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

stickguy · February 2008

just talked to a guy at work that has the same car. Doesn't really sound like too bad a price. Too nice for a kid though. I should get it for myself, sell the Accord, and pocket the difference!

Q, run down and check it out if you get a chance!

qbrozen · February 2008

If you are getting it for yourself, might as well go all out and get a T5.

The GLT really isn't all that powerful. I believe its under 200 hp, IIRC. A chip and downpipe can do wonders, though.

fintail · February 2008

Looks like a good work car/kids car etc

Mr_Shiftright · February 2008

Those cars will run as long as the body parts don't fall off into the street.

andre1969 · February 2008

I am usually the last to turn my air on , but I knew it would kill the resale. So i made an offer for $1k less than a comparable Miata would sell for. He of course said no, because true sports cars should not have A/C anyway.

My mother was sort of the same way back in the day. When she was in high school, she bought a brand-new '66 Catalina convertible. I asked her once if it had air conditioning and she replied with "Why would it have air conditioning? It was a CONVERTIBLE!!"

But yeah, any newer car better have it.

guss · February 2008

Thats got to be the cleanest '84 Toyota Corolla in existence. I would need an airbag though if it were my kid driving it.

andre1969 · February 2008

...of these things like I need a hole in the head, but I kinda like it. Those pimpy, overstuffed leather seats look nice and comfy, but I'd be afraid that much bright red would give you some serious eye strain!

I think the seller is also a bit overzealous in his writing. Stuff like "If you like big old American cars that are safe and rare than this is for you." and "You wont find a safer car on the road today and one this old is going to be a collectors car." is downright amusing. :P

andre1969 · February 2008

...but this 1976 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup looks like it might make a good workhorse, and looks to be in good shape. I'd shudder to think of the fuel economy, though, with a 454! My '85 Silverado, with a 305-4bbl, gets around 10-12 mpg around town, 14-16 on the highway, maybe 18 if I go reeeaaallly gentle on it.

I guess you'd be lucky to break 10 mpg with this thing in any sort of driving? :sick:

Mr_Shiftright · February 2008

Well you're safe if you don't hit anything or try to steer, stop or turn too quickly. It's a psychological thing, not a reality thingie.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2008

Well you're safe if you don't hit anything or try to steer, stop or turn too quickly. It's a psychological thing, not a reality thingie. :P

fortee9er · February 2008

I had a '76 Chevy Cheyenne 3/4 ton pu with a 350ci 4 bbl carb and auto and it got 11-12 mpg after installing duals and a tune up. A guy at work had a similar truck but with a 454 and he complained that 8 mpg was the best he had seen.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2008

Lotta weight to move from rest, and probably not the best differential gearing either.

jlflemmons · February 2008

Definitely single digit mileage, and IIRC, these beasts had oil consumption issues, also.

andre1969 · February 2008

if you could find a way to hook up a 4-speed automatic overdrive tranny to that 454, if it would help fuel economy much? As for weight, my '85 Silverado, according to the scale at the local landfill, weighs about 4200 pounds. And it's just a half-ton truck. I imagine in 3/4 ton form, and with the 454, that '76 could be pushing 5,000 lb?

Oh, on the subject of my '85 Silverado, it's in the shop right now for new front brake pads, an oil change, chassis lube, etc., and for anything else scary that the mechanic can't find. Just got a call from them, and it got a clean bill of health. So hopefully I won't have to be on the lookout for a replacement for it anytime soon. Although it is fun to look sometimes.

My '79 5th Ave is going in tonite, so hopefully it'll be as painless as the Silverado was! Otherwise, I might be heading out to Winchester VA to look at that white one with the pimpy red interior! :P

stickguy · February 2008

Hey, that baby has a stick shift, so it should be good for 20 mpg easy!

Or maybe not, but as long as the dump wasn't too far away, what the heck. If you live in the country, throw a plow on it, and use it to haul crap around locally.

fintail · February 2008

The Alero....ouch! 1500....more like 5100 if you are very cheap.

That M3...I swear those pics are from a high end used car lot no more than maybe 4 miles from me.

hpmctorque · February 2008

The add for the '94 Galant says, "So the choice is yours - you can you use it for parts or you can fix it up."

