How about that silly thing on - what was it a '54 Caddy? The gas cap was hidden under the tail light. You pushed a button that was covered with a little reflector and the little tail fin popped up and - abrkadabra! The gas cap! Great silly gadget. We need it back! And how about on the horn transmission button like the 58 Edsel?
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
They went the way of all "owner-partcipation" items on modern cars. People don't want to get their hands dirty with lubricating suspsension parts or waterpumps. Also, it's cheaper to make a "self-lubricating" part.
Some 1940's American cars had the wapers mounted on the roof-much better practice than today (they ice up and stick). of course, those were the days of HIGH rooflines-a man could wear a fedora while driving? Too bad we can't have these in the PT Cruiser!
Hard to do in these air bag days, but our 66 Volvo p1800 had a dash mounted rear view mirror which made for wonderful visability through the windshield
My 1957 DeSoto has one of those...gives you a great view of the tail fin on the driver's side so that at a quick glance it looks like there's a car in your blind spot. What I really hate though are the tiny little side mirrors mounted on the fenders. I have two, which I'm sure was a rarity back then, but they're mounted so far forward that you need someone to help you adjust them, and so tiny that I don't even use them...I just look over my shoulder when changing lanes.
I'm just curious...do the self-lubricating grease fittings on modern cars do a better job than the old kind you had to grease every few thousand miles (provided you didn't neglect the old ones)? I've heard a couple mechanics say they prefered the old ones because you COULD lubricate them.
Wouldn't the lubrication in the modern fittings wear out eventually?
I think the Toyota Tercel would be smaller than the Corvair, and it came in a 4-dr. Also, I'm pretty sure you can get some kind of Minor/Mini in a 4-dr.
I don't think the Tercel came as a 4-door hardtop (frameless door windows, no B-pillar) unless there was some kind of Japan-only model or something. The ones sold here were either 4-door hatchbacks or 4-door sedans, but both had a B-pillar. -Andre
I just wandered over from the Subaru Crew and see that new posts are seldom made here. My daily driver is a 2000 Subaru Forester but my hobby car is a 1963 Studebaker Lark 4-door sedan. It'll never be worth anything, but it's loads of fun to drive, easy to work on, relatively easy to find parts for, and a real nostalgia trip for anyone over 35. (Younger folks don't have a clue what it is; they think either AMC, Rolls or Mercedes, I kid you not.) I bought it 2 years ago to settle the estate of its 2nd owner; it was sitting behind a barn with 58,000 documented miles and two canteloupe-sized rust holes through the floor. Basically I saved it from the crusher.
Anyway, I ramble. Studebaker built a neat rig called the Lark Wagonaire (later just Wagonaire) froom 1963-66. It's a 4-door station wagon in which the rear portion of the roof - from the rear doors to the tailgate - could slide forward, effectively creating an open cargo bed out of the cargo area.
It's hard to find a solid Wagonaire these days, as the sliding roofs were prone to leaking and the infamous Studebaker rust would shortly ensue. However, with today's technology I think any number of manufacturers could duplicate this feature. In some respects the Chevy Avalanche and Subaru ST-X concepts come close, but the closest thing I've seen to it in a modern car is on the last generation BMW 5-series Touring.
Given the ongoing blurring of lines between car, truck, and SUV, reviving the Wagonaire concept seems a natural. Reviving Studebaker is another story...
It's too bad GM couldn't come up with a sedan based on the Camaro underpinnings. It's possible, though, considering the first Camaro shared a lot of components with the 1968-1979 Nova, and the current Ford Mustang can still be traced back to the 1978 Fairmont.
And I mean a small car, though...not a car that looks like a beached whale. -Andre
I've wondered the same thing myself. Now that Camaro/Firebird sales have dropped off, and GM plans to stop making them, why not come up with a sharp, compact, sports sedan with the Camaro chassis, offering both V6 and V8, with both manual and automatic trans-jeez with a little good tweaking, they could have a sort of domestic BMW. If they could make it look different from all the other potato cars out there...but no-that'd make too much sense for GM...
it's not. You'd have a four-door hotrod, not a sport sedan. The F-body chassis is so far from all the big and little things that make a BMW a BMW that they'd have to completely redesign it. I don't live or die by German cars, and I've enjoyed lots of Detroit iron (including a late-model Firebird Formula) but just a short time with a rental 3-series told me why that car is still the standard.
