In response to Andre concerning emission standards. The letters GPM stand for grams per mile. That is the actual weight of that pollutant put out by the car as it travels one mile (on the treadmill in the test case). The EPA standards for new (out of the factory) cars are all set in grams per mile. I think EPA's test lab is in Lansing, Michigan. The EPA likes this standard because it gives the total pollutant load from the car. The "ppm" standard is a concentration standard. It tells you how many ppm were in the volume of exhaust sampled. To convert from one to another you must know the total volume of exhaust sample. You multiply the "parts per million" by the "millions of parts" to get the total parts, or weight of the exhaust. Generally you can't compare the two tests because exhaust flows vary from engine to engine. The GPM standard is tougher on big engines because they have larger exhaust flows so even if their "per cylinder" exhaust is the same an 8cyl will have double the exhaust of a 4 cyl. Some jurisdictions use ppm standards, and some use GPM standards. If EPA has its way all jurisdictions will use GPM standards, EPA likes this because as I said above they can come up with a total emssion value for all cars in the region. Most jurisdictions do not like GPM tests for two reasons. 1. They're expensive 2. They have reliability problems. A complete rig for a GPM test including treadmill, analyzer, etc can cost 100000. The exhaust flow monitors are subject to corrosion etc. It turns out that determining the total flow of a hot acidic exhaust gas is not an easy thing to do. It requires considerable maintenance to work in a real world situation where numerous cars are being tested in single day. But apparently thats where all vehicle emission tests are headed. The numbers you gave (ppm) for your car are pretty typical for a well maintained used car of 1980s vintage. Hope this helps some.
but I sat down and figured how many miles my '85 LeSabre would have to drive before it put out its own weight in pollutants. I just added the HC, NOX,and CO numbers, since I don't think they consider the CO2 a pollutant (after all, the cutoff number for CO2 is minimum, whereas the others are maximums). I couldn't remember exactly how many grams were in an ounce, but I thought it was 28. And I don't know the exact weight of the car, so I just estimated 3800 lb.
Anyway, it pollutes about 2.16 grams per mile, or 1 ounce per 12.96 miles., or 1 lb per 207.41 miles. Or...3800 lb over 788,148 miles! So far it's gone about 155,000 miles, so I don't feel TOO guilty ;-)
Anyway, Joecug, thanks so much for explaining the emissions results to me! My roommate's 1998 Tracker is going in for its test soon...it ought to be interesting to compare its emissions compared to my LeSabre
I've got a 86 DeVille Fleetwood Cadillac with 162,00 miles. Paid $700 canadian for it and $400 to get it on the road. Every thing works, exept the radio, and the tranny is going, slipping in 3rd. And this was a GM repacement, but I love driving it. The engine has been replaced 24,000 miles ago. I have heard about the cooling/head gasket problem and want to prevent it. Problem is no dealer in town has heard of the rad pellets. Can anybody tell me where I can get them.I have been looking for a couple of months now with no luck. Does it have to be a GM product. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks
I'm looking at buying a 1962 Lincoln Continental sedan for about $6,500. Not as a show car or anything. Just want some big American steel to showboat in. Is there anything I should look for during the purchase process? Does anyone know what it would cost to own one these beasts? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
WEll, unless the car is really sharp, you may be paying too much at $6,500. The car should be pretty darn nice for that price...not a show car, but nothing shabby about it and not needing any expensive parts or repairs (good paint, upholstery, glass, etc.)
As for what to look for, common sense applies. Everything electrical should work, so be sure to play with all the switches. Other than that, they are pretty straightforward 1930s technology, so a good checkup should tell you all you need to know.
If the car is sound, I would expect your biggest expense, short of a suprise catastrophe, would be gas...the car will eat plenty of it....figure gas and repairs...oh, .25 cents a mile?
Definitely do not feel like they are "The Standard of the World." Why, you could purchase a Chevy Caprice sedan for much less money than you could a Cadillac Deville in the '60s and '70s! I cannot see why people would pay exorbitant premiums for huge, gaudy Coupe/Sedan DeVilles when they could get a Caprice Classic fully loaded, with an engine that got better gas mileage. Example: a new Coupe DeVille cost about $9000 new in '76, and you could get a new Caprice Classic coupe for only $5000. Couldn't people see the difference in the economics back in those days or just do their research before buying? My mom still chides my dad for spending $5800 (nearly the amount of his take-home pay then) to purchase his Camaro Z28 back in '77. The car was stolen a year and a half later, to boot. If I were him, I would have just bought a Chevette or Omni just to save some bucks!
