Is that old Ford truck one of those extra-long bed models? IIRC they offered a 9-foot bed in some years.
That Pontiac Phoenix looks like it's in nice shape. I never really cared for those, though. That body style looked really nice, clean, and modern as the Nova, but those padded landau roofs just didn't work. And that Pontiac front-end just doesn't seem to fit quite right.
Those two Oldsmobiles are really nice. I always thought those F-85's were cute little things.
Is that old Ford truck one of those extra-long bed models? IIRC they offered a 9-foot bed in some years.
I dunno, I think it's just a regular 8-footer. GM offered a 9-foot fenderside bed for a while, and there was the Longhorn option for a year or three around 1970. I seem to remember that the Ford 9-foot bed was an option for the extended-cab '70s trucks.
my goof...I forgot that the Phoenix didn't come out until something like mid-year 1977. They almost looked worse, IMO, because it looked like they forced a 1978 LeMans front-end onto the Ventura, and it just didn't look right.
I see an old Skylark of that vintage here at work sometimes. I think they look pretty nice, for a Nova clone. The 4-doors of this style were pretty shapely IMO, and the 2-door really looked good...as long as you didn't get the landau roof with those clumsy opera windows!
Hey now, I owned one of those in college. I think mine was a '77 Olds Omega, however. 350 V8 - well, only 7 of the 8 cylinders really worked, I found out later.
It had been repainted bright blue with the white landau roof and faux wire wheels. I bought it when my '79 Sunbird was totalled with about 4 months left to graduation.
Paid $1000 for it and sold it on the day I graduated to some BHPH lot for something like $150 -- 85% depreciation in 4 months has to be some sort of record.
now that I think back on it, I remember a '77 or so Olds Omega for sale locally at a park-and-sell lot. It was light blue, and it must've been a Brougham model or something, because the interior was pretty high-class. Most of it was covered in a soft, felt material that was comfy, but didn't look like it would be too durable. However, this one was nicely preserved.
This one was a sedan, though. And it only had the 100 or so hp Olds 260 V-8. Sounded nice, with that distinctive Oldsmobile rumble, but just didn't have any bite to back up its bark.
Supposedly those '75-79 X-bodies were among the best handling domestic compacts of the time.
I don't remember the trim level of my Omega, but the seat description sounds familiar.
I remember that I had to buy tires for it, and since I was a starving college student, I cheaped out and bought something that escapes me ... either bias-ply (were they available in 1985?) or I bought only two tires and they didn't match the other two ... either way, I remember driving it on I-17 in Phoenix and having the car feel really squirrelly. Like the back end was going to break loose on me when I changed lanes.
I couldn't get rid of that car fast enough. After selling it and graduating, I moved back to California and bought a year old Accord with 17K on it for $8500 .. my other options were a new Grand Am or a new Mustang. Glad I passed on those!
my experience with bias-ply tires is limited. My '57 DeSoto has them, and my '69 Dart GT had them when I bought it, but I soon replaced them with modern 205/70/R14 blackwalls. Made a night/day difference in the Dart's handling.
The late 60's were kind of a transition period where I don't think it mattered so much, but supposedly if you put radial tires on something really old, like my '57 DeSoto, it would make the handling really squirrely.
looks decent, but who knows what the "very little rust" is. I agree, if it is basically sound, not a bad buy at that price. I would grab it myself (I always liked these) if it was a 4 speed. And not on the opposite side of the country.
has this gem for sale, for the low price of $3995. Looks almost like my Silverado, just a little cheaper (mine has quad headlights and 15x8 rally wheels) and in better looking shape (although it's hard to tell from the pics how rusty the lower part of the cab is). Fairly low miles, too, around 64,000.
They also have this beauty, but it's a few bucks more.
I always liked those mid-60s Fords; if I hadn't bought the GMC I probably would have bought one of those. You'd better jump on that Ford while you can. Judging by the crop of clone houses behind the lot, that local place won't be around too much longer.
yeah, those clone houses are growing like weeds around here. In fact, if you look to the left of this pic of my garage, you can see what's sprung up just up the road from me!
I think they want something like $15K for that Ford, though, so it won't be coming to my house anytime soon! That dealer's been around since 1946, and supposedly pretty active in the community, so I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon. They used to sell Nashes back in the day. Eventually though, I guess they might want to sell out, if land values shoot up enough.
Yep, that sounds about right. I remember being quite scared, since this was in the summer and the afternoon thunderstorms made the roads even more treacherous than normal.
Geez, if they want $15K for that old Ford and $4K for the '85 Chevy, I wonder what my dad's '70 Chevy C10 is worth? I know he's turned down an offer of $8500, and this was before the full restore he had done last year.
has a 4-speed automatic. THM200-R4 or something like that...the overdrive version of the infamous lightweight THM200C. It's really not a tranny to be scared of, though. They were pretty reliable by that time, and were beefed up over the 3-speed version.
