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

isellhondas

Wow, I guy that used to work for me had that exact Plymouth! Color and all!

It does nothing for me but it's getting some strong bids!

stevedebi

stickguy said:

You see that sometimes, when someone unearths "the best" original unit of some car. But if no one has an interest, you are left looking for that rare buyer that has some emotional attachment to one (1st car, stuff like that).

Hey, I would get excited about a yellow stick shift Gremlin, but pretty sure I might be the only person. So if you found a time warp one, or a 20K mile Granada, it still isn't going to be worth much.

Make my Gremlin '72, in tan. My first car...

explorerx4

Back in 1977, I had a '70 Sport Fury III 4 door hardtop in that color. It had a houndstooth pattern vinyl roof.
It lived a hard life in the time I had it.

bhill2

stevedebi said:

stickguy said:

You see that sometimes, when someone unearths "the best" original unit of some car. But if no one has an interest, you are left looking for that rare buyer that has some emotional attachment to one (1st car, stuff like that).

Hey, I would get excited about a yellow stick shift Gremlin, but pretty sure I might be the only person. So if you found a time warp one, or a 20K mile Granada, it still isn't going to be worth much.

Make my Gremlin '72, in tan. My first car...

My first car was a red '60 Falcon with automatic. I could get nostalgic about it, but couldn't actually have one because the age I am now, if I had to accelerate from a stop I would be dead before it reached 60.

ab348

The original 1970 model Gran Coupe was indeed a pillared version but for '71 they made it in a hardtop body without a post. Most were painted Tahitian Walnut Metallic with the paisley vinyl roof and upholstery.

uplanderguy

RE.: The Fury Gran Coupe, I seem to remember hearing/reading that that package was introduced in an effort to help use up the Fury I and Fury II pillared coupe (or two-door sedan) bodies. Chevy had discontinued two-door bodies in their lowest-priced two lines by '70, and I'm pretty sure Ford had too.

Plymouth also held on to the availability of full-size cars with buckets and console, longer than GM did.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

Maybe that sale car's interior is original or a redo that approaches the original, but in optional all-vinyl? Calling andre!
Looks like the piping is white, which would not be original or authentic.

Definitely looks like a re-upholstery job to me. And, it appears they re-did the door panels as well. Here's an illustration of the all-vinyl 270 interior, from the brochure...


It mentions this as being optional on the sedans, but I'm sure it was offered for the hardtop as well.

uplanderguy

Thanks andre.

Mr_Shiftright

Thanks for the feedback---yep, I think it's overpriced as well, by a fair margin.

stevedebi

bhill2 said:

stevedebi said:

stickguy said:

You see that sometimes, when someone unearths "the best" original unit of some car. But if no one has an interest, you are left looking for that rare buyer that has some emotional attachment to one (1st car, stuff like that).

Hey, I would get excited about a yellow stick shift Gremlin, but pretty sure I might be the only person. So if you found a time warp one, or a 20K mile Granada, it still isn't going to be worth much.

Make my Gremlin '72, in tan. My first car...

My first car was a red '60 Falcon with automatic. I could get nostalgic about it, but couldn't actually have one because the age I am now, if I had to accelerate from a stop I would be dead before it reached 60.

Well, the Gremlin was not your high end car, but it would easily spin the wheels from a start. I had to be careful with the gas pedal. And I only had the 232.

hpmctorque

stevedebi said:

bhill2 said:

stevedebi said:

stickguy said:

You see that sometimes, when someone unearths "the best" original unit of some car. But if no one has an interest, you are left looking for that rare buyer that has some emotional attachment to one (1st car, stuff like that).

Hey, I would get excited about a yellow stick shift Gremlin, but pretty sure I might be the only person. So if you found a time warp one, or a 20K mile Granada, it still isn't going to be worth much.

Make my Gremlin '72, in tan. My first car...

My first car was a red '60 Falcon with automatic. I could get nostalgic about it, but couldn't actually have one because the age I am now, if I had to accelerate from a stop I would be dead before it reached 60.