...I think a Z-28 would be a heck of a lot more fun than a Chevette or an Omni...even in the late 70's! As for a Caprice versus a Coupe DeVille in 1976, keep in mind those are base prices. My grandparents bought a '72 Impala 4-door hardtop, brand new, for about $5000. Considering how rampant inflation was back then, I really doubt $5000 would get you much of a Caprice in 1976. If you wanted air conditioning, figure about$500-600 more. Want an FM radio? Probably something ridiculous like $100-200. Power windows? Maybe $100-150, since by that time only the front ones on the coupes rolled down anymore. And the standard engine was a 350-2bbl with a tepid 145 hp. I'd imagine stuff like the 3-speed automatic, power steering, and power brakes would've been standard on a Caprice by the, but I could be wrong. You could get a 454 that put out something like 225 hp, but by the time you did that, you'd probably be getting worse mileage than the Caddy's 190-hp 500!
Back then, the Cadillac would also have been a physically bigger car, too. It would've given you a larger trunk and more legroom inside. A friend of mine had a '72 Catalina 2-door, mechanically identical to the Caprice, and I've sat in it a few times. They're really not very roomy cars in the back. Plenty of shoulder room, so 3 across is not problem, but they'd better be short people, if the driver is tall!
The Caddy also weighed about 700-800 lb more than the Chevy, so I'd imagine it had a beefier frame, suspension, tires, wheels, etc. As a result, the car would ride better, and would also carry a heavy load much more gracefully than an Impala or Caprice would.
From a purely economic standpoint, sure a Caprice would make more sense than a Cadillac. And that's what it tried to be...a Cadillac for people on a budget. But nobody who could truly afford a Cadillac back then would've even given the Caprice a second glance. It could also be argued that a Cavalier makes more sense than a BMW 3-series or a small Benz, but I doubt very many people would be swayed!!
the only one I've seen that I really coveted (I've probably mentioned this one before) was a (I think) '77 or '78 Nova a friend of mine had.
Four door, Concours model, 350 4bbl, 4 speed, gauge package, handling package. What a great start for cool sleeper. They're actually even kind of pretty. YMMV of course. I should probably track that one down someday (along with all my old cars, of course).
I noticed that an earlier poster (only 10 messages, but 10 *months* ago) was talking about pollution levels on old cars.
One of the most crazy-making things in California was emissions testing on older high-performance cars. As an example, my last Z/28 (302) was pretty fresh (10k miles or so) and in tune (value lash and ignition) but would barely pass by the skin of its teeth at idle. Push the rpms up above the allowed idle speed just a smidge and the HC's would plummet, but the computer doesn't care. Perhaps there was something wrong with the car that I wasn't smart enough to track down, but man, having a newish, utterly stock engine fail is a PITA. Don't doubt for a minute that the bad old days concerning visual inspections + tailpipe inspections will come back some day. If nothing else, remote sensing will cause some serious issues for Chevy 302's, 426 hemi's (which I've heard smog poorly) etc. I suppose if you are willing to deal with those cars (and the expense), you can afford a cam swap to a less dirty grind. End of rant.
But most older cars are exempt (1973 and older) and newer cars than that will become exempt, year by year, starting I believe in 2003, when the 1974s will become exempt.
Old big blocks are tremendous polluters, but really there aren't enough of them on the road for the state to worry about. It is gross polluters 1973 on up that will get nailed.
Well, (as I'm sure you know already, so mea culpa, mea culpa)... pre '74 cars aren't exempt from pollution controls, just from being checked every two years. I personally don't doubt for a second that that will get pulled one of these days, the owners of said cars being not numerous enough to exert any real power. If nothing else, I think you'll see a divide and conquer strategy where highly restricted usage (low miles, special plates, etc) will allow exemption from inspection. This will throw a bone to the more well-off and leave the other big users of old cars (the poor) in the lurch. Whether or not old cars produce a large percentage of the pollution is only a side issue where the politics of the environment is concerned.
As I mentioned before, if nothing else, expect 1966 and up U.S. built cars (I forget what the year is for foreign built) to have to toe the line as remote sensing systems get the nod. My bet is that a common scenario in L.A. (for instance) will be an aircooled VW, on causing a high reading on an on-ramp, will automatically generate some sort of summons for the owner to pop on down to the referee station.