I'll galantly select a third, which is to stay far, far away form this piece of trash.

gsemike · February 2008

That M3 is supposedly from Long Island or Queens. Who knows what could be going on?

gsemike · February 2008

1500 won't come close to fixing this It's so cheap to fix, but yet you're not doing it

Triumph Spitfire Weird that it has a rebuilt engine but leaks antifreeze. That doesn't speak well of the work done

If you're building a drag car, don't start with a Camaro with T Tops This car probably still won't be stiff enough

What is international about this?

Is this M3 a good idea?

Beautiful car but the miles scare the heck out of me

This is really a parts car only

I guess that this can be fixed but who would want to?

Likely to find a buyer on Craigs

Another one not worth fixing This is a 13 year old Galant we're talking about

jlflemmons · February 2008

Cutlass International was a trim package. Different seats, maybe different spring rate in the suspension, but not much else. Olds fans referred to the 2.8L Cutlass as a "Gutless". Way too much metal for a 2.8.

I have written before about the Ciera with the 3.8L HO engine. Now that was fun. In a straight line, anyway.

andre1969 · February 2008

I think the 3.1 was always TBI, but those TBI systems were little more than a carburetor assembly with a fuel injector nozzle shoved in them. Now the older 2.8 version was offered with a 2-bbl carb (~110 hp) or TBI (~125-135 hp), but I can't remember when the carb was finally dropped. It was still around in 1985, as my Consumer Guide from that year has a test of a Celebrity with that engine. 0-60 in 11.2 seconds, which isn't too horrid for the time. In contrast, an LTD with the 232 and 120 hp came in at 11.9, and I think the Caravelle with the 2.6 and something like 100 hp, was 13.3 seconds. The Japanese really didn't do midsized cars yet, so I guess the closest thing would be a Camry, which clocked in at something like 13.4 seconds.

Buick's 3.0 V-6 was also offered in carbureted versions and with fuel injection. Here, the carb again put out 110 hp, while I think the FI was 125. That 3.0 was the standard engine in the 1985 Electra and Ninety Eight.

Oddly, that same year, the larger 3.8 V-6 put out the same hp, 110 with the 2-bbl carb and 125 with fuel injection. And I think the fuel injection was PFI. It would jump to 150 hp for 1986 though, and soon would boost to 165 and then 170, and then get worked into the Series II, which was good for 200-205, more with supercharging.

andre1969 · February 2008

At least the crude TBI setup still avoided many of the carb-related drivability problems, and made the computer controls a lot more straight forward, compared to all the add-ons that carbs were requiring by then. A big step forward.

True. I think the Chevy 4.3 V-6 was a pretty good example of this. It was introduced in 1985 and put out 130 hp with TBI in the cars, and 147 hp with a 4-bbl carb in trucks. While it was still slower than the 305 and 307 V-8s that GM was offering in their cars, it was a big jump ahead from the 110 hp 229 V-6 it replaced. Fuel economy was pretty decent, too. I think the Caprice/Impala/Parisienne were EPA rated at 19/27 with the 4.3/4-speed automatic.

I guess the TBI setup is also a lot cheaper when it breaks, compared to the PFI setups.

jlflemmons · February 2008

The 3.8 rated 110 in 2bbl form, 150hp (conservative) in SFI form. The early engines were uneven fire, or 'staggerfire' while the later 2bbl and beyond were evenfire.

The 4.3 with CPI was rated at 200HP, the later at 190HP. I have one of these engines in an '02 Blazer xTreme and it has plenty of go power. More than I will let my son drive. His 4dr '99 Blazer has the same engine and it is more than adequate. Cruises very easily at 70+ on the highway.

Then again, the xTreme is a happy camper at 80 and above. :shades:

andre1969 · February 2008

I've occasionally wondered if it would be worth it to try getting my '85 Silverado switched over to TBI? I think the TBI setup only bumped hp from 165 to 170, but I imagine it would also improve driveability and fuel economy.

Even though carbs and the computer setups were getting more and more complicated as the 80's wore on, I guess the manufacturers did find ways to improve driveability. At least, with the mid-80's cars I've had, an '85 LeSabre, '85 Silverado, and '86 Monte Carlo, they were a lot less prone to stalling, flooding, sputtering, etc, than earlier cars I had, like an '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass Supreme, or my two '79 New Yorkers. Although the Mopars had Lean Burn, which could be a whole other can of worms!

