Classic Cars as daily drivers

Mr_Shiftright · November 2001

I think putting a 350 in a 300SL would be impossible. No way it could fit and you can't cut a tubular frame safely. It would also, of course, completely destroy the value of the car and I'd personally find you and shoot you if you did it anyway. (I know you were kidding).

Actually, I think the "pain of restoration and repair" is part of the process of owning older exotics. It's part of the bragging rights.

avalanche325 · November 2001

Classic cars as daily drivers -

Yes - If you have some mechanical ability.
Yes - If you have time to work on the car.
Yes - If you understand the safety liability.

NO - If you don't have the skills to do minor repairs / or don't have the finances to have repairs done. (This is all relative - a 350 is cheap to fix, where as a Ferrari GTO my cost a bit more)

ndance · November 2001

I'm kidding about the 350 into Mercedes deal, but I have an allergy to smiley faces and the like. (Makes me wonder when everyone started needing clues to detect sarcasm. If Sam Clemens were alive today he'd probably ended up with works where were mostly

$:\$

etc., ...gack).

Really, the only places engine swaps make sense to me from a cost/benefit standpoint (which implies, for one thing, never put a V8 where only I6's used to reside) is when the result is way, way faster then the original and is way fast period.

Reasonable swaps:

Nissan V6 into Datsun 510 (the 510 guys are manly about car projects generally)
350 into 914 (a bunch of expense, but cool results)
350 into Vega (building a sow's ear purse from a sow's ear)
350 into 240Z (poor man's cobra,exception to I6 rule)
V8 into Jeep (the #1 swap with a bullet)

all of which are pretty well supported from both a kit standpoint and are well traveled ground generally.

Stupid swaps:

V8 into Mercedes (too heavy, clearance issues)
V8 into 911 (ick)
Rotary into anything (heat issues, limited torque)
V8 into Volvo

Although you do see the last one quite a bit (with 'kits' from several manufacturers), I think the sleeper angle isn't really there (they really aren't that quick) and honestly, I think a 1988 to 1993 V8 Mustang is a better car then the Volvo the drivetrain is going into.

ndance · November 2001

My final .03 worth (yeah, right).

Fresh older cars (especially those from the late '60s) start every morning just like a new car. Throw in a smidge of modern stuff, electronic ignition, radials, good quality brake pads, and they'll require no more attention from a mechanic than a late model car for the first 100k miles or so. Some wear parts may go early, but that is more than paid for by the lower outright repair bills for the more complicated later systems.

The watchword is fresh. It drives me crazy to hear people complain about 'unreliable' old cars when they're referring to cars filled with unrestored 30-35 year old systems. Rust issues, gas tanks filled with garbage, original transmissions and rear ends, rotors on their n'th turning, worn out non-drivetrain parts (hinges, steering boxes, seat tracks, etc. etc.) are at fault, not the basic design or materials technology.

Oddly enough, thoroughly gone through, cheaper, older cars cost as much as a new car. Funny thing.

andre1969 · November 2001

When I bought my '68 Dart 270, it had about 254,000 miles on it, but the 318 only had about 10,000 on the rebuild, and the tranny/rear end had been replaced with newer units. It never gave me much trouble starting. In fact, if it got driven every day, it would fire right up with maybe 1-2 pumps of the gas pedal.

I'd say the biggest shortcoming with the car was brakes. Front 10" shoes would usually last about 10-15000 miles, and the back ones maybe 15-20. So I learned real quickly how to do my own brakes!

As for tuning up, well on cars like this, they recommended something like every 12 months/12,000 miles. I was pretty lax in that department. I remember the points got changed in 1994, around the 280,000 mile mark, and again in late 1996, when it was pushing around 325,000 miles. The next set of points didn't last nearly as long though, needing replacement around 335,000, about 6 months later.