...they used to stop emissions testing when a car was 15 model years old. I remember taking my '80 Malibu through the emissions test in late '87 (88 model year), that cars from modely year '73 and older were exempt. The next year, it was '74 and older. And in late '89, the last year I had it tested (and it failed) it was '75 and older.
For some reason though, they stopped at '76. Even today, if I bought a '77 Caddy or something, even though it's 25 model years old, and can now qualify for historic plates, it still has to go through the emissions test. They also only test every two years nowadays. I don't know how soon you have to get a new car tested though. I've had my Intrepid now for about 2 years and 2 months, and haven't gotten a notice yet.
There are a few loopholes, though. For instance, depending on the county you live in, you may not need to get tested. My Mom lives in Southern Maryland, and never had to get her '86 Monte tested. But almost immediately after she gave it to me, the emissions notice came! I have a feeling that police cars are exempt from emissions testing as well. I've had my '89 Gran Fury about 3 1/2 years now, and never got a notice. Normally, when I get a used car, I get the notice about a month or so after I tag and title the car!
Oh, I wouldn't worry about old cars. There's really no funding or legislative report for spending huge sums of money to sniff up the tailpipes of 1966 Chevys. Government will be much more interested in sniffing YOU than your car in the future it seems.
Honestly, I wouldn't dismiss the problem so easily. If you own and tend to own utterly stock older cars...no problem probably. Where the real caution should be exerted is in heavily modified cars. While in the case of hot vw's, a stock engine can be r&r'ed easily enough, let's say you put a Chevy 454 in a '73 Firebird (gasps from the Pontiac people...it does happen though). Due to some nasty set of circumstances (remote sensor, some public spirited citizen calls in a license plate, maybe it smokes a bit and a CHP guy get interested) you have to show up at an emissions station, oopsie, the engine isn't identical to a 1973 454 from a Corvette or something (including every bit of smog gear). Problems erupt.
I admit that this sort of thing is rare (maybe non-existent for now), but I'd think twice before putting together a weber carb'ed, header'ed, big cam motor in a 1972 Camaro or its ilk. There's a lot to be said for 1965 Mustangs, early '60s Beetles, etc if a lot of money is to be spent.
If you don't think the laws will ever be changed, remember what happened in CA when testing became more and more widespread. Turned out that you were supposed to have all the smog gear all along and I can just imagine the scramble for pumps, original air cleaners, exhaust manifolds etc. as the screws tightened. In addition, there's *always* a serious push for removal of old cars from the road by air quality advocates (and the car companies I'll bet). Hey, they could be right.
Roll in the car (say a 1971 Cadillac Fleetwood). Measure total emissions Convert emissions to dollars Pay that many dollars
I kind of envision a big dial with $0 to $whatever showing. There's no need for a linear scale, just some relationship between pollution and money. You want to drive a dirty car? fine, here's the bill. I realize this doesn't deal with mileage on the car, but that invites too much tampering with the odometer.
Well, if a person takes his emissions equipment off, then he has to step up and pay the price if he is busted. If one breaks the law, one takes the consequences. It's everybody's air, there aren't any First Amendment pollution rights.
I've read that the biggest threat to older cars is the pollution credits industry gets by turning old cars over to the crusher.
I used to sweat the semi-annual inspections. At one point we had to hang these NOX devices on engines. I forget what they did, probably meddled with vacuum advance or something--that always seemed to be a favorite target. What did vacuum advance ever do?
I always passed although sometimes they'd lean the idle mixture screws to the point where the car barely ran. I'd always run them back out and take off the NOX device but there must have been hundreds of thousands of cars that barely ran after they were smogged.
One time I almost didn't pass because some eagle-eyed Sears mechanic noticed that my '68 Cougar's rear sidemarker lights were just reflectors, not real lights. That's how they came from the factory but he took some convincing.
Geez....give a guy just a little POWER, right? LOL!
I don't mind crushing old clunkers if they are totally beat up cars with no value. No one's going to fix up rusted through 4 door sedans anyway, and being so trashed, their value for parts is probably negligible. Usually really nice or historically interesting cars are preserved. It's the beaters that get sold to the junkers anyway.
...but my '68 Dart got busted for the side marker lights, too! I had my '69 GT before I had the '68, and it just had rectangular reflectors. So I figured the '68 just had reflectors too, little round ones. Well, the mechanic doing the inspection thought they were...at first. Unfortunately, one of them decided to light up, so I had to replace the other three!