I think "new markets" require new designs these days, like the PT Cruiser (why anyone wants to drive around in Herman Munster's hearse is beyond me, but hey, the thing is selling...) or similar "breakthrough" vehicles (Audi TT, Corvette C5). To some extent, the Lincoln LS is sort of the idea you have, but this is a coupe and for good reasons as speedshift points out.
What's interesting about the PT Cruiser is the kind of people buying them. The image is James Dean rebel without a cause, but the people I see driving them look like they're accountants...or undertakers.
Yeah, I guess the Lincoln LS is kind of the idea I have, if they made it in 2door as well. I was thinking something 1978-83 Malibu sized...not too big, but not too small. The LS fits that bill pretty well, although I'm sure its owners and lovers wouldn't like the comparison to a Malibu!
I hope the LS isn't the wave of cars to come, though. A co-worker has one, and I have never been in a car that was that cramped inside, considering its exterior dimensions. My co-worker is 5'7", and puts the seat all the way back. I'm 6'3", so I can't even fit in the thing! And it's just about as bad in the back seat. They put his CD changer in the glove box, so it has minimal storage space inside. It has about the same trunk space as most cars a foot shorter.
As far as looks go, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, and I kind of like the LS, although it's more derivative than trend-setting. The front makes me think of a cross between a Pontiac and a Mitsubishi, and the rear end looks a lot like an Olds Alero.
Oh, and as for the quality of the LS, my friend's had to have the tranny replaced within a few months, and the cooling fan has failed on him twice already. Maybe my friend was just got a bad example, but if I paid $30K + for a new car, it had better be dang near flawless!
Maybe if I had the income for a high-priced car, (and I was a few inches shorter) I'd look at it in a better light. But hey Lincoln...nice try! And I'd take one over a Versailles anyday!
Yeah, I think it's interesting the types of people buying PT Cruisers. My uncle was thinking about our family getting one as a back-up car, to replace my grandmother's aging but still strong '85 LeSabre. He was looking at it from a totally practical standpoint though...something my grandmother could get into and out of easily, and would be inexpensive and easy on gas.
Obviously, my uncle hasn't been keeping up on them, though. When I told him about the waiting lists, the gouging, etc, and the fact that you could only get a 4 cyl, and how small they really are, he said nevermind. Actually, I can't print what he said, but nevermind sums it up pretty nicely ;-)
Most of the people I've seen with them are people that already have several cars, and had the disposable income (or credit) for a cute toy.
The Australians have been building them for years. Maybe a body along the lines of the new Impala (rwd instead of course), although I find it hard to hang with those big taillights. Oh yeah, its not a BMW. Bummer.
Nothing wrong with it, but at least in the past very few people buy such cars. Two door cars are just more appealing and 4-doors are more for family use. It's just tough to find a market for a 4-door hotrod. I don't think the BMW M5 is going to be all that successful anyway once the initial novelty wears off. You can buy a "normal" 5 series for a lot less money and it's a swell 4-door.
will depreciate rapidly by 50% or more, so some of those who want one [for the right reasons] can afford to buy one. Gee I wish Ferrari Daytonas would do that. {Actually, they'd have to depreciate by 80%!]
...two doors or four, but the F-body chassis doesn't have the engineering to make a poor man's BMW. Do I say this because I'm an elitist snob infatuated with German cars? Only partly. I rented a 3-series for ten days while my Firebird Formula was on one of its frequent trips to the dealer for warranty work. The back-to-back comparison was a real eye-opener, especially since the Formula had been my "dream car". It was, in fact, a pig once you got past the power. The Bimmer was the complete package. Too bad about the yuppie image--those cars are engineering works of art.
the late model F-bodies need help. Too stiff, rattle too much, too much overhang, etc. A lot of problems can be explained away by the fact that they are cheap. I do like the drivetrains though. It's hard to beat the new 350/6 speed for cheap horsepower. I do think that the driving quality differences are overstated though. I've gotten to drive a six cylinder M3 pretty hard and while its a nice car, I think I'll put the 40k+ into something more soulful (or just invest the money).
on the M5. They are laughably expensive to repair. Now, maybe an LS1 swap? I expect that anywhere an inline six was installed, a V8 swap would be really difficult due to steering box, master cylinder issues, etc. I've always thought a really cool engine swap would be Chevy V8 into 2800 or 3.0 CS BMW. I don't think they're too expensive for the less-than-perfect ones. Assuming that it's possible to find one that isn't a rust bucket (unlikely).