Well, the Gremlin was not your high end car, but it would easily spin the wheels from a start. I had to be careful with the gas pedal. And I only had the 232.

Of course the Gremlin had a lot more torque than the 144 c.i. '60 Falcon, especially when the Falcon was equipped with the 2-speed automatic, but a good part of the Gremlin's wheel spinning was due to the fact that a disproportionate part of the weight was over the front wheels. I wonder how easy it was to spin the rear wheels of the later Gremlins that were equipped with the Audi sourced 4-cylinder 2.0L engine. According to Wikipedia that engine was 250 pounds lighter than the AMC 6-cylinder.

andre1969

I tried to look up 0-60 times for the AMC Gremlin, but couldn't find much. Just the following from http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/amc-0-60-mph-times/

AMC Gremlin 0 to 60 MPH and Quarter Mile Times
1974 AMC Gremlin 0-60 mph 17.7 | Quarter mile 18.6
1977 AMC Gremlin X 0-60 mph 17.8 | Quarter mile 20.5

I have no idea what engine/transmission combo they had, though. Apparently in January 1971, Car and Driver clocked a 1971 AMC Gremlin with the big six and manual shift from 0-60 mph 10.5 seconds. By "big six" I'm presuming that's the 258?

I wonder if the '74 and '77 models had the smaller 232-6 and the automatic transmission? And by that time, maybe a taller axle ratio in an attempt to improve fuel economy?

stickguy

Mine was the big (4.2l) six and a stick. But I think a 1974. Probably not really that slow then.

qbrozen

the 4.2 was torquey. Good enough to chirp the 32"x12" tires on my CJ7 and flat out lay down rubber in reverse.

toomanyfumes

Well, I know my first car,a 1970 Gremlin with 232 6 and borg-warner auto, would spin the right bias -ply snow tire all the down our long black top driveway in reverse. My dad was not impressed, or at least he didn't show it.

bhill2

hpmctorque said:

stevedebi said:

bhill2 said:

stevedebi said:

stickguy said:

You see that sometimes, when someone unearths "the best" original unit of some car. But if no one has an interest, you are left looking for that rare buyer that has some emotional attachment to one (1st car, stuff like that).

Hey, I would get excited about a yellow stick shift Gremlin, but pretty sure I might be the only person. So if you found a time warp one, or a 20K mile Granada, it still isn't going to be worth much.

Make my Gremlin '72, in tan. My first car...

My first car was a red '60 Falcon with automatic. I could get nostalgic about it, but couldn't actually have one because the age I am now, if I had to accelerate from a stop I would be dead before it reached 60.

Well, the Gremlin was not your high end car, but it would easily spin the wheels from a start. I had to be careful with the gas pedal. And I only had the 232.

Of course the Gremlin had a lot more torque than the 144 c.i. '60 Falcon, especially when the Falcon was equipped with the 2-speed automatic, but a good part of the Gremlin's wheel spinning was due to the fact that a disproportionate part of the weight was over the front wheels. I wonder how easy it was to spin the rear wheels of the later Gremlins that were equipped with the Audi sourced 4-cylinder 2.0L engine. According to Wikipedia that engine was 250 pounds lighter than the AMC 6-cylinder.

I confirm absolutely that that Falcon could not spin the wheels from a start. Unless maybe if it was on glare ice. Even then I'm not sure.

Mr_Shiftright

A Falcon 144 cid automatic couldn't pull the skin off rice pudding.

andre1969

I remember reading an old road test of a Mercury Comet with the 144 and automatic, and 0-60 came up in about 26 seconds I think. While a Comet was bigger than a Falcon, it really wasn't much heavier, so I'd imagine a Falcon was almost as bad. Just doing a quick search, I found a 4-door 1960 Falcon 144 listed around 2280 lb, and a corresponding Comet at around 2430.