The thing that irritates me about crushing old cars, though, is that it still gives the factories free reign to pollute while crushing something that may or may not still have some use. While a 4-door sedan may not have much value, especially if it's ragged out, there are still useful items on it like the taillights, side markers, chrome, front fenders, interior trim pieces, bumpers, etc.
I bought a fender off a '68 Dart in the junkyard for mine, after it had a hit-and-run done to it parked on the street. I remember seeing that car about a year later, up on their pile o' cars waiting for the crusher. It still had the other fender on it, and it was still perfect. Well, about a year or two after that, I got hit on the other fender. Kinda made me wish I'd thought to buy the passenger-side fender off that junkyard '68, too! Maybe these things are still kinda common out west and areas where it's drier, but not here in MD. At least, not in good shape!
Well, you can't keep every rusted out, polluting, spongy-braked old car on the road. there has to be a natural life to these things.
But yes, I agree, the "pollution credit" program seems like a scam. It's like the pollution is not taken away, but moved around. Well, maybe that's the idea. Get it out of the nice neighborhoods and dump it into someone else's back yard. This is very fashionable these days.
I'm sure some enterprising soul has figured out that it's profitable to comb salvage yards and remove trim pieces and fenders from junked cars. At Carlisle and Hershey, it seems as though there are parts for virtually every old car, especially the postwar models.
When the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act were being phased in around the nation, there was a great deal of talk about the new standard posing a threat to old cars. Some even predicted the end of the old car hobby. As far as I can tell, that turned out to be much ado about nothing. I work in the Pennsylvania Senate, and most legislators are smart enough to realize that collector cars are not a serious pollution problem. (My boss, a state senator, is a member of the AACA.) Most of them are lovingly maintained, plus they are rarely driven. (Who would risk driving a nice, vintage Mustang, Camaro or Road Runner to work every morning?) As for those mundane sedans, most of the ones that I see at old car shows are low mileage examples that were owned by the proverbial "little old lady" who didn't drive them all that much even when they were new. As collector cars, their value stems from their low mileage and original condition, which really puts a damper on their regular use.
I work at a state run central emissions testing facility. I can say with certainty that state auto emissions tests are a creature of the politics of each state. Delaware (where I work) Maryland, Pennsylvania,and New Jersey are all supposed to coordinate their air programs but they all have different tests with different test methods and pass/fail cutoffs. Passing in one state doesnt mean your car can pass in another. This is especially true for older cars. Some states exempt past 25 years, some 1975 or older (before cat converters) some 20 years. Delaware tests back to 1968 when PCV valves were introduced. And these rules have changed from time to time. Never take anything for granted with these test rules. In 1972 EPA decreed that there should be no smog days anywhere on the East Coast by 1980. Since its now 2002 and there are still a few smoggy days from time to time I would expect these programs to continue Also one poster commented on older performance cars difficulty passing tests. This is generally because these cars are set for a rich idle mixture and have performance cams with a large fuel intake. This gives good acceleration but poor idle emissions.I've seen Chevelle SS engine emissions drop 90% between 750 rpm 2500 rpm. There are several ways around this !. Lean up the carb for the test day 2. Swap out the perf crank for the test day 3. Attach a catalytic converter for the test day, then go back to the straight pipe after you pass. If all else fails you buy a garage in a rural county that doesnt require emission tests and register the car there. I've seen all these things done and they are all legal. Good luck on your next test.
That's an interesting point about performance cams, but my guess is that it's the long overlap that's the culprit. When you've got the intake valves staying open later and the exhaust valves opening earlier there's lots of unburned fuel going out the tailpipe as HC emissions. That dilution is why the idle is lumpy with a performance cam.