I did the coolant/belts/hoses in '93 and again in late '96. So yes, it's way overdue for another round of that! I also did the spark plugs/wires in '93, and again in late '96, around the same time as the points. Probably about 50-55,000 miles in that interval.

This car quit becoming daily transportation about 4 1/2 years ago, so I've kind of neglected it lately, except for oil changes and lubing the chassis.

I do agree that if you don't know the first thing about cars, an old one is not necessarily a good choice. Unless it's been totally restored, then at some point, something is going to break just from old age. And in general, they will need more maintenance than newer cars, although with improvements in oil, fuel, lubricants, other fluids, rubber, etc, an old car could probably go for longer maintenance intervals than it could have 30 or 40 years ago.

speedshift · November 2001

I think the primary ownership advantage of new cars is their reduced tune-up intervals. It's not difficult to tune an older car but people deferred it until their car left them stranded. That's far less likely to happen now, hence cars are "more reliable".

Of course fuel injection and computer controls have made cars much more efficient, but I don't know that they've made them more reliable. Carburetors are relatively crude but I don't remember any chronic problems unless the throttle shaft was worn or the carb was dirty, and I'll bet a carb can tolerate a lot more gunk than fuel injection. It's a lot easier to work on too.

That's kind of what worries me about the long-term ownership of a newer car. The technology has been pushed so far that it doesn't seem like there's much slack. Operating systems either work with incredible efficiency or they fail catastrophically--there's little gray area.

ndance · November 2001

A nasty side effect of not having the "olden" days yearly tuneup, is that no one looks at the car for general roadworthiness except at extended intervals.

Obviously, your average soccer mom in her 5 ton SUV has NO clue whether the power steering fluid level, brake fluid level, belt condition, etc. etc. is cool. With the death of full service gas stations, hardly anyone even checks oil level or air pressure I'll bet. There's probably a big push at the car builders for monitoring systems for ALL fluid levels and tire pressure.

ghulet · November 2001

Even in the 70s and early 80s, drivers (as were trained in Drivers Ed) were taught to *at least* check their oil and how to change a tire.

My twin brother (who got his license two years after me and isn't into cars) NEVER checks anything. I drove one of his cars (a Saab 900 Turbo with like 230k miles) and detected a valve tick--of course, it was like two quarts low of oil. He had never checked it between changings. Duh.

I've seen lots of people go into learned helpless mode when faced with the daunting task of changing a tire. It's kind of sad.

scdanos · November 2001

I am planning on purchasing the above car for my daughter (early grad. present) at Wake Forest N.C. - She wants a classic for every day driving - 200 sprint engine - great shape, Florida car in NE for three summers (garaged winters in NE) I plan on shipping it back to NC. 83,000 miles. I plan on putting on power assisted brakes ( she will re-end someone with manual brakes). Interesting, auto, duel exhaust, manual brakes and steering. What should I look for, is this a good choice, plan on having it looked over, etc, etc,
Is the six ok for both town and highway driving??? Thanks for any info that you provide!!!!

speedshift · November 2001

I'd be very reluctant to have her driving a manual steering Mustang. Maybe it's a little easier to steer with the lighter six over the front wheels, but the manual steering V8 Mustang is an absolute bear to drive--and I'm 6'3" and like manual steering.

The 200 six should be rough but decent around town and pretty much hopeless for getting onto the freeway and passing. Someone just posted in another thread about how gutless their '67 Mustang fastback was with the six. I had plenty of experience both with the six and manual steering in a Falcon I drove for years. Convertibles are inherently more fun than sedans and that should make up for a lot, but the Mustang/Falcon six is a pretty primitive car by today's standards.