I remember Fintail posting a 0-60 time of a 1980 or 1981 Bonneville with a 307-4bbl, and it came in at something like 14.1 seconds. But by 1985, a LeSabre or Delta with that engine was more like 12 seconds, even with the same 140 hp engine. So in those intervening years, I guess they managed to work some of the kinks out of the fuel/emission systems. Another possibility is that Buick/Olds tended to use more weight saving techniques than Chevy/Pontiac, so a LeSabre/Delta often ended up weighing less than a Caprice/Impala, Catalina/Bonneville, or Parisienne. Still, I don't think the difference was more than 100-200 lb, and I don't think that would make THAT much difference with acceleration times.

gsemike · February 2008

My Dad had a Cierra that if memory serves had a 3.0 V6. It had a little giddy up when it was new. That car must have weighed much less than a Cutlass Supreme and it actually went 160k without too much work besides a tranny and went to the grave as a running car,

fintail · February 2008

Here's a similar car from the dealer local to me - look at the background...weird. Maybe the guy bought it from out here, but that's an awful long ways to go for a car that isn't particularly rare.

fintail · February 2008

We had a Ciera when I was a kid that had a 3.1, I am pretty sure it still had a carb, too. We had it long before I was able to drive, but I don't recall it having any big problems.

texases · February 2008

At least the crude TBI setup still avoided many of the carb-related drivability problems, and made the computer controls a lot more straight forward, compared to all the add-ons that carbs were requiring by then. A big step forward.

gsemike · February 2008

no doubt that's the same place. Since the pics on the one I posted are obviously not taken during a NY winter, there's probably some sort of scam going on

Mr_Shiftright · February 2008

A Ferrari with those low miles and lack of service is a scary thing. He's expecting it to gain in value over time? Think again. It's a modern mass-produced Ferrari, not one of 50.

I'd expect about $20,000 just to get it road-ready. If you're lucky.

fintail · February 2008

I am sure thats right. As it has been so long ago (over 20 years) since we had the car, my memory is really hazy...but I swear it had a carb-looking air cleaner assembly. I guess that would work with the primitive FI. I don't remember it ever having to warm up or have to be pumped or be flooded or any other carb rituals.

texases · February 2008

I swear it had a carb-looking air cleaner assembly

Yes, even my '95 Suburban has that kind of air cleaner, TBI and all. It's been ultra-reliable, 150k miles.

fintail · February 2008

I guess the fancy 'furrin cars I have owned have clouded my perception. You won't mistake the FI in a 45 year old fintail for a carb....it has as much plumbing as a small house.

texases · February 2008

Small?? :P

stickguy · February 2008

I like the 528i, Lot of miles, but if it is clean, has all the right maintenance records (and the recent parts are the normal wear out pieces), then it could be fun. Or, for the same $$, you can get a '98 Accord and have no style.

Andre, forget the TBI. Just order up one of those GM performance 350 crate motors, and give the old girl some real pep.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2008

I think if you add up the 528's recent repair and maintenance bills, you can assume that those will be your bills soon as well. It's not like an old German car suddenly 'stops' needing things.

I just passed on a '99 528, clean car good price 110K miles but the shop I took it too estimate about $2,500 in immediate repairs ....IF....IF....I wanted this as a reliable daily driver. And this doesn' include such things as the collapsed driver's seat, which the car in the photo also has. So my $7,000 BMW is really a $9500 BMW with a collapsed seat and obsolete NAV system and a questionable future. It started to look less and less like the smart thing to do.

So I opted instead for a clean Subaru AWD that had just had $4,500 worth of work + new tires + two bike racks and a tow hitch. Also a stickshift. Comes with access to 3 parts cars in the back 40. (that's a GOOD thing). $5K out the door.

stickguy · February 2008

$4,500 worth of work? Wow. It would have been better for the last owner to part the thing out then fix it and sell it!

Just one more reason I am not that enthousiastic about wading into the cheap car pool again (trying to find a 1st car for my son). One of the big cost issues is not needing comp and collision (hey, I do live in NJ), so that, combined with his budget, means we are effectively bottom feeding in the 3K+/- range. And I don't want to get eaten alive keeping teh thing on the road.

At least if it ends up being a boring appliance mobile, he has to drive it, not me!

texases · February 2008

"I've occasionally wondered if it would be worth it to try getting my '85 Silverado switched over to TBI?"