Hi, I'm new to this board, and I'm here on the behalf of my sister and brother-in-law. They own 2 Cadillacs at present, and that is about to become 3. The first two are are 1974 Cadillac Hearse (Miller Meteor) and a 1979 Cadillac Fleetwood Hearse (Superior). The third addition is a mint condition 1972 white Cadillac funeral limo. It was owned by the Memphis Funeral Home, and supposedly the seller (in Lexington, NC) has documentation of the car being driven and ridden in by Elvis Presley. The car has 70-some thousand original miles on it...not sure what exact number it is. I haven't seen the car, only what my brother-in-law has told me. He said it is in mint condition, 90% at least, nothing is wrong with it, except maybe paint chips or something as small. It is a limited edition, has 24k gold electroplated emblems all around (even on wheels), tinted windows, front and rear air, power antenna, and everything else that was offered on the car in '72. Now, my question for this car is, what is it worth? The seller is asking $7500. My second question spawns from the Rochester carb in the '79 Caddy hearse. It has the number on the side: 17058230, and underneath is 3277. It is a Rochester Quadrajet 4 barrel, on a 79 Fleetwood 425/427 7.0 liter engine. The question is, what is the correct reading for the float bowl when adjusted from the carb with the top of the carb removed? I hope that makes sense to someone, my brother-in-law told me...and I was trying to interpret it to get on here and tell someone about it. If someone could respond to my questions soon, I would appreciate it. My brother-in-law goes to test the limo and get it approved for the loan on Monday. Thanks again!
Funeral limos are tough to evaluate. As an appraiser, I peg them right at Sedan prices, so about $5,000 maximum seems right to me. The Elvis connection is very slim pickings here and I certainly wouldn't pay extra for a car Elvis "rode in".
If he didn't own it (name on registration) or if it isn't a documented movie car, it's not worth ten cents more because he rode in it as far as I'm concerned. Cars proported to be "Elvis's Gardener's car" or the car "used by Elvis's manager when in Florida" have flopped at auctions, so beware of this.
...I have encountered were a 1973 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham said to have been Dr. Henry Kissinger's, a 1977 Rolls-Royce owned by Diana Ross, an 1977 Cadillac Fleetwood limousine owned by Mamie Eisenhower, and a 1962 Cadillac Fleetwood owned by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Some cars up for auction owned by two of Philadelphia's more notorious citizens were the 1973 Rolls-Royce owned by jailed mob boss Nicky Scarfo and a 1971 Rolls-Royce and 1987 Cadillac Coupe DeVille owned by serial killer Gary Heidnik.
Aside from a car with Dr. King's name on it, I don't see any of those cars are particularly more valuable for their association, but people vote with their wallets, not mine, so maybe I'm wrong I would think a car owned by Kissinger would be worth less than normal (just kidding). Maybe Diana Ross could boost the value a little. It all comes down to "who cares, and do they care enough to pay more money for a rather ordinary car"? Always a mystery to be answered at auction time, and a big risk for a speculator.
I remember a Pontiac Station Wagon actually owned by Frank Sinatra, but it only brought about $6,000-$7,000. True, a bit more than a stock Pontiac Wagon (an old Tempest or something) but certainly no gold mine. Why did this happen? Because a) there were no photos or film clips of Sinatra in it (he may never have driven it, just registered to him) and b) it's an ordinary car.
You have to admit, a museum showing a Pontiac Wagon "owned by Frank Sinatra" with no evidence, sitting somewhere in a corner, is kind of a pathetic exhibit.
Is there anyone who could help with the carb question under my previous post, #77? I'd appreciate that. Also, I will pass along the information about the limo. I completely agree with you, just because he rode in it don't mean a dad gum thing, just that maybe some fabric particles from one of those fancy suits may be embedded in the seats somewhere...big woop, "get a microscope honey! lets see if Elvis left any butt hairs in the seat!"...sorry for my vulgarness...but thats about what it amounts to. Thanks for you help!
The float setting info could be found either in the instructions that come with a rebuild kit or in a detailed shop manual like the one from the factory. There are books on Rochester carbs that are probably available through Amazon if no one else (they seem to have everything) but they won't have that kind of detail.
Unless you know the float setting is screwed up I wouldn't mess with it. The only time I got ambitious and fiddled around with this (out of maybe twenty carbs rebuilt over the years) I regretted it. The float level was way off according to the instructions but the car ran fine. As soon as I adjusted the level to the alleged "spec" the carb flooded. And since I hadn't measured the float setting before I adjusted it, it was trial and error getting the float back to where the carb wouldn't either flood or run out of gas.
