all cars: The owners eventually stop taking care of it because its market value becomes too low. In reality, the problems with the car, even after the catastrophic failure of the CV joint (which, by itself, demonstrates the utter neglect the car received in the many many thousands of miles before that), were easy and cheap to fix. Most likely, the guy was looking at around $500 in parts to make those repairs.

True, there's no guarantee that something major won't go wrong around the next bend, but even $1,000 per year in preventative maintenance and repairs makes for one heck of a cheap drive. While I do enjoy driving my current DD more than the Escort it replaced, the was a definite satisfaction for my frugal mind about driving that "beater" and keeping it in top shape.

stever

2014 MCLAREN MP4-12C SP

A little Bondo and you're good to go.

qbrozen

$174k repair estimate!

I do wonder why it was totaled, though, if those numbers are accurate.

Mr_Shiftright

It's more than half the value of the car I suspect---besides, no insurance company wants to get into that rat's nest of being committed to fix whatever they find once they start repair on this spaceship.

qbrozen

but I thought insurance cos used something more like a 75% number.(?) Doesn't seem like smart business to write off a $300k car to avoid a $175k repair bill.

andre1969

qbrozen said:

but I thought insurance cos used something more like a 75% number.(?) Doesn't seem like smart business to write off a $300k car to avoid a $175k repair bill.

Things may have changed, but back in 1998 when my '86 Monte Carlo got totaled, they used 60% as the threshold. At the time, I think they valued the car at $2500. Never did give me an estimate of the damages, but $1500 would have totaled it. Just on the visible damage, it had a damaged fender, front right rim, hubcap, door, A-pillar, windshield was cracked, and the rear quarter under the opera window was gouged out. The front tire was also sitting at an angle, so I'd imagine some suspension work in there as well. I'm sure what I just totaled up was well north of $1500, even back in '98...especially with the bent A-pillar and gouged out quarter.

xwesx

I can't imagine what's hiding on that McLaren. A good friend hit a moose last summer with this Nissan Armada.... The damage really didn't look all that bad. The front quarter was banged up a little, the moose's head hit the passenger window and broke it out, but there was basically just a little wrinkling down the side and that's it. Totally drivable and could have been left as-is (with window replacement) with no problems.

That sucker cost nearly $38,000 and five months in repairs. I was floored!

texases

Good recent post on how McLaren repairs their cars in-house:
http://jalopnik.com/heres-how-mclaren-will-keep-the-remaining-100-f1s-alive-1691329786

Mr_Shiftright

I wonder how a $1 million dollar repair bill affects the resale value? One has to wonder if one wants to go 200+ mph in a car that was previously smashed to bits.

boomchek

If it's cheap enough then some well off collector can use it as a grocery getter or a cars n coffee type car. Low speed cruising, no racetrack use.

explorerx4

Winter just won't end. about 3 inches of snow since yesterday afternoon. It is warm enough to melt most of it, though.
Just bought a Battery Tender. Going to hook it up to the Mustang, although I have no idea when it will get warm enough to start it.

ab348

explorerx4 said:

Winter just won't end. about 3 inches of snow since yesterday afternoon. It is warm enough to melt most of it, though.
Just bought a Battery Tender. Going to hook it up to the Mustang, although I have no idea when it will get warm enough to start it.

We got nearly 2 feet here on Wednesday. Historic storm. I have over 4 feet of snowpack on untouched areas of my property.

xwesx

Wow; that looks amazing! Ours is going fast over the last few days. Warming up to near-record levels with 45-50 degrees during the day and only a touch under freezing at night. Fun stuff! Although, I know I won't be able to get up my driveway in the Fiesta when I get home tonight. Even the 3-4 inches of slush that will undoubtedly be there is enough to stop it cold.

I'll probably have my wife tow me up with the Forester. LOL

ab348

xwesx said:

Wow; that looks amazing! Ours is going fast over the last few days. Warming up to near-record levels with 45-50 degrees during the day and only a touch under freezing at night. Fun stuff! Although, I know I won't be able to get up my driveway in the Fiesta when I get home tonight. Even the 3-4 inches of slush that will undoubtedly be there is enough to stop it cold.

I'll probably have my wife tow me up with the Forester. LOL

Yeah, it's been totally ridiculous here. Spring will be much delayed.

sda

ab348 said:

explorerx4 said:

Winter just won't end. about 3 inches of snow since yesterday afternoon. It is warm enough to melt most of it, though.
Just bought a Battery Tender. Going to hook it up to the Mustang, although I have no idea when it will get warm enough to start it.

We got nearly 2 feet here on Wednesday. Historic storm. I have over 4 feet of snowpack on untouched areas of my property.

That has to be miserable. Time to move south!

ab348

sda said:

That has to be miserable. Time to move south!

I was checking out property online in the Southport/Long Island area of the NC coast a few weeks ago. Was there years ago and liked it.

explorerx4

It took a while, but the battery in the Mustang is fully charged. Now I get the pace of the trickle charger. Just need some warm weather to make itself known before I start the car.

xwesx

So, yesterday was nice, but no need to get a tow to the top of the drive! Turns out, enough melted off that my little car could handle the 2" or so of mushy snow on the way up.

fintail

What's snow?

stickguy

If I lived someplace where we had a winter like AB or ROBR just had (Canada or Boston), I would have moved already. just up and left everything, including the wife if she did not want to come. I could not take that.

andre1969

The worst winter I can remember, here in the Maryland suburbs of DC, was 2009-2010. We got close to 24" in December, although it was mostly melted by Christmas. But then in early Feb, we got hit with back to back blizzards. One dumped close to two feet. I don't remember what the official count was on the second one, but the wind was so fierce that it blew it around, to where it didn't seem to add all that much, although I think it was about another foot.

Anyway, that year, I parked one of my old cars behind the house for the winter, to get it off the driveway and out of the way, since when it gets snowy and icy, cars don't always go where you want them to. I figured I'd move potential targets out of the way. Anybody wanna play "guess that car?"

berri

I'll guess the Lemans. Too snowy for the convertible roof and too swoopy for the Mopar sedans.

stever

Nah, that's not a car - that's the reserve cord of wood for when the gas furnace dies.

stickguy

I was thinking Lemans too.

andre1969

Believe it or not, that was one of my '79 New Yorkers! The snow had gotten that deep, and with the way the wind blew it around, it gave the mound that rounded off look.

jrosasmc

Lemko -

If you're still lurking around the forums I figured I'd ask you a question, since I remember most of your cars. Do you still have the '89 Cadillac Brougham, and are you planning to sell it any time soon, or has it been sold already?

I know how much you love the Cadillac but since I haven't been around here in a few years, I wonder if it still exists.

andre1969

Lemko still has that Brougham, and I'm guessing he's going to take it with him to his grave.

stickguy

will, a big Caddy is how most people get there, so he might as well use his own.