The ad says it's the high-output 305, but I doubt it. AFAIK, only the Monte SS got the HO 305, which had 180 hp. SS was just a graphics package for the El Camino. Most likely it just has the normal 150 hp 305-4bbl that went into plain Monte Carlos, Grand Prixes, El Caminos, and Bonneville G's. The big cars and pickups got 165 hp, I guess because the intake and/or exhaust wasn't as restrictive.
Nice car/truck, though. I always liked those downsized El Caminos.
As for that 1960 LeSabre, lose the skirts and it's not a bad looking car. I don't know why he thinks it has a 4.1 V-8, though. They came standard with a 364 V-8 (about a 6-liter) which only had 235 hp. Must've been a really de-tuned 2-bbl, because I know Mopar got 295 out of their 361 that year with a 2-bbl, and even when it was detuned for '61, still had 265.
Maybe it has a 401 under the hood? There was a 401 V-8 that was standard in the Invicta and Electra...maybe it was optional in the LeSabre?
...the '64 GTO would probably be the best choice for a restoration project. I really like the '67 Sport Fury, but restoring it would be a labor of love because there is no way on earth I'd ever recover what I put into it for restoration.
A FWD DSM (Diamond Star Motors, the joint venture that made the Eclipse, Talon, and Laser, and later the Eclipse and Avenger) isn't as popular as the AWD counterparts. They have some issues with the gear box standing up to the abuse of 200hp, an issue with crank walk on the gen 2 models, and a whole bunch of problems self inflicted by their owners who turn up the boost and wreak havoc on the motor. Unmolested and well maintained, it is a great car. That 4000CS quattro has a lot of great parts for someone with a CoupeGT or an Ur-Quattro. It had a better electrical system than the original, and better differentials as well. If nothing else, its great for a rally-cross car, or if you are really adventurous, and MC1 (5000 Turbo motor) or 20Valve turbo swap.
i don't know what it is. no matter how much shifty says to avoid them, Jags always grab my attention. I think I'm destined to learn a harsh lesson one of these days.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That's a pretty high mileage for a clip. What that 240 really needs is a RWD SR20VE, but sadly Nissan never made one and it's a pain in the butt to cobble together.
1966 Porsche -- shame that the car is basically trashed. That's a VERY desirable year, and if that car were in mint condition it would bring a very good price.
Now for the bad news----the "floor pans" as he calls them, ARE the frame on that car.....you got heavily rusted floor pans near the door frames and suspension points, and you throw the car away---you don't even TRY to repair it. It's gone, finito, done, nada, zilch, goodbye.
Jaguar XJ6: Be afraid, be very afraid....
Actually you can do all right with an old XJ6 if you follow some basic rules and stay sober and remember that you are buying an essentially worthless car that will NEVER be worth more than you paid for it. Buy 1985-86 only,(last of the Three Series, the only XJ that wasn't truly awful) extremely well maintained car only ONLY BUY A CREAM PUFF...no projects, no "only needs a....", no rust, Pay more $$$ up front for something that passes a 658 point mechanical inspection, otherwise things will happen so fast you won't believe a car can fall apart that fast...
If you can keep two or three parts cars in the back yard, better yet.
Is the issue with the authenticity of the car? Can't you just do one of those kits that drops a 350/350 in there? And then go for something like a Painless Wiring generic GM Harness? Thinking about it, that much work is about as much as you paid for the car in the first place, so I guess I see your point. :P
That's doesn't get you anywhere. The Jaguar engine is the BEST PART of the car, so all you have then is a troublesome car with a Chevy engine in it...which means a Chevy person won't want it and a Jaguar person won't want it. It's like the "worst of all possible worlds" to do that.
The whole character of an XJ6 is the smooth and silky driveline...adding a rude Chevrolet V-8 takes that character away (and might twist your car's frame, besides, from all the torque).
You can't make an XJ6 "right"...you can only stay on top of it constantly and keep it reasonably reliable day by day.
Ah but this is the "secret" of what attaches people to certain cars----if your car "needs you", you tend to bond to it and have more interest in it. This is why Lexus' are so boring. They just work all the time.
I read your statement and shuddered. After my divorce, I dated a woman who was manic-depressive .. geez, what a time that was. The end of that relationship was way worse than my divorce.
I can't imagine having to go through that kind of emotional roller-coaster with an inanimate object.
Even though I have zero mechanical skills (ask my wife .. she'll tell you), I've always thought about restoring some old 60's car just for fun.