Just happened to look at this board today for the first time. Hope your brother in law hasn't paid too much for the white 72 limo. I worked at Memphis Funeral Home from 1975 to 1980 and we didn't convert to white cars until 1976. Everything before that was black. So sounds like someone is trying to pull the wool over his eyes. The only white cars that I recall him riding in was the 76 hearse that picked him up at the hospital and the 77 hearse used in the funeral. (yes, he is really dead, if not, we played a real dirty trick on him)
My sister has pretty much talked my brother in law out of the car, because of their current finances, plus they need a new car that gets good gas milage. Their '74 and '79 Caddy's aren't exactly the kind of car you drive to work every day and run to the grocery store and things like that. My sis wants a new PT Cruiser to do that with. I was wondering about the whole Elvis thing myself. Could be that the car was black and painted white...but its supposedly all original. I told them if they wanted to go into the business of limos, they could get a NICE early '90s model Caddy with low miles on it for around 4 grand, if they were really looking. My brother in law seems to like the early '70s styling, but it doesn't do much for me. My sis's '79 is better looking I think. Anyway, thanks for all your help. I'll let ya know what happens next.
Thanks for the info on the carb as well. I'll pass the info along. The car is not running as it should be, and my brother in law suspects the float is what is doing it. He doesn't have any books or any info on the carb. He could probably go to Barnes & Noble or somewhere and get something. They don't have access to the 'net, therefore they ask me to do everything haha. Thanks again for the assistance!
Comments
standards. The letters GPM stand for
grams per mile. That is the actual weight
of that pollutant put out by the car as
it travels one mile (on the treadmill in
the test case). The EPA standards for
new (out of the factory) cars are all
set in grams per mile. I think EPA's test
lab is in Lansing, Michigan. The EPA
likes this standard because it gives the
total pollutant load from the car. The
"ppm" standard is a concentration standard. It tells you how many ppm were
in the volume of exhaust sampled. To
convert from one to another you must know
the total volume of exhaust sample. You
multiply the "parts per million" by the
"millions of parts" to get the total parts, or weight of the exhaust. Generally you can't compare the two tests because exhaust flows vary from engine to
engine. The GPM standard is tougher on
big engines because they have larger
exhaust flows so even if their "per
cylinder" exhaust is the same an 8cyl will have double the exhaust of a 4 cyl.
Some jurisdictions use ppm standards,
and some use GPM standards. If EPA has
its way all jurisdictions will use GPM
standards, EPA likes this because as I
said above they can come up with a total
emssion value for all cars in the region.
Most jurisdictions do not like GPM tests
for two reasons.
1. They're expensive
2. They have reliability problems.
A complete rig for a GPM test including
treadmill, analyzer, etc can cost 100000.
The exhaust flow monitors are subject to
corrosion etc. It turns out that determining the total flow of a hot
acidic exhaust gas is not an easy thing
to do. It requires considerable maintenance to work in a real world
situation where numerous cars are being
tested in single day. But apparently
thats where all vehicle emission tests
are headed.
The numbers you gave (ppm) for your
car are pretty typical for a well
maintained used car of 1980s vintage.
Hope this helps some.
Anyway, it pollutes about 2.16 grams per mile, or 1 ounce per 12.96 miles., or 1 lb per 207.41 miles. Or...3800 lb over 788,148 miles! So far it's gone about 155,000 miles, so I don't feel TOO guilty ;-)
Anyway, Joecug, thanks so much for explaining the emissions results to me! My roommate's 1998 Tracker is going in for its test soon...it ought to be interesting to compare its emissions compared to my LeSabre
-Andre
As for what to look for, common sense applies. Everything electrical should work, so be sure to play with all the switches. Other than that, they are pretty straightforward 1930s technology, so a good checkup should tell you all you need to know.
If the car is sound, I would expect your biggest expense, short of a suprise catastrophe, would be gas...the car will eat plenty of it....figure gas and repairs...oh, .25 cents a mile?
Back then, the Cadillac would also have been a physically bigger car, too. It would've given you a larger trunk and more legroom inside. A friend of mine had a '72 Catalina 2-door, mechanically identical to the Caprice, and I've sat in it a few times. They're really not very roomy cars in the back. Plenty of shoulder room, so 3 across is not problem, but they'd better be short people, if the driver is tall!
The Caddy also weighed about 700-800 lb more than the Chevy, so I'd imagine it had a beefier frame, suspension, tires, wheels, etc. As a result, the car would ride better, and would also carry a heavy load much more gracefully than an Impala or Caprice would.
From a purely economic standpoint, sure a Caprice would make more sense than a Cadillac. And that's what it tried to be...a Cadillac for people on a budget. But nobody who could truly afford a Cadillac back then would've even given the Caprice a second glance. It could also be argued that a Cavalier makes more sense than a BMW 3-series or a small Benz, but I doubt very many people would be swayed!!