Personally I'd put her in a V8 Mustang with power steering and brakes already in place. It'll be a lot more pleasant to drive and she'll have enough power to stay out of trouble but not enough to get into trouble. I'd also prefer to buy a car with the power options already installed by the factory. They knew what they were doing.

ghulet · November 2001

Is your daughter absolutely sure she wants a 'classic' as a daily driver? I dunno, if I were a recent college grad looking for a job (especially in SC or anywhere hot), I'd want a modern, reliable, efficient car with a/c (maybe a Civic DX?). I don't mean to cast any doubt, just wondering.....

isellhondas · November 2001

I just think there are a lot of better choices for a daily driver.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2001

Well, a V8 Mustang with power steering would be okay for a daily driver. It's a pleasant car and has enough power. I don't think a manual steering six is a good idea at all.

One thing though if you got her a nice convertible it may be stolen. So you'd need to put on a shift lock and an alarm, get it appraised and insured.

speedshift · November 2001

Yes a 289 Mustang (or Cougar) with power options is a very pleasant car with plenty of smooth power, although by modern standards the fuel economy isn't great. I have to admit that I haven't driven one since the late '80s so I'm not entirely sure I'd still enjoy the experience, but I'm reasonably sure that compact convertibles are still a whole lot of fun.

For your purposes I'd look for one with a stock engine. First, more than 200 horsepower would just get in the way. Second, modified cars are usually run hard and put away wet. Third, aftermarket engine parts aren't always put together with a whole lot of thought or mechanical ability.

For example I drove a '67 Mustang once (a convertible in fact) that had been modified to the point where it was an absolute blast to drive over about 3000 rpm and an absolute bear below that. Big cam, huge Holley, single-plane intake manifold and who knows what else--a real rush but way too much for an everyday driver. Plus the choke didn't work so when the engine was cold raw fuel washed away the oil on the rings on its way down to the crankcase to contaminate the oil. I'll bet that engine's life was brief but exciting.

beachfish · November 2001

Anyone have an opinion on the reliability of a '65 Buick Riviera for a once-in-awhile daily driver and weekend car? A friend's father had one the year I got my license and now I've run across one I really like - 50k, original white paint, tan leather, factory AC and that wonderful big V8.

He's asking $11k.

John

Mr_Shiftright · November 2001

That had better be one helluva gorgeous show car for $11K. That is top, top dollar.

If it doesn't look like it came right out of the box, a very clean one should run about $8,500 (it's not a GS right? A GS might be worth that).

speedshift · November 2001

I used a '65, not as nice as the one you're looking at but with under 100k, as a daily driver for about two years. Plus I had a '64 that I drove daily for maybe six months.

I think the '64-5 Rivi drives almost as well as it looks, which is saying something. Decent predictible handling, quick steering, solid feel, firm but comfortable ride, good power, quiet and very refined--and thirsty of course. I exclude the '63 because I never drove one, plus the Dynaflow they used that year is kind of a question mark to me.

BTW don't go by the Wildcat 445 on the air cleaner housing. That's the torque rating for the standard 401, not the cubic inch displacement. There was also a 425 four barrel (Wildcat 465?) optional on the base Riviera and a dual four barrel 425 standard on the Gran Sport. The Gran Sport will be readily identifiable by its badging and by the huge chrome air cleaner covering two Carter AFBs.

I've always thought early Rivis are very underpriced compared to makes like Chevy and Pontiac and offer a whole lot more, but that's generally true of Buick, Olds and the other "off brands". They just didn't win enough races to get emotion on their side.

ndance · November 2001

BOP (well BO) pricing vs. Chebbie pricing is in ultimate model A-body muscle cars. If you check around a bit you see prices like this (for 1970 cars)...

LS6 Chevelle - 1 zillion dollars (well, $25k-$40k)
W30 442 - $6k-$16k or so
GS455 Stage 1 - $6k-$20k or so

All about as swoopie doopie as each other with a (usually) 2.5:1 price difference. Kind of ironic given that the non-Chevelles usually cost more when new.

speedshift · November 2001

Then there are the gearheads who think Grandma's 307 Chevelle is the gold standard. Don't get me wrong, I'd love an early Chevelle (283, 4 speed, Duntov cam) in my garage.