Of course, I'd first have to buy all the tools, have a place to do the work -- it certainly wouldn't be happening in my garage, acquire all the skills necessary, but still, it's a dream.
Of course, I also want to play a round of golf at Pebble Beach, too. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is way less expensive. And much more likely to happen.
is too much torque for a Jag, just go ahead and throw in a Pontiac 265. Bit smoother than a Chevy smallblock, and while it's based on the troubleprone 301, it doesn't have enough power to hurt itself, let alone a Jag body! :P
BTW, how much horsepower and torque did those Jags have, anyway? For some reason I want to say the 4.0 had 190 hp? Or am I getting that mixed up with the AMC 6?
...or what to buy if you need a suntan in something likely not-too-reliable. Looks a little rough, almost like it's bending in the middle, which given Chicago winters isn't that unlikely:
This is actually an '86, cuz no '85s were sold here (or anywhere else, IIRC), and it has side marker lights. I'm also pretty sure all '86 convertibles (only 350 built for the U.S.) were silver with automatic. Too bad about the last part, so it's a hog, it's slower and revs like mad on the freeway. Still, for $800, not the worst gamble.
Comments
a plain old car
a plain old truck
my Grandpa would have loved this classy barge
whereas I would rather have this one
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That Pontiac Phoenix looks like it's in nice shape. I never really cared for those, though. That body style looked really nice, clean, and modern as the Nova, but those padded landau roofs just didn't work. And that Pontiac front-end just doesn't seem to fit quite right.
Those two Oldsmobiles are really nice. I always thought those F-85's were cute little things.
I dunno, I think it's just a regular 8-footer. GM offered a 9-foot fenderside bed for a while, and there was the Longhorn option for a year or three around 1970. I seem to remember that the Ford 9-foot bed was an option for the extended-cab '70s trucks.
Edit: the Pontiac is a Ventura.
I see an old Skylark of that vintage here at work sometimes. I think they look pretty nice, for a Nova clone. The 4-doors of this style were pretty shapely IMO, and the 2-door really looked good...as long as you didn't get the landau roof with those clumsy opera windows!
It had been repainted bright blue with the white landau roof and faux wire wheels. I bought it when my '79 Sunbird was totalled with about 4 months left to graduation.
Paid $1000 for it and sold it on the day I graduated to some BHPH lot for something like $150 -- 85% depreciation in 4 months has to be some sort of record.
This one was a sedan, though. And it only had the 100 or so hp Olds 260 V-8. Sounded nice, with that distinctive Oldsmobile rumble, but just didn't have any bite to back up its bark.
Supposedly those '75-79 X-bodies were among the best handling domestic compacts of the time.
I remember that I had to buy tires for it, and since I was a starving college student, I cheaped out and bought something that escapes me ... either bias-ply (were they available in 1985?) or I bought only two tires and they didn't match the other two ... either way, I remember driving it on I-17 in Phoenix and having the car feel really squirrelly. Like the back end was going to break loose on me when I changed lanes.
I couldn't get rid of that car fast enough. After selling it and graduating, I moved back to California and bought a year old Accord with 17K on it for $8500 .. my other options were a new Grand Am or a new Mustang. Glad I passed on those!
I had bias snow tires on rear with radials on front during snow periods. That was real touch and go.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The late 60's were kind of a transition period where I don't think it mattered so much, but supposedly if you put radial tires on something really old, like my '57 DeSoto, it would make the handling really squirrely.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
They also have this beauty, but it's a few bucks more.
I think they want something like $15K for that Ford, though, so it won't be coming to my house anytime soon! That dealer's been around since 1946, and supposedly pretty active in the community, so I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon. They used to sell Nashes back in the day. Eventually though, I guess they might want to sell out, if land values shoot up enough.
Geez, if they want $15K for that old Ford and $4K for the '85 Chevy, I wonder what my dad's '70 Chevy C10 is worth? I know he's turned down an offer of $8500, and this was before the full restore he had done last year.
Good shape.. weird car. I don't think that 20 grand is a screaming deal for the nicest car in bizarro land
Looks good but he can't really mean 4 sp as in a manual, can he?
Another El Camino in good shape but unfortunately boring in original condition
Nice looking car for the money... wish he was more specific about the work
If the engine is not fried, why not?
It looks nice but at 150k, how much more life does it have?
The ad says it's the high-output 305, but I doubt it. AFAIK, only the Monte SS got the HO 305, which had 180 hp. SS was just a graphics package for the El Camino. Most likely it just has the normal 150 hp 305-4bbl that went into plain Monte Carlos, Grand Prixes, El Caminos, and Bonneville G's. The big cars and pickups got 165 hp, I guess because the intake and/or exhaust wasn't as restrictive.