I imagine there'd be a lot of part swapping involved - do you have a nearby, friendly junkyard? It's hard to imagine it being worth all the work, unless your '85 is a real pain. Of course, Edelbrock EFI (alone or with a crate engine) would really make a difference!

hpmctorque · February 2008

Circling back to the Cutlass International, the early model years ('88, '89 and ??) could also be had with the 2.3 Quad 4 and 5-speed manual. As you probably all know, although the Quad 4 delivered impressive power and fuel economy for its day, it self destructed at low mileage readings. That engine's weakest point was the head gasket. Too bad because GM - and GM car owners, of course - could have really used a modern four cylinder that delivered on its promise.

texases · February 2008

"Too bad because GM - and GM car owners, of course - could have really used a modern four cylinder that delivered on its promise. "

Seems like the Vega curse lingered on...the Quad 4 made a big entrance, lots of positive reviews, then... 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I won't be back.'

hpmctorque · February 2008

Not that anyone would care anymore, but the source I just looked up indicated that the Quad 4 was available in the Cutlass Supreme International only for model year '90. I seem to recall that it was an option when this W body model was introduced, which was the '88 model year, but I could be wrong. Anyhow, it put out 160 hp and 152 lbs. ft. That's quite good for a 2.3 of that vintage. There was also a 180 hp version produced, but I don't believe it was available in the Supreme International.

andre1969 · February 2008

I seem to recall that it was an option when this W body model was introduced, which was the '88 model year, but I could be wrong.

That sounds about right. I remember first hearing about the Quad 4 my senior year in high school, which was 1987-88.

andre1969 · February 2008

I imagine there'd be a lot of part swapping involved - do you have a nearby, friendly junkyard? It's hard to imagine it being worth all the work, unless your '85 is a real pain.

There is a junkyard about 5-6 miles away that specializes in trucks, but I dunno if they'd have much 80's vintage stuff nowadays. And yeah, probably not worth it, considering that my '85 is still running well. I had my mechanic look over it, and when I picked it up on Wednesday, he said that the only thing it would really need in the near future is oil changes, and regular maintenance stuff.

I just hope he says the same thing about my '79 5th Ave, which is in there right now!

jlflemmons · February 2008

There were also two EPA certified versions that never showed up in production. Both were good for 250HP, one turbocharged, one supercharged. Unfortunately, there was not a small transaxle available to GM that could handle the power.

The head gasket problem was resolved in later models, but the car buying public never believed it. Even today some consumers will swear that the GM truck diesel is no good based on the 6.2L GM developed engine, which has nothing in common with the current Isuzu developed engine.

fintail · February 2008

With all that's been done to it, maybe a good driver

Looks like a decent survivor

texases · February 2008

I like that 2002 - lucky I'm 2000 miles away. I guess they can be bad on rust, but it looks pretty good, especially for the price, and nobody's done the Ricky Racer routine on it.

mrsixpack · February 2008

Yeppers, That 2002 would be a great car. I've know a few people with them and love them. Only a few minor problems I can see but it would be easy to restore and fix up.

fintail · February 2008

I've seen them a lot cheaper...but not any with these miles

Possibly the biggest money pit on CL right now. I don't think I'd take this for free... - a miled up lower line early W220 with an airmatic failure, cosmetic issues, and apparently neglected maintenance? This would eat you alive and not emit as much as a burp when you're dead.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2008

gee golly whiz.......Guess I'm not as hot on that 2002 as some of you. Looks like a piece of junk to me. Rusted doors, very suspicious floor pans, ripped seats, filthy neglected engine. This looks like $1,200 to me. The car reeks of indifference to me.

RE: $4,500 repair bill. I can't speak for other parts of the country but in California if you have a skilled shop tear into your used car and get it "100%" regarding brakes, suspension, tires, oil leaks, tune up, exhaust, lights, camera and action, $4,500 is cheap. We have labor rates of $115-135 per hour.

The car I bought runs and feels like new. There's nothing left to do to it. I think the previous owner was just tired of it. 45 benjamins and lots of soap water and wax and the car looks great.

Well okay, the bumper has a few scrape marks and there's a hairline crack in the left tail light lens.

hpmctorque · February 2008

What's the mileage on your Subaru, Shifty, and does this car drive better than your xA?

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy