By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
A good disco should be able to engage the traction control when accelerating from a stop and turning right or left. A really good disco will break traction and engage the traction control from a dead stop without having to turn. If it can't do one of those two things then I would pass on it.
To give you an idea of how good that 12k price is think about this. Last month we sold our last three 2004 Disco lease returns. They all had between 40,000 and 48,000 miles. They were all still under factory warranty and they all had the CPO warranty out to 75,000 miles or six years from the in service date. They all sold between 21,000 and 23,000 and we didn't really make any money on them at all. Probably averaged less then a grand in gross across the board.
Oh I have a V70R for you that is sitting at one of our Volvo dealers. Not sure if it is too old for you and it is an Auto(YUCK) but I just noticed it the other day.
V70R
thanks for the info on the disco. Do you know anything about Land Rover Monmouth and whether they could evaluate one well? You may know them by a different name that they went by not long ago ... Schneider Nelson?
But, I guess the big question is, can a Disco go 200k miles without much major work? Or is that like chasing a white elephant?
By the way ... in my last post, I referred to a 989. I have no idea what that is. It was late and I guess my brain combined 996 and 1989 (the 2 porsches I was looking at pictures of yesterday) into one thing. SOOO... make that a 996 as something I could get for not a heckuva lot more money than that volvo. I wonder which would be cheaper to own in the long run? The 996 would be much more to maintain, but the depreciation would probably be FAR less than the volvo.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
One caveat on the 996 is to check for rear main seal leaks. Only a small percentage of them will show this leak, but if they do, you'll need a new engine to correct the problem in 50% of the leak cases (rough estimate) if the "improved" seal doesn't hold. You don't want to have to buy a new engine for a 996.
But you are right, a Volvo will depreciate rapidly into nothingness (but it still gets you where you're going, worthless as it may be in ten years).
Right now, the modern Porsches holding value best seem to be the 993s from 1995 on up. (last of the air cooled, and a GREAT engine for durability). Last of the Porsches for the "purist".
I've noticed the 996s are as cheap as the 15 years of porsches that preceded it already, so yeah, there's definitely a disconnect there. I think the 996s are gorgeous, so I don't mind picking up the "undesirable" model.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I haven't done a swap or any kind of business with Land Rover Monmouth in probably a year or more so I don't have any opinion one way or the other about them.
A disco can go to 200,000 miles without needing any major work, I have seen it happen, but it is a little unlikely. One of my clients just sold his 2000 Disco to one our techs and it had over 250,000 miles on it. Now that Disco did have an engine and tranny replacement during the regular warranty but it has had no major problems since then. I know he recently had a most of the engine resealed(intake gaskets, head gaskets, valve covers, oil pan and timing chain cover) but a British vehicle that doesn't leak oil is just weird. Even the early engine and tranny replacement was probably more a result of the troubles that happened between Ford and the union right after Ford bought Land Rover from BMW.
Unfortunately because of all the off-road miles on that Disco, Probably over 100,000 miles spent trail riding through mud and muck, the frame is starting to rust and fatigue from the interior of the boxed sections. The tech knew this was happening as did my client so they cut a good deal on the vehicle and he is planning to do a frame swap as the rest of the Disco is in great shape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_989
I don't like the 996 engine one bit in terms of design I mean (great to drive however) and don't yet have any confidence in it. If they start racking up 200K ++ miles like the 993s with regularity and no rebuilds, then I might change my tune. But the GT engine is built differently and machined differently and it doesn't have these problems.
Frankly, I think Porsche just did too much cost-cutting on the 996 engine.
I will admit that my 944 leaks oil and I don't particularly care. It is one major repair away from being trashed anyway. I am not sure when I start fixing oil leaks. On my 944, never. On my BMW, maybe if it was dripping once or twice a day.