I wonder how the price of one of the more exotic GTOs, say a '70 Judge with Ram Air IV, would compare to the others on your list.

ndance · November 2001

Yah, I thought about that, but it seems like I hardly ever see those for sale. I dug around on the web for a 1/2 minute for sale and dug up...
________________
1970 GTO JUDGE RAM AIR IV--44,000 miles all factory original,never touched,painted or wrecked-4spd,3;90 zz paint code{granada gold}runs strong,all phs doc. # match,8 track stereo,custom wheel,hood tach,clock,the only bench seat judge ram IV around..very nice #3 cond,$22,000 or offer.original owner shawn baird------------763-424-8773
____________________

Can't you just hear Paul Revere and the Raider singing the Judge song (well it was a '69 in the ad, but whatever).

Pontiacs are kind of a funny case here, since they didn't build a high-performance 455 (well, till 1973). My gut tells me they are more than 442/GS's and less then Chevelles, I suppose partly by riding on their success in the mid-'60s. I've always thought that 1970-1973 Trans Ams were a smokin' deal from a price/performance standpoint, but I remember thinking they were too gaudy back when they were really cheap.

To tie this whole thing into the thread topic, it strikes me that 442s and GS's make about the best case for driving older cars (assuming they aren't too big for your garage or neighborhood). They are docile, darn quick, handle pretty well, comfy, and don't depreciate. Pretty hard to beat for highway travel and don't get tons worse mileage than an SUV.

ghulet · November 2001

I don't know about those prices in #169. I never see a W30 442 for anything like $6k unless it's dead-in-a-shed, and most are over $20k here. Pretty much the same for Stage 1s, though to a lesser extent. You're right though, everyone thinks their Chevelle is worth big buck$. The sad thing is, most of the nice originals have been totally molested (stripped, made into big-blocks, faux SS, etc.). Olds and Buicks don't seem to suffer this fate quite as often.

Of course, as far as prices go, I live in Chicago, so anything without rust has to be imported here from at least 300 miles away. Draw your own conclusions on that one......

Mr_Shiftright · November 2001

And besides, asking prices are really only an exercise of your First Amendment rights.

ndance · November 2001

OK here's some 1970 GS 455 Stage 1 prices I've scooped from the web....

14k,22k,16k,17k,9k,16.5k

All are ASKING prices on what look like really together cars. I think my range is reasonable for grades 2-5 cars. Yes, yes, yes, there is one for more than 20k. Oops, sorry for the inaccuracy.

The point still holds that Chevy's hold a strangely high premium in this corner of the market. (Personally, I think that anybody paying 40-50 thousand dollars for a Chevelle hardtop is a nut).

ghulet · November 2001

I'm not arguing with you per se, just saying any of them near me are outrageous.

I don't know why everyone is so hot for Chevelles either. Buicks and Olds are almost always better equipped, have bigger engines and are definitely more rare and interesting.

speedshift · November 2001

Interesting point about the Chevy premium and whether LS6s are worth what people pay for them. I'd agree but I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. I've been out of the collector car market for years but I'll extrapolate from a market I do know.

I think it all depends on whether the LS6 market is a bubble market or not (no, really?). If you were to look at LS6 values for say the last ten years--no, make it fifteen so we can see what they did in a recession--and if they held reasonably steady then maybe there's value there, fueled by enough real buyers with enough real money to keep you from taking a $20k hit overnight.

I guess ideally you're looking for a long-term price curve that's always going up in real dollars, with a few drops along the way but nothing catastrophic, say no loss in value greater than 30%. I don't know if any car can do this but it sure would be an interesting trend to chart. I do that in my business and I imagine you'd almost have to to be an appraiser.

My concern with value would be more with also-rans like the W-30 that might go up sharply in a boom market ("a rising tide raises all ships") but tank when people are getting laid off. The pool of buyers is so much smaller--there's only a relative handful of people who really care about Olds.