Nice car/truck, though. I always liked those downsized El Caminos.
As for that 1960 LeSabre, lose the skirts and it's not a bad looking car. I don't know why he thinks it has a 4.1 V-8, though. They came standard with a 364 V-8 (about a 6-liter) which only had 235 hp. Must've been a really de-tuned 2-bbl, because I know Mopar got 295 out of their 361 that year with a 2-bbl, and even when it was detuned for '61, still had 265.
Maybe it has a 401 under the hood? There was a 401 V-8 that was standard in the Invicta and Electra...maybe it was optional in the LeSabre?
"NOT in driving condition"...yeah, something seems to be missing, but I can't put my finger on it
If I was the guy's neighbor, I'd pay him $200 just to haul the wreck away!! Surely he does not leave that parked in the street.
Thought all SE 240SX's were 5 lug models
Can you say LEAD SLED
Is this a bad year?
Coule be worth something.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
i just saw a couple in the local auto shopper. I'll see if I can find them online and post them.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That 4000CS quattro has a lot of great parts for someone with a CoupeGT or an Ur-Quattro. It had a better electrical system than the original, and better differentials as well. If nothing else, its great for a rally-cross car, or if you are really adventurous, and MC1 (5000 Turbo motor) or 20Valve turbo swap.
http://www.autoshopper.com/viewfull.asp?ID=1463335
how bout a 12-year-old?
http://www.autoshopper.com/viewfull.asp?ID=1465490
maybe a tad pricey?
http://www.autoshopper.com/viewfull.asp?ID=1482017
i usually assume high miles if its not listed
http://www.autoshopper.com/viewfull.asp?ID=1477050
i don't know what it is. no matter how much shifty says to avoid them, Jags always grab my attention. I think I'm destined to learn a harsh lesson one of these days.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/JDM-NISSAN-SR20DET-TURBO-S13-COMPLETE-FRONT-CLIP_- W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33615QQitemZ8035086639QQrdZ1
Much better
S14 SE's had 5 lugs, US S13s all had four.
Now for the bad news----the "floor pans" as he calls them, ARE the frame on that car.....you got heavily rusted floor pans near the door frames and suspension points, and you throw the car away---you don't even TRY to repair it. It's gone, finito, done, nada, zilch, goodbye.
Jaguar XJ6: Be afraid, be very afraid....
Actually you can do all right with an old XJ6 if you follow some basic rules and stay sober and remember that you are buying an essentially worthless car that will NEVER be worth more than you paid for it. Buy 1985-86 only,(last of the Three Series, the only XJ that wasn't truly awful) extremely well maintained car only ONLY BUY A CREAM PUFF...no projects, no "only needs a....", no rust, Pay more $$$ up front for something that passes a 658 point mechanical inspection, otherwise things will happen so fast you won't believe a car can fall apart that fast...
If you can keep two or three parts cars in the back yard, better yet.
Thinking about it, that much work is about as much as you paid for the car in the first place, so I guess I see your point. :P
That's doesn't get you anywhere. The Jaguar engine is the BEST PART of the car, so all you have then is a troublesome car with a Chevy engine in it...which means a Chevy person won't want it and a Jaguar person won't want it. It's like the "worst of all possible worlds" to do that.
The whole character of an XJ6 is the smooth and silky driveline...adding a rude Chevrolet V-8 takes that character away (and might twist your car's frame, besides, from all the torque).
You can't make an XJ6 "right"...you can only stay on top of it constantly and keep it reasonably reliable day by day.
I can't imagine having to go through that kind of emotional roller-coaster with an inanimate object.
Even though I have zero mechanical skills (ask my wife .. she'll tell you), I've always thought about restoring some old 60's car just for fun.
Of course, I'd first have to buy all the tools, have a place to do the work -- it certainly wouldn't be happening in my garage, acquire all the skills necessary, but still, it's a dream.
Of course, I also want to play a round of golf at Pebble Beach, too. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is way less expensive. And much more likely to happen.
BTW, how much horsepower and torque did those Jags have, anyway? For some reason I want to say the 4.0 had 190 hp? Or am I getting that mixed up with the AMC 6?
http://chicago.craigslist.org/car/132843646.html
This is actually an '86, cuz no '85s were sold here (or anywhere else, IIRC), and it has side marker lights. I'm also pretty sure all '86 convertibles (only 350 built for the U.S.) were silver with automatic. Too bad about the last part, so it's a hog, it's slower and revs like mad on the freeway. Still, for $800, not the worst gamble.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Still, if the body is sound, for $800 (barely pocket change!) it would likely follow me home if it was local.
Of course, it would then sit in the driveway for 2 months until my wife made me get rid of it...
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.