So it sounds as if 2 scenarios can result in a new engine in these.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
British Rover, since you are an expert on Land Rovers and Range Rovers, both vintage and new, I must ask you this: What is your opinion on Jeep Cherokees and Grand Cherokees from the middle to late '90s? Do you think they are reliable or durable as the Rover products? I'm aware that Jeeps can hold their own with Rovers off-road, as I used to have an old Cherokee that I took mudding a few times.
"All the car needs is bodywork" Bodywork is a little bondo. That needs a 3/4 nose
Falcon convertible
I'm wondering if this is a 442 or a clone
Depreciation alert
Could a 442 have a 350 in 1971? Notice that the ouc on thie rught is before the car was complete
Olds only had two 350 choices in 1971, 240 and 260 hp. In gross hp terms, that's not a whole lot. And indeed, by 1972 net standards, those engines came in at 160 or 180 hp. Probably just the stock 2-bbl and stock 4-bbl...stuff you'd see in a more basic F-85 or Cutlass, or perhaps a Delta 88.
I like the Falcon, but at maybe half the asking price.
Re; the other 442, looks like a possible clone, but tough to tell without more pictures. First thing that caught my eye was that the original rear end had been replaced with a Chevy. That and some of the other "modifications" leads me to believe this one is a fraud. Lot's of Cutlass convertibles can be found, very few true 442. And the true 455CI 442 convertibles had the most incredible frame flex you will ever see. You can sit in the back seat when the throttle is punched and watch the dash twist several very noticable degrees from parallel. Even the 350CI Cutlass would lift one end of the dash about an inch to two inches under full throttle. Amazingly, these things didn't rattle much at all, at least ours didn't.
I get the feeling if Toyota ever brought the Supra back without many changes they would sell a bunch of them.
They must have really downgraded the 442 for 1972, then. My old car book lists Olds as offering the 350 in two hp setups that year, 160 and 180. Which would imply to me 2-bbl and mild 4-bbl. Nothing really high-output in the 350-size range, though. However, my old car book doesn't list the 442 at all in its 1972 production figures. Did it revert from a separate model to an option package for 1972, or something?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
From personal experience, changing the starter in a '72 with the 455 was a monster job.
As for the 455, in 1972 it was offered with 225, 250, 270, and 300 hp configurations. The latter two were only offered on the Cutlass coupe/convertible. So you could still spec out a hot 442 if you wanted; it's just that the engine was a separate option.
The last high-output 455 was in 1974, a 275 hp unit offered in the Cutlass. For '75-76, the 455 was just offered in 190 and 215 hp configurations. They weren't still sticking 2-bbls on 455's that late in the game, were they?
The meanest of them all was the 1970 W30 engine, with 500ftlbs torque, and a falsely reported 385HP. The true dyno horsepower was closer to 430. I had the privilege and honor to learn high performance/high speed driving in one of these, and the sound of that engine winding up still brings a smile to my face.
Yeah, I know what you mean about the last truly high-hp 455. What I meant though, was that 1974 was the last year that Olds tried ANY high-hp 455. They'd been making the low hp (~190-230 hp net) mass market boat anchor 455's all along, but they at least offered a more hopped-up version through 1974. It's just that, from 1970-74, it became less and less hopped up. And for '75-76 they just offered the boat anchor variety.
Assuming, of course, you could afford it's thirst for high octane.
I always heard that they're both good engines, but I think the Buick 455 is better at low-end torque, while the Olds 455 likes to rev.
But man, were they sweet running when in tune.
There are no interchangeable parts between the two engines that I know of except the oil filter.
Are there any shortcomings to the Buick 455, that you know of? I've heard that the Pontiac 455 is a bit weak compared to the Olds/Buick, because it's more of a "medium" block rather than a true big-block.
Just going on style, I tend to prefer the big Buicks of the overblown '71-76 generation to the Oldsmobiles. I just don't care for the little peaks between the headlights on the earlier Oldsmobiles, and while the later ones are nice, I just think the '75-76 Buicks are downright gorgeous. Although I never cared for the '74 big Buicks...but for some reason the Delta and 98 looked really good that year. Probably not much to recommend those big mastodons to most people, but I find a perverse sort of attraction to them.
Some would say that the introduction of the Ford Granada/Mercury Monarch for '75, the Cadillac Seville, and the Plymouth Volare/Dodge Aspen for '76, marked an earlier turning point. Maybe these models were just as significant as the the '77 GM mentioned above, in terms of the convergence of the domestics and imports.
The '79 Calais was the best of all the cars I have owned with the exception of, you guessed it, that stinking Chevy 305. The 305 4bbl of that era had a problem with the intake and head design that caused the #8 plug to fuel foul every 4-5K miles. I got to where I could change the plug with my eyes closed.
:sick:
I'd say the Aspen/Volare sedan and wagon, at least, were pretty significant, in terms of reigning in the excesses of domestic cars, and providing a package that was smaller on the outside, yet space efficient. They were billed as compact cars, but had legroom and headroom that rivaled many full-sized cars. The only area where they came up short was shoulder room...about 56". That's about midsized today, comparable to an Altima, Fusion, or Malibu, a bit less than a Camry or Accord. But back in 1976, the typical midsized car had shoulder room more in the 58-60" range, and the biggest full-sized cars were pushing 64-65"...almost overkill!
Truth be told though, I don't find an Aspen/Volare to be any roomier than a Dart, so in many ways, Chrysler had the formula down for a space efficient small-ish car years before. They managed to make the Aspen/Volare, and the LeBaron/Diplomat that followed, feel like bigger, more substantial cars though. They were several inches wider, a bit bulkier overall but not really much longer, and tended to be plusher inside. And the ride was a bit smoother. Supposedly the transverse torsion bars of the Aspen/Volare and its spinoffs sacrificed handling. I don't know for sure though. My '89 Gran Fury handled a lot better than my '68 Dart, but it was an ex-police car. Also, it only had 73,000 miles on it when I bought it, and had just been refurbished. The Dart had 253,000 on it when I bought it!
I've driven a few Granadas from that timeframe, and wasn't really impressed. They handle like a much bigger, sloppier car than their dimensions would suggest, although I think Ford did that on purpose to try to build a "big car" ride into a smaller package. It was a smash hit when it came out, though, as a lot of people liked that upscale, mock-Mercedes look. They always felt tight inside to me, but were probably okay for more average-sized drivers.
I had a chance to sit in a Seville about a year ago at Hershey, and sad to say I was disappointed. I know they were considered small for the time, but I figured something that size would still be pretty roomy. Not so. Even with the seat as far back as it would go, it felt like it had about as much legroom as my uncle's '03 Corolla. Definitely not a car I'd want to drive for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. Still, it was a significant car for the time. Definitely a classy looking ride. It did a good job hiding its Nova underpinnings.
It's interesting though, how the gap between the Japanese has closed over the years. Today I would actually cross shop an Accord, Camry, or Altima with a Lucerne, Charger, or Taurus (500). The domestics are slightly larger inside, but not enough to really make much difference. Now the Taurus has almost limo-like legroom in the back seat, but IMO suffers a bit up front. But anyway, just imagine back in 1976, someone trying to cross shop a Datsun 510, Honda Accord, or Toyota Corona with a LeSabre, Royal Monaco, or Grand Marquis!
Well hey, $1000 was a lot of money back in 1979. Probably the equivalent of $3K today. How long did you have that Calais for? I'm guessing it also had the THM200C tranny? Did that give you any troubles?
I'm guessing the Hurst, with an Olds 350, would've used a THM350 tranny? I'm actually impressed that Chevy got 160 hp out of the 305-4bbl that year. I think Ford's 302's were choked down to 129-140 hp that year, while the Mopar 318 only put out 135 hp with a 2-bbl, 155 with the 4-bbl.