Four door, Concours model, 350 4bbl, 4 speed, gauge package, handling package. What a great start for cool sleeper. They're actually even kind of pretty. YMMV of course. I should probably track that one down someday (along with all my old cars, of course).
One of the most crazy-making things in California was emissions testing on older high-performance cars. As an example, my last Z/28 (302) was pretty fresh (10k miles or so) and in tune (value lash and ignition) but would barely pass by the skin of its teeth at idle. Push the rpms up above the allowed idle speed just a smidge and the HC's would plummet, but the computer doesn't care. Perhaps there was something wrong with the car that I wasn't smart enough to track down, but man, having a newish, utterly stock engine fail is a PITA. Don't doubt for a minute that the bad old days concerning visual inspections + tailpipe inspections will come back some day. If nothing else, remote sensing will cause some serious issues for Chevy 302's, 426 hemi's (which I've heard smog poorly) etc. I suppose if you are willing to deal with those cars (and the expense), you can afford a cam swap to a less dirty grind. End of rant.
Old big blocks are tremendous polluters, but really there aren't enough of them on the road for the state to worry about. It is gross polluters 1973 on up that will get nailed.
As I mentioned before, if nothing else, expect 1966 and up U.S. built cars (I forget what the year is for foreign built) to have to toe the line as remote sensing systems get the nod. My bet is that a common scenario in L.A. (for instance) will be an aircooled VW, on causing a high reading on an on-ramp, will automatically generate some sort of summons for the owner to pop on down to the referee station.
For some reason though, they stopped at '76. Even today, if I bought a '77 Caddy or something, even though it's 25 model years old, and can now qualify for historic plates, it still has to go through the emissions test. They also only test every two years nowadays. I don't know how soon you have to get a new car tested though. I've had my Intrepid now for about 2 years and 2 months, and haven't gotten a notice yet.
There are a few loopholes, though. For instance, depending on the county you live in, you may not need to get tested. My Mom lives in Southern Maryland, and never had to get her '86 Monte tested. But almost immediately after she gave it to me, the emissions notice came! I have a feeling that police cars are exempt from emissions testing as well. I've had my '89 Gran Fury about 3 1/2 years now, and never got a notice. Normally, when I get a used car, I get the notice about a month or so after I tag and title the car!
I admit that this sort of thing is rare (maybe non-existent for now), but I'd think twice before putting together a weber carb'ed, header'ed, big cam motor in a 1972 Camaro or its ilk. There's a lot to be said for 1965 Mustangs, early '60s Beetles, etc if a lot of money is to be spent.
If you don't think the laws will ever be changed, remember what happened in CA when testing became more and more widespread. Turned out that you were supposed to have all the smog gear all along and I can just imagine the scramble for pumps, original air cleaners, exhaust manifolds etc. as the screws tightened. In addition, there's *always* a serious push for removal of old cars from the road by air quality advocates (and the car companies I'll bet). Hey, they could be right.
Roll in the car (say a 1971 Cadillac Fleetwood).
Measure total emissions
Convert emissions to dollars
Pay that many dollars
I kind of envision a big dial with $0 to $whatever showing. There's no need for a linear scale, just some relationship between pollution and money. You want to drive a dirty car? fine, here's the bill. I realize this doesn't deal with mileage on the car, but that invites too much tampering with the odometer.
I used to sweat the semi-annual inspections. At one point we had to hang these NOX devices on engines. I forget what they did, probably meddled with vacuum advance or something--that always seemed to be a favorite target. What did vacuum advance ever do?
I always passed although sometimes they'd lean the idle mixture screws to the point where the car barely ran. I'd always run them back out and take off the NOX device but there must have been hundreds of thousands of cars that barely ran after they were smogged.
One time I almost didn't pass because some eagle-eyed Sears mechanic noticed that my '68 Cougar's rear sidemarker lights were just reflectors, not real lights. That's how they came from the factory but he took some convincing.
I don't mind crushing old clunkers if they are totally beat up cars with no value. No one's going to fix up rusted through 4 door sedans anyway, and being so trashed, their value for parts is probably negligible. Usually really nice or historically interesting cars are preserved. It's the beaters that get sold to the junkers anyway.
The thing that irritates me about crushing old cars, though, is that it still gives the factories free reign to pollute while crushing something that may or may not still have some use. While a 4-door sedan may not have much value, especially if it's ragged out, there are still useful items on it like the taillights, side markers, chrome, front fenders, interior trim pieces, bumpers, etc.