I think it's one of those ideas that looks better on paper than it would actually work in a car. It's true what you say, the 3.0s are rust buckets, but a V8 would turn it into a rust-bucket that can't handle and can't stop. It's nose-heavy as it is, and all that extra power would probably make it an awful car to drive...noisy, heavy and with marginal brakes for that kind of work.
American V8s are sturdy enough but they are heavy and wide and not nearly as smooth or high revving as a BMW I6. I think the motor has to sort of fit the car.
Of course, if you're building some kind of outrageous street rod, then a lot of the things I brought up really don't matter.
Are you referring to a drop in value for Ferrarri Daytonas in 1989? I'd forgotten, and don't have any value guides that far back. Can you refresh my memory a little? {Not that I'd rush down to Ferrari of Los Gatos to do anything more than drool over their inventory} For me, there's nothing like the sound of one of those older V-12 Ferraris... About the F-body Camaro chassis. Of course GM could never make a BMW out of those, but could maybe do something more than a flimsy coupe with boy racer styling that could offer something besides the basic front-drive-V6-platform.
I couldn't agree more. The new Firebird, especially, is really dreadful. I also don't like the ultra-long windshield rake and the super high beltline. I appreciate that cars like the SVT Contour are attempted, but they really aren't very fast. Actually, in general, its a shame how the weight keeps getting larded onto new cars. I don't think that a new V6 Golf is a bit quicker than a 16V GTi c.1987 for instance.
Sr. Shiftright- About the weight issues on swaps. While I have no idea about clearance issues on BMW's (I'll bet there would be suprises aplenty, steering, master cylinder, front crossmember), the weight issue strikes me as minimal. The ultra-lightweight super trick 1972 BMW motor weight (I think) is about 350 pounds sans accessories, the old school, crude, Chevy motor w/aluminum heads (think ZZ4) is, what, about 520 pounds? Between moving the battery to the trunk, losing air conditioning, and the rear offset of a V8 vs. an inline 6 and I'll bet that the front bias would hardly be any worse than stock. Heck, I'll bet you'd even lose some weight going from the super-duper BMW trans to an M-22 or a Nash 5-speed.
As far as brakes are concerned, any radically higher performance version of car needs attention there. Is there something intrinsically different between 350 BMW horsepower and 350 Chevy horsepower pushing the car as far as stopping is concerned? If the problem is the additional weight (100lbs?) than you'd best not carry any passengers.
No, weight is weight, you're right. Back then though, BMWs had plenty of weight but didn't have all that much HP, so the 3.0 coupe was a bit of a slug to drive...an extra 200 or so pounds over the steering wouldn't help one bit...I think it would be a bear just to steer it at low speeds. Also the coupe wasn't built to stop that V8 power, of course. I'm sure the brake system would be overstressed because you'd be tempted to drive faster in the BMW with its decent cornering power...and you know how it is...you go into the turns faster and faster and the brakes just burn up.
Last of all, you take a $12,000 car and turn it into a $5,000 car if you put a V8 in it. You could just go out and buy a Sunbeam Tiger if you want a small roadster with V8 power. You can get a decent one for $15-18K and while it's not a peach to drive, it would be cheaper and more capable than a V8 BMW 3.0 I think.
But I've have been thinking about engine swaps a lot lately as sort of a break from work. The CS concept came up in my mind for a couple of reasons. One, they really are beautiful, two, the seem like a good size for a serious hotrod, smaller than a camaro but not overwhelmed by a V8 (unlike, say, a Datsun 510), three, I stumbled on a 2800CS, decent body, some surface rust, pretty worn, for 3k, four, a sleeper sounds like cool idea.
In California the obvious prime directive is to avoid post-'73 cars (though they are threatening to smog check back to '66 again, man, what a pain) and with muscle car prices so high this year (stock market based I imagine) I find my normal automotive m.o. getting closed off (more from irritation than from affordability). Guess I shouldn't have sold my LS-6 Chevelle or L89 Camaro convertible for 2500 bucks (well, that was a while back).
Just to haul back to the topic at hand. What I'd like to see revived in cars is a now-dead lineage, the rwd/V8/std trans medium sized sedan by an American manufacturer. 3200 pounds or so, 2 and 4 door, a trunk, not a Crown Vic, 18-22k, etc. Heck, I'll invent a name from scratch, how about Nova SS?