As for torque, I looked up some specs online of various 6-cyl engines from the 70's. The AMC 4.2/258 was indeed pretty torquey, at around 200-210 ft-lb depending on the year. What shocked me though, is I've seen the Chevy and Ford 250/4.1's listed at only 175 ft-lb! For comparison, I've seen the more choked-off versions of the 225 slant six rated around 165 ft-lb, but in better years it was around 185. And the Buick 231/3.8 V-6, which was probably the benchmark of domestic engines in this size (at least until their premature expiration date), was rated at 190 ft-lb.

I wonder what made the AMC 4.2 so torquey? Or, perhaps, a better question would be, why were the Chevy and Ford inline-6es so gutless? Unless that 175 ft-lb was a misprint?

Another engine in that era that seemed a bit short on torque was the Chevy 229 V-6. Initially it was rated at 115 hp in 1980, and 110 for 1981-84...same as the Buick 231. But, with 175 ft-lb it was a bit light on torque compared to the 190 the Buick unit put out. Ford's 3.8/232 "Essex" V-6 was a bit gutless as well, when it was introduced for 1982...112 hp, but only 175 ft-lb of torque. The fuel-injected version was a definite improvement though: 120 hp and 205 ft-lb.

uplanderguy

My parents had a 229 V6 in their new '80 Monte Carlo, which was a dark metallic green, gold painted pinstripe, green vinyl interior, Rally Wheels, and Exterior Décor Group which got you beltline moldings and a wide rocker molding. It looked nice, but that 229 made noises a Monte Carlo shouldn't make! I do remember it being five more horses than the Buick V6 the same year. The 229 was what made me decide to get a 267 V8 in my new '81 Monte Carlo (first car out of college I bought). It wasn't fast but it was smooth and quiet like a V8 should be.

berri

IIRC the original 60 Comet had a real bad reputation for the engine and transmission capabilities.

Michaell

My maternal grandmother owned a Comet when I was a kid. Don't remember the year, but I'd guess early 60's.

She replaced it with a '67 Monterey coupe. Not sure if she had a thing for Mercurys or if it was just a coincidence.

bhill2

Mr_Shiftright said:

A Falcon 144 cid automatic couldn't pull the skin off rice pudding.

Yeah, I didn't have to make much adjustment in my style to drive my mother's cousin's 190D.

fintail

I am surprised those engines are such weak performers - they must be unwilling to rev. I compare it to my fintail, which is a 2195cc I6 (I think that's about 135 cubic inches). It is fuel injected, and puts out about 130hp. However, 0-60 comes up around 12 seconds, I think. You have to be a little aggressive, which can be off-putting given the look of the car and relatively stiff pedal, but that engine will rev as much as you want it to. And even then, it doesn't feel really fast (or slow) - as some say, it is one of those cars that gains momentum rather than accelerates.

texases

Those are hi-po German cubic inches. My 170 cid Mustang was SLOW. Probably half the hp/cubic inch of your MB.  My boss at the gas station told me I should autocross it. I laughed. 

Mr_Shiftright

There's no torque without displacement---not # of cylinders, but size of each.

andre1969

One handicap on the Falcon/Comet might have been the 2-speed automatic. First gear for the Comet was 1.75:1, with second being a direct 1:1. The standard axle ratio was a 3.1:1, which isn't particularly aggressive for the era, especially for a small engine. My DeSoto has a 3.36:1 axle, while models with the 2-speed automatic had a 3.54:1, to make up for the taller first gear.

I also noticed that one site lists the 2-speed as a "Ford/Edsel" transmission, Ford-O-Matic/Mile-O-Matic. Is it possible, I wonder, that Ford didn't develop a lighter-weight 2-speed for these lightweight, and simply slipped in a beefier unit designed for larger, heavier cars? If so, that would sap a lot of power.

I found this info at http://www.automobile-catalog.com Unfortunately, it won't let me post a direct link to the Comet listing.

For comparison, I found the following listing for the Benz 4-speed automatic: First gear: 3.98:1, Second: 2.52:1, Third: 1.58:1, Fourth: 1.00:1, and the axle ratio was a 4.08:1.

So, I guess if you could force the Benz to start in third gear, you might get a 0-60 experience somewhat comparable to the Falcon/Comet....although the Benz would still have the benefit of a higher-tech engine that loves to rev, and has 40 more horsepower on tap.

fintail

The fintail (and all automatic MBs for a long time) starts out in second gear, unless you floor it and depress the kickdown button under the pedal. The first gear is very steep, and I almost never use it - by 10mph or so, it just feels too wound up. I think best performance is obtained by shifting it manually, too - it likes to upshift early if driven even remotely gently - merging onto a highway starting out at 30mph (thanks to local slowpokes) when in 4th gear can be time consuming. Definitely starting in 3rd and going into 4th early would require patience.

To be fair, the MB was an expensive car in its day for something of its size and displacement, I think it cost about $5500 or so new, maybe the price of a mid range Buick. This was the day when MBs mostly appealed to engineer/professor/doctor types, before they were really flashy or had a ton of status.

bhill2

andre1969 said:

I also noticed that one site lists the 2-speed as a "Ford/Edsel" transmission, Ford-O-Matic/Mile-O-Matic. Is it possible, I wonder, that Ford didn't develop a lighter-weight 2-speed for these lightweight, and simply slipped in a beefier unit designed for larger, heavier cars? If so, that would sap a lot of power.

I'm pretty sure this tranny was a lightweight 2-speed developed for the Falcon/Comet. The earlier Ford-O-Matic was actually a 3-speed that started in 2nd unless you floored the accelerator from a stop.

hpmctorque

"...unless you floored the accelerator from a stop"...or put the shft lever in low.

andre1969

I did a bit of googling. Apparently there was a 2-speed version of the Ford-O-Matic/Mile-O-Matic. To accommodate different engine displacements, they'd use different torque converters, valve bodies, and clutch plates. Here's a spec sheet on it.

http://www.joeandhenrytransmissions.com/partscatalog/ford 2 speed.pdf

xwesx

fintail said:

The fintail (and all automatic MBs for a long time) starts out in second gear, unless you floor it and depress the kickdown button under the pedal. The first gear is very steep, and I almost never use it - by 10mph or so, it just feels too wound up. I think best performance is obtained by shifting it manually, too - it likes to upshift early if driven even remotely gently - merging onto a highway starting out at 30mph (thanks to local slowpokes) when in 4th gear can be time consuming. Definitely starting in 3rd and going into 4th early would require patience.

To be fair, the MB was an expensive car in its day for something of its size and displacement, I think it cost about $5500 or so new, maybe the price of a mid range Buick. This was the day when MBs mostly appealed to engineer/professor/doctor types, before they were really flashy or had a ton of status.

You want to talk about geared low? First gear in my Muncie 4-speed is crazy. Top speed in that gear doesn't even move the needle on the meter (so, probably about 2 mph), and I probably put years between each time I use it. However, when I do need it, it comes in so very handy.... I wish all MT vehicles had a "granny" gear like that.

andre1969

I remember first gear in my uncle's 1976 Jeep pickup was really low. It was a 4-speed...Borg-warner I think? Anyway, you could start off in second, no trouble at all. I do remember using first gear to pull out some stumps.

sda

Mr_Shiftright said:

A Falcon 144 cid automatic couldn't pull the skin off rice pudding.

I remember reading an old road test of a Mercury Comet with the 144 and automatic, and 0-60 came up in about 26 seconds ---that is painfully slow. Even though a similar year VW beetle did 0-60 about the same at least it sounded like it was going fast.

explorerx4

What the heck is this thing?
http://hartford.craigslist.org/cto/5570419114.html

Mr_Shiftright

Looks like a nice John Deere Model B, circa 1950s !

stickguy

that car is so big, you can't even get the whole thing in one picture.

fintail

It's like an Uncle Buck car, just a little nicer.

tjc78

Nice barge!  I had the Lincoln version of that (79 Town Coupe). The doors were bigger than a Civic.  

andre1969

I've never seen a Grand Marquis with those Lincoln Mark oval opera windows. Was that some kind of factory option, or an aftermarket thing I wonder?

As for size, I knew these were on a 124" wheelbase (wagons were 121" though, same as the Fords). However, I had to look up the overall length...229"! Hardly a shrinking violet! For comparison, I think the LTDs were around 221" on a 121" wb, while the Lincoln Continental sedans and town coupes were around 233: on a 127" wb?

So, no wonder the Mercury looked like it gave you a lot more car for the money than the equivalent LTD!

Mr_Shiftright

That's an interesting thing---what was the longest production car ever? (I have no idea).

stickguy

Suburban?

texases

Nah, our '95 Suburban was 220" I think, new ones are 224", got to be something longer - '60 Caddy?

Mr_Shiftright

I don't mean those "stretch" vehicles.

The 'Burb would be the longest current SUV.

Wiki says the longest current production car is the Maybach Pullman, @ 255.9 inches.

texases

Any idea why someone would spend this kind of money to combine 2 decent cars into one oddball?
http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/cto/5492511776.html

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, I can understand it in a way---it's a variation of a Pro Touring type of build, wherein you want classic car looks but modern brakes, steering and suspension.

Like most custom builds of this type, you add up all your receipts, divide by 2, and that's your asking price.

qbrozen

I thought it was a cool idea until I read the details. I can absolutely understand wanting an updated chassis and running gear, but I would much prefer the interior remain 1965 along with the body.

fintail

That dashboard and steering wheel. 1965 car aesthetics were superior to 2004 car aesthetics for virtually all makes and models. That mix doesn't work. 60K? I could probably make the fintail as-new for less.

I suspect the owner also likes things such as this:

stickguy

I like the looks of the galaxies. A rare 60s car that I find attractive.

I would have just resto modded it. Crate motor, all new suspension and brakes, modern seats, hidden audio. Stuff like that. Probably cheaper overall, just as usable, and vastly better looking inside!

sda

andre1969 said:

I've never seen a Grand Marquis with those Lincoln Mark oval opera windows. Was that some kind of factory option, or an aftermarket thing I wonder?

As for size, I knew these were on a 124" wheelbase (wagons were 121" though, same as the Fords). However, I had to look up the overall length...229"! Hardly a shrinking violet! For comparison, I think the LTDs were around 221" on a 121" wb, while the Lincoln Continental sedans and town coupes were around 233: on a 127" wb?

So, no wonder the Mercury looked like it gave you a lot more car for the money than the equivalent LTD!

I'm sure it was an aftermarket, or someone just customizing a bit. There was very little change from 77 to 78, but I think 77 was the last year that you could get the 460. Dad's 77 had the 460 and deep dish wheels. I thought it was a handsome car.

andre1969

Mr_Shiftright said:

That's an interesting thing---what was the longest production car ever? (I have no idea).

Here are some other big 'uns:
1973 Imperial: 235.3", 127" wb (thanks to those protruding rubber blocks they passed off as "5 mph bumpers"
1975 Cadillac Fleetwood: 233.7", 133" wb
1976 Buick Electra: 233.3", 127" wb
1977 Lincoln Continental: 233", 127.2" wb
1976 Olds Ninety-Eight: 232.2", 127" wb
1974 Imperial: 231.1", 124" wb
1978 Chrysler New Yorker: 231.0", 124" wb
1976 Cadillac DeVille: 230.7", 130" wb

So, unless you go into stretched models, such as the Fleetwood 75, I think the 1973 Imperial might be it. I guess it's possible if you go back to the real old days, maybe something like a Duesenberg or similar high end car might have been bigger?

FWIW, the Fleetwood 75 factory limo was 252.2" long on a 151.5" wb.