The Chevy premium has always been a mystery to me but I think it's largely based on emotion. So many people have owned Chevies, or their family owned Chevies, or they watched Chevies win races. I understand, I learned how to drive on a '66 Impala and over the years I was a serial Impala owner.

What I don't understand is the guy who shows up here just on fire about Chevies and wants to beat you about the head and face with their superiority, and all of that enthusiasm seems based largely on a book they just got for their fifteen birthday. I have pretty good Chevy credentials--three of the six Impalas I've owned were fairly interesting four speeds--but c'mon folks, this isn't your manhood we're talking about, is it?

All I ask is that people be completely rational about cars. Like me. Six Impalas.

avalanche325 · November 2001

I thought the Buick had a 430 and the 425 was Olds? Or was Buick also a 425 in 65? Was that the one that the valve covers were horizontal on the top, which looked a little strange?

I had a 67 Olds Delmont 88 with a 425 Super Rocket(11.25:1) and my friend had a 67 Riviera with a 430. Both were really nice cars. (but that was back in 1983)

carnut4 · November 2001

in 1967-before that their biggest was the 425, based on the older "nail valve" 401, yes, with the horizontal valve covers.

ndance · November 2001

No harm, no foul Ghulet...I was just being snippy.

The bet I'm making (I'm sort of holding off on looking at muscle cars right now) is that

a. The economy goes over the cliff (especially the stock market wealth effect).

and

b. Prices will recede somewhat on the mass produced cars.

I don't think the convertible E-bodies will ever be cheap, there'll always be 18 or so wealthy guys with temperature controlled garages to snag those. OTOH with, say, 2500 or LS6 Chevelles still on the road, it wouldn't suprise me to see the $50k cars fall to $25k if we see DOW 4000.

BTW, did anyone see (I THINK I didn't imagine this) the story about one of the '70 cuda convertibles showing up at a drug seizure auction. Some marijuana grower bought one of those cars (with cash I'll bet) a few years ago and then got caught. This strikes me as a wonderful use for ill-gotten gains.

While I'm blathering, how about that article (C&D maybe? I'm not sure) about the missing Daytona Coupe (the Phil Spector car). Was that a wild story or what?!

beachfish · November 2001

Thanks for the information. The air cleaner on this one is marked 425 IIRC. It's 100 miles away, but I'm going back to look at again. He's had it awhile on consignment, so there may be room for discussion. So far I've just been going by to visit and look at all of the cars. FWIW, he had some famous [non-permissible content removed] general's clamshell-fendered staff car with the original armored tires for $275k.

The Riviera appears to have been driven only on mild, partly cloudy Sundays. And parked inside out of the sun the rest of the time.

We will see what happens.

John

andre1969 · November 2001

I just looked it up in my old car encyclopedia, and it looks like it was produced from 1963 to 1966. It started out as an optional engine for the Riviera only, but later became optional for the Electra and Wildcat. It was a bored-out 401. Also, for 1965, there are two versions of it, one with 340 hp and one with 360. For 1967, the 430 replaced it. This engine was a stroked 401, and was standard in the Wildcat, Electra, and Riv that year.

speedshift · November 2001

The 430 was based on the Gran Sport 400, also new for '67. The 430 was opened up to 455 CID in 1970. The only short-stroke 455.

The 401 dates back to the first Buick V8 brought out in 1953 as a 322 (Roadmaster and Super) and 264 (Special). The '54-6 Centurys were one of the faster '50s cars with the Special body and the senior 322 engine. I had a '57 Special coupe with 364-2v, standard close ratio three speed and I think 3.64 gears that was fairly quick.

The 401 apparently wasn't changed much from '59-66 and by the end of its run it was down about 20 horsepower compared to the newer engines like the Olds. There's a noticeable difference in power between a 401 and 425 Riviera but not enough to make me hold out for a 425.