It strikes me that an engine swap/sleeper topic would be interesting, but there probably isn't enough of a population of currently active automotive hobbyists on Edmunds to keep it going.
don't know about Edmund's townhall. I've tried to recruit a few. There are more and more unusual kinds of "street rods" out there, with all the 30's and 40's Fords and Chevs pretty much taken. For some of us who appreciate ALL kinds of cars, including those with unusual engine swaps, such a topic might go, if we could just get those guys out of their cars and garages and on the computer once in awhile. Heck, we have enough trouble just keeping the topics here going-like the trivia, for example. With the high cost of new cars now, weird and expensive engine swaps are a lot more feasible than they used to be.
True, for one thing you can beat all the emissions laws but in many states you can't "downgrade" the car, that is put in an older engine. So in California, you'd have to pick a car older than 1973. The downside is that you really have to do them right. I've driven quite a few engine swaps and most of the cars were really awful to drive. One nice one was an MGB with a Mazda rotary engine, one of the worst was a Jaguar sedan with a Corvette engine.
like a 39 Buick sedan with a 3800 V6 engine and drivetrain. The supension had been upgraded and all modern accessories [air, tilt wheel, stereo] were installed. Everything was done right. The car cruised quiet and smooth and delivered in the high 20's on the road. I've seen other "street rods" like this done right, and they are quite interesting. A more weird one was an early fifties Nash Rambler with 7-main Ford six from the sixties. Anyway, these weird swaps are expensive if done right, but there are more and more out there. I don't think I'd mess with a rustbucket BMW, however. Shifty, you mentioned a drop in value of Ferrari Daytonas in 1989. Could you refresh my memory? What happened exactly?
you don't start with a 'rustbucket'. I don't suppose I'd modify a rustbucket 39 Buick either. Since cars are basically poorly made, mass produced items, older project cars are all over the map in terms of suitability.
My favorite Daytona thing was when they where chopping off roofs to build roadsters. Too funny.
The last site is 510 oriented. The Datsun guys really build some cool all-around cars. 240Z's tend to end up with small block Chevys while the 510's are really a varied lot. Modern Nissan V6's are not uncommon (both SOHC and DOHC) along with a smattering of everything under the sun.
One neat swap was an Infiniti DOHC motor into 510 swap (yes, yes, along with bigger brakes, rack and pinion steering, etc.). So you've got modern luxury car engine behaviour (smooth idle, etc.) along with the ability to turn a 13.0 or better in the 1/4. Very cool.
Right around 1989-1990 all collector car values went into the tank. Some cars sank to 1/10th their value within a few months. Talk about whiplash! I'm not certain the exact depreciation of the Daytonas at that time but it was substantial--seriously substantial.
The idea of bringing back an affordable rwd sedan reminds me of an idea I stole from Robert Cumberford in Automobile and posted here a few months back: using light truck chassis to develop an affordable V8 sedan. Like something based on the Ford chassis, with the Mustang 4.6 SOHC standard and the DOHC optional. Don't know about steering and brake feel. Pickups still don't seem to offer much in those areas.
But neither does my GTP, and that doesn't hurt its appeal as a poor man's sport sedan. Over in the Sedans forum they're comparing it favorably with everything except the Bugatti Royale. I thought all it did well was go fast in a straight line. Guess I'm missing something...
I'd like to see the original, slow as a snail, best shifter made, air cooled, horizontally opposed, Bug! This was a car that surpasses the Korean low budget cars of today. It was sturdy and simple and started a craze before there were Corollas and CRX's of today!!! If they could fix the rust and the emissions, I'd buy one tomorrow!! Yeah, yeah, I know - buy a New Beetle. It's really not the same. There was that certain smell to the Beetle, the ability to reach across the passenger seat to roll down the window and the ingenuity to clean your windows from the air in your spare and turn the speedometer from the wire driven by the front driver's side wheel. The New Beetle just looks like the old one. While special in it's own right, it's not the true Beetle.
I can't have a a Beetle? O.k. - how about a Slant 6 Chrysler???
There is something to be said for the merits of simplicity, but of course with all the regulations in effect today you would not be allowed to build a simple car anymore---and with most drivers pretty spoiled by high performance, comfort and safety levels, it would be a hard car to sell to anyone even if you could figure out how to get around all the laws (maybe offer it as a kit car?).
Old VWs are charming, but pretty awful to drive...maybe on a small back road in the country on a nice warm day with the sunroof open going 35 mph...that could work!
A solid, quality car...BUT-to put it into perspective, try driving a '67 Bug from the bay area to Lake Tahoe on a hot summer day, and realize you'll get 26 MPG at BEST-[I actually got as little as 19-20 around town]. Heck, you can get better gas mileage than that with a high performance luxury car today. I'll never forget what my rear seat passengers said about comfort when I drove them to Sacramento and back from San Francisco in my 67 bug. I sold the car soon after that and got a 66 Dart with the Slant 6. Now there was a comfortable car and youy couldn't break the motor. But gas mileage, again, wasn't that great. Only 17-18 mosty of the time. Again, look what you can get out of more modern efficient engines. But they were still good, and I might have one again sometime-who knows?
A place called Beetlemex imports Mexican beetles and sells them for about 11k new. I think that they avoid DOT/EPA issues by replacing the pan with a restored pan off of an early bug and the title of the new car becomes that of the '67 or whatever older car.
They're kind of neat in a few ways. Modernized systems in general include fuel injection, hydraulic lifters, disk brakes, an oil filter (!!!!) etc. Plus I'll bet they can import oddball versions never sold in the US. (One that pops to mind is a cloth sunroof model where the sunroof extends from windshield to the back of the backseat). I think if they imported a new/old Safari (aka Thing) I'd be interested.
That being said, old beetles really are maintenance hogs. If the old dealer checklists are followed, I think that there are beaucoup things to adjust and lubricate on darn small intervals. I think that that business of being able to fix one with coathangers and duct tape is kind of nonsense (especially if the work is done right).
Another way to go on the new/old beetle deal is to buy a new 356 replica built on a shortened VW pan. Vintage speedsters sells a pretty cool car that I've heard has really good fit and finish in a turnkey form.
for 18k. Couldn't deal with the Lime Green metallic color (I way prefer the bright colors, blue/orange/green) but wasn't a bad car overall. A thing that's funny about those cars that you forget is how small and ungarish they are compared to a new Firebird. I really like the idea of being able to put my elbow up when the windows is down and the lack of the enormous dash and windshield rake of the new cars. It's kind of funny because I always think 1970 muscle cars as being sort of cartoonish, but really some of the new cars have more junk hung on them than any older car (think GTP or Firebird).
Maybe just a resurrection of the smooth early Camaros (67/68) with modern drive trains might be in order.
I had a '96 Ram Air Trans Am, and I currently have a 1969 Camaro RS SS 396 Camaro convertible. The Trans Am was huge! While it was a fun car to drive and could cruise at 100+ on the highway, it was just too big and fat for me. It's like being famous when I drive the '69. I love the styling. ndance did you know there is only one known documented L89 '69 Camaro in existence?
I drove a '74 Superbeetle for a few years and really liked it. The Supers handle much better then the regular Beetles. I averaged 40mpg.
I believe the Daytona's were selling for $1 million in '89-90. Now they are down to $100-130K.
L89 convertible business. I can think of several. My old car(a JJ code four speed Indy pace car). There's a non-pace car (blue I think) one in some collection on the web. A stumbled on another L89 pace car on a Camaro web site. The honest to Charlie official pace car (12467N267543). The back up official pace car (12467N267544).
It's kind of like the rarity ascribed to 396 pace cars in general. I always seems to see claims like 50 built (out of ~3600) and so on. I've probably looked at 20 myself. I expect the real numbers (although I'm no authority) could be more like 700.
You can see why L89 cars are so rare (311 built) just from a price standpoint. I've got old paperwork in my dragon trove somewhere showing a purchase price of a little over $6000 in 1969!
Now a car I've never seen is an L89 Nova (you do stumble on the Chevelles now and then).
While I'm thinking about Camaros. The real screaming deals on those cars were the COPO cars with the iron 427 (L72). They cost about the same as an SS-396, came with all the good driveline and brake/handling parts of an SS, ZL2 hood, and lacked the SS trim and doofy chrome doodads on the hood. I'd love to have one, but the ante is upwards of 50k anymore, and I just couldn't force myself to write the check (heck, you could get probably 3 1973 911S's or 1 1/2 Pantera's for that price).
Comments
Too bad we can't have these in the PT Cruiser!
Wouldn't the lubrication in the modern fittings wear out eventually?
-Andre
I just wandered over from the Subaru Crew and see that new posts are seldom made here. My daily driver is a 2000 Subaru Forester but my hobby car is a 1963 Studebaker Lark 4-door sedan. It'll never be worth anything, but it's loads of fun to drive, easy to work on, relatively easy to find parts for, and a real nostalgia trip for anyone over 35. (Younger folks don't have a clue what it is; they think either AMC, Rolls or Mercedes, I kid you not.) I bought it 2 years ago to settle the estate of its 2nd owner; it was sitting behind a barn with 58,000 documented miles and two canteloupe-sized rust holes through the floor. Basically I saved it from the crusher.
Anyway, I ramble. Studebaker built a neat rig called the Lark Wagonaire (later just Wagonaire) froom 1963-66. It's a 4-door station wagon in which the rear portion of the roof - from the rear doors to the tailgate - could slide forward, effectively creating an open cargo bed out of the cargo area.
It's hard to find a solid Wagonaire these days, as the sliding roofs were prone to leaking and the infamous Studebaker rust would shortly ensue. However, with today's technology I think any number of manufacturers could duplicate this feature. In some respects the Chevy Avalanche and Subaru ST-X concepts come close, but the closest thing I've seen to it in a modern car is on the last generation BMW 5-series Touring.
Given the ongoing blurring of lines between car, truck, and SUV, reviving the Wagonaire concept seems a natural. Reviving Studebaker is another story...
Ed
And I mean a small car, though...not a car that looks like a beached whale.
-Andre
I hope the LS isn't the wave of cars to come, though. A co-worker has one, and I have never been in a car that was that cramped inside, considering its exterior dimensions. My co-worker is 5'7", and puts the seat all the way back. I'm 6'3", so I can't even fit in the thing! And it's just about as bad in the back seat. They put his CD changer in the glove box, so it has minimal storage space inside. It has about the same trunk space as most cars a foot shorter.
As far as looks go, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, and I kind of like the LS, although it's more derivative than trend-setting. The front makes me think of a cross between a Pontiac and a Mitsubishi, and the rear end looks a lot like an Olds Alero.
Oh, and as for the quality of the LS, my friend's had to have the tranny replaced within a few months, and the cooling fan has failed on him twice already. Maybe my friend was just got a bad example, but if I paid $30K + for a new car, it had better be dang near flawless!
Maybe if I had the income for a high-priced car, (and I was a few inches shorter) I'd look at it in a better light. But hey Lincoln...nice try! And I'd take one over a Versailles anyday!
-Andre
Obviously, my uncle hasn't been keeping up on them, though. When I told him about the waiting lists, the gouging, etc, and the fact that you could only get a 4 cyl, and how small they really are, he said nevermind. Actually, I can't print what he said, but nevermind sums it up pretty nicely ;-)
Most of the people I've seen with them are people that already have several cars, and had the disposable income (or credit) for a cute toy.
-Andre
American V8s are sturdy enough but they are heavy and wide and not nearly as smooth or high revving as a BMW I6. I think the motor has to sort of fit the car.
Of course, if you're building some kind of outrageous street rod, then a lot of the things I brought up really don't matter.
About the F-body Camaro chassis. Of course GM could never make a BMW out of those, but could maybe do something more than a flimsy coupe with boy racer styling that could offer something besides the basic front-drive-V6-platform.
Sr. Shiftright-
About the weight issues on swaps. While I have no idea about clearance issues on BMW's (I'll bet there would be suprises aplenty, steering, master cylinder, front crossmember), the weight issue strikes me as minimal. The ultra-lightweight super trick 1972 BMW motor weight (I think) is about 350 pounds sans accessories, the old school, crude, Chevy motor w/aluminum heads (think ZZ4) is, what, about 520 pounds? Between moving the battery to the trunk, losing air conditioning, and the rear offset of a V8 vs. an inline 6 and I'll bet that the front bias would hardly be any worse than stock. Heck, I'll bet you'd even lose some weight going from the super-duper BMW trans to an M-22 or a Nash 5-speed.
As far as brakes are concerned, any radically higher performance version of car needs attention there. Is there something intrinsically different between 350 BMW horsepower and 350 Chevy horsepower pushing the car as far as stopping is concerned? If the problem is the additional weight (100lbs?) than you'd best not carry any passengers.
Last of all, you take a $12,000 car and turn it into a $5,000 car if you put a V8 in it. You could just go out and buy a Sunbeam Tiger if you want a small roadster with V8 power. You can get a decent one for $15-18K and while it's not a peach to drive, it would be cheaper and more capable than a V8 BMW 3.0 I think.