I bought a fender off a '68 Dart in the junkyard for mine, after it had a hit-and-run done to it parked on the street. I remember seeing that car about a year later, up on their pile o' cars waiting for the crusher. It still had the other fender on it, and it was still perfect. Well, about a year or two after that, I got hit on the other fender. Kinda made me wish I'd thought to buy the passenger-side fender off that junkyard '68, too! Maybe these things are still kinda common out west and areas where it's drier, but not here in MD. At least, not in good shape!
But yes, I agree, the "pollution credit" program seems like a scam. It's like the pollution is not taken away, but moved around. Well, maybe that's the idea. Get it out of the nice neighborhoods and dump it into someone else's back yard. This is very fashionable these days.
When the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act were being phased in around the nation, there was a great deal of talk about the new standard posing a threat to old cars. Some even predicted the end of the old car hobby. As far as I can tell, that turned out to be much ado about nothing. I work in the Pennsylvania Senate, and most legislators are smart enough to realize that collector cars are not a serious pollution problem. (My boss, a state senator, is a member of the AACA.) Most of them are lovingly maintained, plus they are rarely driven. (Who would risk driving a nice, vintage Mustang, Camaro or Road Runner to work every morning?) As for those mundane sedans, most of the ones that I see at old car shows are low mileage examples that were owned by the proverbial "little old lady" who didn't drive them all that much even when they were new. As collector cars, their value stems from their low mileage and original condition, which really puts a damper on their regular use.
testing facility. I can say with
certainty that state auto emissions tests
are a creature of the politics of each
state. Delaware (where I work) Maryland,
Pennsylvania,and New Jersey are all
supposed to coordinate their air programs
but they all have different tests with
different test methods and pass/fail
cutoffs. Passing in one state doesnt
mean your car can pass in another.
This is especially true for older cars.
Some states exempt past 25 years, some
1975 or older (before cat converters)
some 20 years. Delaware tests back to
1968 when PCV valves were introduced.
And these rules have changed from time
to time. Never take anything for granted
with these test rules. In 1972 EPA
decreed that there should be no smog days
anywhere on the East Coast by 1980.
Since its now 2002 and there are still
a few smoggy days from time to time
I would expect these programs to continue
Also one poster commented on
older performance cars difficulty passing
tests. This is generally because these
cars are set for a rich idle mixture
and have performance cams with a large
fuel intake. This gives good acceleration
but poor idle emissions.I've seen
Chevelle SS engine emissions drop 90%
between 750 rpm 2500 rpm. There are
several ways around this
!. Lean up the carb for the test
day
2. Swap out the perf crank for the
test day
3. Attach a catalytic converter for
the test day, then go back to
the straight pipe after you pass.
If all else fails you buy a garage in a rural county that doesnt require emission
tests and register the car there.
I've seen all these things done and they
are all legal. Good luck on your next test.
If he didn't own it (name on registration) or if it isn't a documented movie car, it's not worth ten cents more because he rode in it as far as I'm concerned. Cars proported to be "Elvis's Gardener's car" or the car "used by Elvis's manager when in Florida" have flopped at auctions, so beware of this.
Some cars up for auction owned by two of Philadelphia's more notorious citizens were the 1973 Rolls-Royce owned by jailed mob boss Nicky Scarfo and a 1971 Rolls-Royce and 1987 Cadillac Coupe DeVille owned by serial killer Gary Heidnik.
I remember a Pontiac Station Wagon actually owned by Frank Sinatra, but it only brought about $6,000-$7,000. True, a bit more than a stock Pontiac Wagon (an old Tempest or something) but certainly no gold mine. Why did this happen? Because a) there were no photos or film clips of Sinatra in it (he may never have driven it, just registered to him) and b) it's an ordinary car.
You have to admit, a museum showing a Pontiac Wagon "owned by Frank Sinatra" with no evidence, sitting somewhere in a corner, is kind of a pathetic exhibit.
Unless you know the float setting is screwed up I wouldn't mess with it. The only time I got ambitious and fiddled around with this (out of maybe twenty carbs rebuilt over the years) I regretted it. The float level was way off according to the instructions but the car ran fine. As soon as I adjusted the level to the alleged "spec" the carb flooded. And since I hadn't measured the float setting before I adjusted it, it was trial and error getting the float back to where the carb wouldn't either flood or run out of gas.