The newer Buick V8 didn't really get much notice until the '70 455, especially the Stage I. There was also an ultra-rare Stage II that I think had big port heads.

sebringjxi · November 2001

I remember vividly my high school widowed english teacher showing up one Monday morning in a triple black Buick GS 455. We (all the guys) went nuts. Over the weekend she traded her powder blue Skylark for this fire breathing monster. When asked how it drove, I remember her saying something like "It's got more pep than my old Buick did." I bet! A year or so later when I had my license and was mowing her yard, she asked me if I'd mind taking it to the gas station to fill it up and put gas in the mower tank (I used her mower and gas for her yard). I didn't hesitate! I also made sure I was well out of sight and earshot before I kicked it! Wow! That would have been about 1970 or '71--Yep, it certainly got our attention. Wish I knew what happened to that car. I think her son-in-law sold it for some (non-prescription) drugs!

Hal

isellhondas · December 2001

Is probably my all time favorite car. I've owned two '65's. Nothing compared to them in their day.

They are nimble and VERY fast. Even the 401/325hp model will lay rubber for half a block.

If it has the deluxe interior it's worth more. these have the wood panels that don't hold up very well.

And, that "leather" is vinyl, a very good grade that holds up well. Leather was a very rare option in 63 only, I think.

The 65's had tricky headlight covers that usually don't work. They have micro switches and motors that nobody knows how to repair anymore. As a result, they are usually jammed open.

And, yes, they were available with a butt-kicking 425 in either 340HP or the 360 HP dual 4bbl carb version.

Gas mileage is HORRIBLE!! Even the 401's are lucky to get 10 MPG.

And, they like high octane leaded gas too. They will ping on anything else...sad and one of the reasons I sold mine.

So...think before you buy but these are fantastic cars! Shifty is right about the pricing though!

im_brentwood · December 2001

Did you say $1,200 for a 300SL dist cap?

$1,200??? Seriously?

Shoot. Youre not gonna elive this but I think I may still have 2 of them in the garage back in NJ!

Looong story... but we have 2 spares.

=D

$$ for the Mercury fund.. Cool!

Bill

Mr_Shiftright · December 2001

Yes, if they are the dual coil tower type used on the 300SL roadster...the Gullwing uses a single coil tower setup. I think a new Gullwing cap is only $300 or so.

ghulet · December 2001

just wondering, not trying to be *too* nosey.

Sorta off-topic, but have any of you ever seen a certain year old car with parts, that look to be factory, from the year before? Example: on eBay, I saw a 65 Cadillac (with a rust-colored interior) with a definitely pre-65 steering wheel (2 spokes, 65s had three spoke), but colors matched, so probably built that way (why would anyone switch out a steering wheel?). Also, I saw a non-restored 70 Camaro with likely a 69 steering wheel (metal, three spoke, the 'sport' wheel, but non-wood). As far as I know (knew?), 70 Camaros have either the ugly standard 'straight across' steering wheel, or the four-spoke 'H' wheel (as was used in Camaros til 1981).

Maybe I'm being crazy-particular, but I'm wondering: was it common, especially in body-change years (as both cars above are), to use old non-body parts in the new car? Makes sense to, I guess, but I hadn't seen much of it til now.

andre1969 · December 2001

I've seen a few. For some reason, the most common seems to be 1981 Malibus with 1980 grilles and taillights. The '81 had a more formal, upright roofline and slightly different rear doors that had flip-out vent windows in them, while the '80 had the vents in the C-pillar. First time I saw one, I figured someone just wrecked an '81 and put an '80 front-end clip on it...until I saw that the taillights were also 1981-vintage. And I've seen too many of them to think that they all were in accidents.

I wonder if sometimes they just have left-over parts, and they put them on the new body style. Maybe they had too many 1980 parts lying around, so they used them up on some of the early 1981 models.