In California the obvious prime directive is to avoid post-'73 cars (though they are threatening to smog check back to '66 again, man, what a pain) and with muscle car prices so high this year (stock market based I imagine) I find my normal automotive m.o. getting closed off (more from irritation than from affordability). Guess I shouldn't have sold my LS-6 Chevelle or L89 Camaro convertible for 2500 bucks (well, that was a while back).
It strikes me that an engine swap/sleeper topic would be interesting, but there probably isn't enough of a population of currently active automotive hobbyists on Edmunds to keep it going.
For some of us who appreciate ALL kinds of cars, including those with unusual engine swaps, such a topic might go, if we could just get those guys out of their cars and garages and on the computer once in awhile. Heck, we have enough trouble just keeping the topics here going-like the trivia, for example. With the high cost of new cars now, weird and expensive engine swaps are a lot more feasible than they used to be.
My favorite Daytona thing was when they where chopping off roofs to build roadsters. Too funny.
As far as swaps go, check out these sites.
www.engineswaps.com
members.aol.com/danmas/examples.htm
www.bryanf.com
The last site is 510 oriented. The Datsun guys really build some cool all-around cars. 240Z's tend to end up with small block Chevys while the 510's are really a varied lot. Modern Nissan V6's are not uncommon (both SOHC and DOHC) along with a smattering of everything under the sun.
One neat swap was an Infiniti DOHC motor into 510 swap (yes, yes, along with bigger brakes, rack and pinion steering, etc.). So you've got modern luxury car engine behaviour (smooth idle, etc.) along with the ability to turn a 13.0 or better in the 1/4. Very cool.
The idea of bringing back an affordable rwd sedan reminds me of an idea I stole from Robert Cumberford in Automobile and posted here a few months back: using light truck chassis to develop an affordable V8 sedan. Like something based on the Ford chassis, with the Mustang 4.6 SOHC standard and the DOHC optional. Don't know about steering and brake feel. Pickups still don't seem to offer much in those areas.
But neither does my GTP, and that doesn't hurt its appeal as a poor man's sport sedan. Over in the Sedans forum they're comparing it favorably with everything except the Bugatti Royale. I thought all it did well was go fast in a straight line. Guess I'm missing something...
I can't have a a Beetle? O.k. - how about a Slant 6 Chrysler???
Old VWs are charming, but pretty awful to drive...maybe on a small back road in the country on a nice warm day with the sunroof open going 35 mph...that could work!
They're kind of neat in a few ways. Modernized systems in general include fuel injection, hydraulic lifters, disk brakes, an oil filter (!!!!) etc. Plus I'll bet they can import oddball versions never sold in the US. (One that pops to mind is a cloth sunroof model where the sunroof extends from windshield to the back of the backseat). I think if they imported a new/old Safari (aka Thing) I'd be interested.
That being said, old beetles really are maintenance hogs. If the old dealer checklists are followed, I think that there are beaucoup things to adjust and lubricate on darn small intervals. I think that that business of being able to fix one with coathangers and duct tape is kind of nonsense (especially if the work is done right).
Another way to go on the new/old beetle deal is to buy a new 356 replica built on a shortened VW pan. Vintage speedsters sells a pretty cool car that I've heard has really good fit and finish in a turnkey form.
Maybe just a resurrection of the smooth early Camaros (67/68) with modern drive trains might be in order.
I drove a '74 Superbeetle for a few years and really liked it. The Supers handle much better then the regular Beetles. I averaged 40mpg.
I believe the Daytona's were selling for $1 million in '89-90. Now they are down to $100-130K.
My old car(a JJ code four speed Indy pace car).
There's a non-pace car (blue I think) one in some collection on the web.
A stumbled on another L89 pace car on a Camaro web site.
The honest to Charlie official pace car (12467N267543).
The back up official pace car (12467N267544).
It's kind of like the rarity ascribed to 396 pace cars in general. I always seems to see claims like 50 built (out of ~3600) and so on. I've probably looked at 20 myself. I expect the real numbers (although I'm no authority) could be more like 700.
You can see why L89 cars are so rare (311 built) just from a price standpoint. I've got old paperwork in my dragon trove somewhere showing a purchase price of a little over $6000 in 1969!
Now a car I've never seen is an L89 Nova (you do stumble on the Chevelles now and then).