I think the Olds 350 only put out 160-170 hp that year, but I'd guess it had a lot more torque than the Chevy 305, so it was probably a better performer.
Just out of curiosity, what did Chevy do to fix that #8 plug problem on the 305? Or did they ever do anything? Now you have me curious to pull the #8 out of my Silverado and see how bad it looks!
I wonder if there's just something about the #8 position in general on a V-8 that's cursed? On the Mopar 318 in 1989, they had a run of bad camshafts, and the #8 lobe would wear down prematurely. Is there just something about the design, perhaps, that makes the #8 position hotter than the others?
The 350 used the TH350, and I believe was rated for 170HP. Not sure why the power dropped from the '72, which was rated at 185HP.
The #8 plug issue was not resolved until around '81, when they went to ECM control. The '79 had HEI ignition, but no computer controls.
Strangely enough, another comes up the same day
I don't know much about these cars but this looks nice and clean For the right Audi person, this is good, right?
Another Audi
Looks nice but what are the miles
I love these cars but the miled up ones scare me
30 mpg???????? With nonsense claims like that, he should be posting here
Even though this is a post car, the market for 57 Chevies isn't what it used to be
I believe it is one of those rare cases where the designers of the drivetrain got the sweet spot of the engine lined up with the correct gearing for the road. These have the 4spd overdrive tranny. The Cutlass would run like a banshee if punched, but would really sip fuel if you kept your foot out of it. The engine uses three coils with dual outputs, no distributor, and sequential fuel injection. Actually, a very nice piece of engineering.
Yeah, but unfortunately GM didn't keep up with the times when it came to the carbureted 3.8 in the RWD cars. It got a new, stronger block for 1985, which also eliminated most of the oiling problems (right angle bends and too-narrow passages and such), but it just stayed with 110 hp right up through the end. I think the 2-bbl's last year was 1987. The only G-bodies left for a brief 1988 run were the Monte Carlo, which used a Chevy 4.3 for its V-6, and the Cutlass Supreme Classic, which went with a standard 307 for the final run.
That particular Regal also just has a 3-speed automatic. If you look closely, you can see the gear designator, and all I see is PRND21. The 4-speed would have had two "D's". It's basically identical to my 1982 Cutlass Supreme. I'd get around 15-17 mpg around town, maybe 22-23 on the highway. Now I'm sure if you really babied it, you might push 30. Heck, my grandparents were able to nurse 29 out of a 1985 LeSabre with a 307/overdrive once.
Still, I guess they could have improved the electronics and carb a bit for the 3.8 2-bbl in later years. And I think they eventually did start offering that engine with a 4-speed overdrive automatic. In the earlier years, the overdrive was a V-8 only option, but eventually I think it became the standard automatic, whereas V-6 cars initially could only be had with the 3-speed, but eventually you could choose between the 3-speed over the 4-speed OD.
It's actually a shame that GM didn't update the 3.8 in the RWD cars. But as the years went by, it became less and less common anyway. For 1986 it was only offered in the Cutlass, Regal, Bonneville, and Grand Prix. And I think by then most buyers were opting for the V-8. And in this market of car, I guess most buyers would have opted for a V-8, even if there was a V-6 that could outperform it.
Audi 4000 -- not a bad little car the Quattro. Probably a fair deal at $3,300 if the car checks out. The Quattro system is bulletproof, it's the electrics and the head gasket you gotta worry about. But if that's all been done, these are decent cars (for Audis). Of course, if you want cheap AWD, you can buy a mid to late 90s Subaru for that money and have fewer problems.
Audi 90 -- don't bother.
BMW 528 -- rather optimistic price for a miled up '97 model, wouldn't you say? Try $5995 and be happy to get close to that. For $8K you can score a '99.
Last year I drove my friend's '94 100 Quattro. The car had 219k miles on it. Not a bad-driving car but certainly not one I would buy. She told me she's consistently put at least $1800 a year in maintenance and repairs in the four years she's had it.