There's a junkyard about an hour from me that has a 1958 DeSoto in it, with a 1957 bumper/grille. I kinda wonder about that one too, whether it was wrecked at some point, or it came from the factory that way. FWIW, I rear-ended another DeSoto with my '57 once, and I can attest that any hit that would seriously damage that bumper/grille would probably have also damaged the rest of the front of the car. And from what I've seen, in junkyards, the rest of the car will rust out before that bumper/grille, too!

rea98d · December 2001

The steering wheel on my '78 Mercury began falling apart (probably from me climbing on it as a little kid back in the early 80's.), and I grew tired of the bailing wire and duck tape holding it together, as well as the horn sounding at random times for random reasons. So like any good gearhead with a car it's hard to find parts for, I hit up junkyards, looking for what I needed. I was in Louisiana, on my way to Florida, with my grandmother, and what do I see but the biggest junkyard on that side of the Sabine! Sure enough, they had a '78 Grand Marquis I could get the steering wheel from, even if I did have to buy the entire steering column. Anyway, it is entirely possible that that old Caddie needed a new steering wheel at some point down the line, and the owner found one that fit & matched the interior, and didn't care that it was an older model year wheel.

ndance · December 2001

I remember a '68 Camaro a neighbor of mine had years ago. I seem to remember that they put a '69 door on one side of the car, and then flattened the crease on the door in an attempt to match the lack of same on '67/'68 cars. Pretty classy.

carnut4 · December 2001

was on 61-62 Ford pickups, with the older "styleside"beds from the 60 model on them. A friend had one back in the 70's and I always thought it was odd, since there was a newer styleside bed that matched the 61 body style that I had seen as well. I've seen several 61-62 Ford pickups with the older 60 beds since. They must have had a bunch of leftover '60 beds.

kinley · December 2001

'55 Buick Century had four holes in LF fender and three holes in RF fender. '39 Chev had '40 wheel covers and steering wheel. '67 Galaxie 500 had the grill of the LTD. A lot of little differences on 65 and 66 Mustangs depending on where the assembly took place.

avalanche325 · December 2001

What differences have you seen on the 65 & 66 Mustangs? Just curious.

I have seen so many with incorrect parts (especially hubcaps), but that was not from the factory.

im_brentwood · December 2001

(rea98d will appreciate this too)

I just picked up a 1973 Marquis

Loaded one too.. nice shape, cheap (typical).

Options include:
429-4bbl
Brougham
Rim-Blow steering wheel
Power Windows, Locks,Seats
Dual Bucket (bucket-effect more like) seats
Cruise
Auto Climate Control
AM/FM/8-track

ad nauseum...

I LOVE it, and am well aware that Shifty will be appalled

Just to be a smartaleck its parked next to the XKE in the garage hahahahaha

Bill

speedshift · December 2001

Don't be surprised if the XKE shows up tomorrow wearing whitewalls.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2001

You'll be thoroughly disgusted with it in a week

andre1969 · December 2001

XKE's aren't THAT bad, are they? ;-)

Mr_Shiftright · December 2001

At least an XKE is beautiful to look at. The Marquis is an incompetent lump of metal.

kinley · December 2001

removing the 20 second delay valve between the vacuum advance and the carb port by installing a new hose w/o the valve. It made a big difference on our 73 Country Squire's performance and gas mileage. Thanks to the environmentalists, the GM's & LTD's in those years were incompetent lumps of metal, but the cars can be improved by removing the crap that made them impotent.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2001

That and about a 50-year advance in engineering. It's not the environmentalists fault. Greenpeace didn't build that pathetic automobile. Honda was building great cars in 1973, so was Mercedes. Ford can take the rap for whatever they built, thank you very much. They put their name on it, they OWN it!

jsylvester · December 2001

That's why so many buy SUV's today, big sedans are no longer built. Gas crisis and CAFE requirements killed the luxo-cruiser.

Brother had a 73 Civic, it was pretty bad. Honda didn't really get it together until 75 or so.

Classic Cars as daily drivers

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles