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
Andre -- my good man, statistics are statistics but having dwelt inside these cars for many miles, I can assure you they are incredibly spacious inside compared to say a Corolla, etc. Or to put it another way, if I were driving and you were a passenger, and I said to you 'what do you think of my new compact", you'd laugh at me.
BOXSTER -- very reliable car as a rule, yes. GREAT gas mileage, too.
Why spend 11K on a 116 when this photogenic old beast is still available
"exact replica"...maybe to a 5 year old. Is that truck wearing British plates?
Nothing could go wrong here
I bet this handles nicely
The exact replica.... nice gaps in the wheel wells. Looks like it's meant for offroading.
The Bi Turbo looks super clean.
The Chevy on 24s.... at least the guy has a more realistic price than one we saw listed for $10k a few months ago.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Well, wife is reluctant to spring $11k on a toy car for me. I'll keep working on her in the new year.
BUT, just in case ... what do you think is better out of the box for street and track use: 2.5 Boxster or 2.8 Z3?
I think the mid-engine layout is what really pulls me towards the Boxster idea. But, I gotta think practical, too. I could actually work on a Z3 in my garage.
'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
Nah, you should know me and my tastes by now...I'd be laughing WITH you. :P And I'm in total agreement about statistics...sometimes they just don't line up with my own personal experiences. For instance, my Intrepid is rated at 42.2" of legroom, while the Charger/300 are something like 41.8", yet those LH cars feel like they have better legroom to me! But then my uncle's Corolla, which I think is 41.7", give me leg cramps after 10 minutes of driving.
According to the Wikipedia article on the W116, it's 210" long, 116.5" wheelbase, and about 4390 lb. for the 6.9L So definitely a substantial car. That's about the size of a 1977 Caprice, which had a 116" wb and was around 212" long. The Caprice was wider though. Not sure how much wider, but enough to give it about 6.5" more shoulder room...~61.5" versus ~55". That's probably why the car feels so substantial...it was very heavy for its size. Most Caprices back then were probably only around 3700-3800 lb. I don't think I've ever had a car that heavy. Well, maybe my '69 Bonneville?
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
OK, I got you now.
What's interesting is that the repair invoice is from the Cadillac / Buick / Pontiac / GMC / Subaru / Nissan / Suzuki dealership in Cheyenne. I guess there wasn't an independent repair shop in town that could (or would) do the work.
I'll write up the ad and post on craigslist (both in Denver and Wyoming) and see what kind of hits I get. Perhaps I'll post a draft here (like q did for the Alfa) and have you guys comment on it.
1949 Willys-Overland Jeepster – $5000
This vehicle belonged to my wife’s step-father. He bought it a year ago with the intention of restoring and driving it. Unfortunately, he became too ill and passed away before completing the project and now my mother-in-law is selling it.
The vehicle has the 134 cubic inch inline 4 cylinder engine and a 3-speed manual transmission. Less than 3000 of these vehicles were built for the model year 1949.
Work that he has had done to it:
• Major tuneup including new spark plugs, plug wires, cap, rotor and distributor
• Full brake overhaul including new brake lines, front and rear brake shoes (drum brakes all around), all the brake cylinders as well as the master cylinder
• New battery, fuel pump, fuel lines and fuel tank
• All 4 wheel bearings
Vehicle runs good and the body is in decent shape. The vehicle is located in Cheyenne, WY though I am fielding all calls to answer questions.
Call Michael at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
1949 Willys-Overland Jeepster, 4cylinder, 3-speed manual trans. total 1949 production 2,960 cars. Asking price is $4,950 or b/o
For sale from my late father in law's estate. It was a restoration in process.
The vehicle has the 134 cubic inch inline 4 cylinder engine and a 3-speed manual transmission.
Work done so far:
• Major tuneup
• Full brake overhaul
• New battery, fuel pump, fuel lines and fuel tank
• All 4 wheel bearings
Vehicle runs well and the body is solid and decent. The vehicle is located in Cheyenne, WY, though I am fielding all calls to answer questions.
Call Michael at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
BMW 3 Series -- that's the problem exactly. The passenger is comfortable but the driver has a console digging into his calf and his left arm with no place to go.
Not at the events I've been to. Which is part of the appeal for me. I don't want to be one of a dozen Miatas. The Boxster would be semi-rare. Only 1 of those shows up on a regular basis, but we get 4 or 5 Porsches in total.
'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
Although I'd add a bit more about rust, personally, as that is the key to such a vehicle for me. What is "decent shape"? How is the frame, firewall, wheelwells, etc. Not that you have to list what is OK, but if there are concerning spots, I'd like to know.
I know some would disagree with me here, though. Let the buyer come and make the determination. Again, though, I just hate someone telling me "the body is in good shape" and I come and find out it needs 2 new fenders and new floors.
'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
Earlier S2000. Same price range, and it will smack around both of the above on the track and not break down on you going back home. :P
But my attitude towards the Mark V runs sort of hot and cold. I love the icy blue '78 Diamond Jubilee that my friend has, but unless they're a nice, soothing shade of blue or the right shade of green, I lose interest. To me, the color can make or break these cars. That Bill Blass edition isn't too bad, but the midnight blue and white just seems too sharp of a contrast to me. I'd probably tolerate a Mopar R-body or '76 LeMans in just about any color, but I'm pickier with the Marks. Then there's just the issue of the size of the danged things! I think a Mark V is about 231" long...about 10" longer than my '79 NYers. While I do like big car, I think even I have my limits.
If I ever get some big 70's mastodon, I think I want to go for a '71-75 GM convertible, my favorites being the '75 LeSabre, '72 Impala, and '71-72 LeSabre, in that order. Or a big 4-door hardtop, an Electra being my first choice, although I do like them all. And I do have to confess a fondness for the Toronado. I actually prefer the look of the '75-78 models with the rectangular headlights, although I miss the true hardtop styling that was offered in '71-74. And I guess a runner-up would be a big '74-78 C-body New Yorker/Imperial/Newport I really like the Plymouth Fury and Dodge Monaco 4-door hardtops of this generation, but they're almost impossible to find. They weren't popular to begin with, and were culled after 1975.. The style was popular in the Newport and New Yorker lines, but those cars were different enough from the Plymouths and Dodges that they didn't get much of an economy of scale. Even though they were all considered C-bodies, comparing the big Fury/Monaco to the Newport/New Yorker was like comparing an Impala to an Electra. Same basic underlying structure, but not much that was really interchangeable.
Andre, are you sure this is true of the '71-76 GMs? I owned a '72 Olds 98 4 door hardtop, and while it was way too long ago for me to remember the source of my information, it's my understanding that the Impala/Caprice, Bonnevilles, 88s, and LeSabres shared a platform, while the 98s, Electras and Caddies were on a different, as well as larger platform. Now I wouldn't bet my life on the matter of two platforms vs. one, but this is the first I've heard of this.
You used the term "structure." Is that synonymous or different from platform?
As for the bodies that sat down on the frame, the Electra/98/DeVille shared the same body, the C-body, and the main difference over the B-body was 3 extra inches in the rear seat area, with correspondingly longer rear doors, more formal C-pillars, a longer roof, and rear quarter panels that were a bit more substantial than the B-body. The front seat area was the same though. You could probably swap the front doors between a LeSabre and Electra, for example. And the front-end clips were probably swappable too, although the Electra had a different grille.
The Grand Ville was sort of an odd beast, though. They took the B-body, but tried to graft the more formal C-body C-pillar onto it, so it used a roof and rear door glass that was not quite the same as the C-body, but not quite the same as the B-body. For 1975, the Bonneville adopted the same roofline. The Grand Ville was not offered in 1976, but the Bonneville/Bonneville Brougham still used that same roof. Also, while an Electra/98/DeVille benefitted from an extra 3" of legroom in the back seat compared to a B-body, the Grand Ville did not.
As for the term "structure", I guess I meant it in sort of generic way. GM would assign different designations to different cars, but sometimes the basic underlying structure, be it the frame, body, or both, would still have something in common. For example, even when these big cars downsized to FWD, the Electra/98/Deville was known as the C-body, while the LeSabre, 88, and Bonneville were known as the H-body. But they were still very similar cars.
I'm also convinced that the 1971-78 Eldorado/Toronado, while FWD, are similar to the 1971-76 B- and C-body. While this may seem a stretch, as the Eldo/Toro are FWD, they still have their engines longitudinally-mounted. And if you look at a 1975-78 Toronado, its dashboard is identical to that of a '75-76 Delta 88/98. I think the Eldorado uses the same dash as the DeVilles and Fleetwoods did. So either they're ultimately based on the same design, or that's just one heck of a coincidence! Also, the Eldo/Toro and Riv did redesign for 1971, the same year as the big B/C bodies. I think that's an indication right there.
According to Edmunds...
'00 S2k w/70k miles = $10,800 private party
'97 Z3 2.8 w/70k miles = $7800
'97 Boxster w/70k miles = $10,500
Although Edmunds says an S2k would come close, we all know how Honda people are.
But thanks for putting it in my head. I'll keep it in mind when and if the time comes.
'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
it looked pretty nice. i will take a fly by tomorrow to see if it is still there and get some info if it is. don''t get your hopes up.
I just don't find this attractive
'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 think I'll use Shifty's update to the ad text.
As to the rust, I will admit that I didn't take a real close look at the fenderwells, firewall and other hard to see places. I do have a picture of the left taillight, where there was some surface rust:
The idea is that I would field and screen the phone calls, and those who were serious would get my MIL's name and phone number in Wyoming to set a time to see the vehicle.
Note - not that it matters much, but it wasn't my FIL who passed away, it was my MIL's husband. Wife's parents divorced when she was 16 and her mom remarried not long afterwards.
My FIL passed away almost 3 years ago - that's where we got the '92 Subaru Legacy wagon that was ultimately driven to California and given to my son as a graduation gift.
Today's edition of The Wall Street Journal features an article (on W12) extolling the virtues of the '09 Fit. A caption over a picture of the car reads "Ridiculously Roomy -- A high roofline and wide opening doors contribute to the feeling that the Fit is larger than its compact dimensions." Just how large is ridiculously roomy? Ninety-one cubic feet large. Now that's not quite as much as the SD, with 96 cubes of space, but if 91 is ridiculously large, then 96 must be, what, outrageously large? I don't mean to start an argument over semantics here, but it may also mean there are no adjectives to adequately describe the interior space of one of the Detroit mastodons of the day. In the end, roomy may be relative -- as Einstein would say if he were participating in this intellectually challenging discussion...and I have no doubt that he'd be a participant in this discussion if he were still alive.
And, oh yeah, in a glaring omission, the WSJ article failed to mention whether the Fit's "high roofline" was sufficiently high to accommodate a Viking hat. Sorry, Shifty, but you might have to don that hat upon exiting one of those wide opening doors. I know it's not the same as wearing it while driving, but, hey, one must be willing to accept some tradeoffs for fuel economy.
Oh, did I mention fuel economy? The article pegs the EPA fuel economy for the '09 Fit at 27/33/29. Hmmm, I know of a nice '79 300 SD that can do that. Well, almost. But you can buy it for only a fraction of what it costs to drive that Fit out of the showroom. I'll leave it to you to decide the moral of this comparison, since I may not have enough morals to make the call.
Remember it's not fair to compare an old car you will use as a "toy" with a new car you will use all day everyday. If you want to calculate the probable cost to own an old Benz diesel, you have to assume you're going to have to keep it in the condition necessary to drive at freeway speeds for 12,000 miles a year. That's a big difference from owning one as a vegetable oil experiment going 2,500 miles a year as a grocery getter.
By the way, I rarely hand my keys over to a valet. I prefer to tip the valet and park my own car. Also, contrary to what might be inferred by this and my previous message, I'm not into status symbols. If I bought a MB, it would be for the driving experience, not the status.
how about 14WD?!
seats 9
classic 70's
seems cheap
crazy thing
too much hard cider before writing ad?
couldn't git er done
not as cool as the name
how much?
laser stripe and all
scout II
gram mobile
ad title: Dodge $950
this guy will never have his own show about towing
another saab story
Now, is it roomy? For my needs, I'd have to say no. Front legroom is something like 41.3 inches, and rear is around 34.5". Shoulder room is about 52.7 up front, around 52 in back. Headroom is where it gets its volume from. Something like 41" up front, 39 in back. So essentially, it's sort of like a 1984 Cavalier with a VERY high roof. If you were comfortable in a 1984 Cavalier, then you'll be fine in this thing. However, that shoulder room is going to feel tight to me, most likely putting the door right up against my shoulder, and don't even get me started on the curvature of the windows, which would probably force me into a "gangsta lean" driving position. And that mimimal front legroom is probably gonna be a killer for me.
As for fuel economy, I'm sure the Fit would do much better than 27/33 in the real world. I'm convinced that the numbers the EPA uses these days are way too low, and designed so that ANYBODY could beat them. Sort of a "no child left behind" of the automotive world? :P I'm going to take a wild guess and say that 27/33 would roughly equate to around 31/37 using the EPA's older numbers.
Military truck... cool!!! Nice price too!!! Only if I lived in the bush......
Carpice that seats 9 - exact same car I learned to drive on. The 3rd row rear facing seat is fun if you're a kid.
Olds Cutlass coupe- I like the color of that period.
Jag XJ6 - not sure abour yellow on that car. The Dual Gas Tanks feature... first time I heard of it, I always thought one of the gas caps is a dummy and for look only.
4X4 van - i ahve a Matchobx van like that but it's GM.
Caddy on cider road... wow... someone has been smoking the pipe there...you can pick up average girsl in that car that look like ...cartoons and surboarders...... wow!!! I'm gonna go out and buy it now!!
Panel van: very REAR find... I'm sure!
Granny's comet: I like preserved originals. It's like a time capsule.
Dodge Lancer Shelby: I always liked the style of those Lancers. Decent looking car for the 80s.
Saab 9000: talk about depreciation. I always get shocked when I see entry level or luxury cars from the 90s selling for so cheap, because it seems that not so long ago in the early 90s when I was a youngster drooling over such cars, they were $30-$50k new. Now all they're worth is few hundred bucks for parts or scrap. It's those darn electronics in newer cars that render them inoperable and useless.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
I always liked those Lancers and LeBaron GTSes too. Probably about the ultimate evolution of K-car styling. The '87 LeBaron coupe/convertible was nice too, about as sexy as a K-car could get!
I hear the dual gas tanks on those Jags are a real pain. Plus, I think they're actually mounted inside the trunk, rather than underneath, which makes it even worse.
Dual gas tanks means more trouble Iguess: two fuel pumps, fuel lines.....
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
I dunno about the Jag, but I think my Silverado still just has one fuel pump, mounted up on the side of the engine. It has a switch in the cab you can use to change tanks, and I'm guessing that just operates a valve or something, that swaps between tanks. I'm sure a Jag would be more sophisticated (i.e., more expensive) though. :sick: And now that you mention it, that is kind of a vulgar color for that Jag. Normally I find those cars sexy...almost dangerously sexy. Even though I know how troublesome they can be, they still look good enough that I forget about that sometimes! But that yellow just does nothing for me.
I had an '88 LeBaron coupe for awhile. Considering the source material, it was actually a very nice car. It became a total piece of junk after around 100,000 miles, but by that time it was my ex-wife's, so it was out of my hair. It had also been stolen a few times, which probably contributed to its problems in later years. It was also a turbo, which added to the complexity. I wouldn't mind having something like a non-turbo LeBaron from that era as a beater. I wonder if I'd find the 2.5 4-cyl adequate?
56 w/power pack
55 w/70 engine
I really like that '56 Chevy. You don't see the 4-door hardtops that often. Of the '55-57 generation, the '56 was always my favorite. I never liked the too-small grille of the '55, or the way its headlights jutted out. And by '57, with a new Ford out, and a radical new line of Mopars that instantly made everything else look like it was about 4 years old, the Chevy's styling was just over-the-hill by that time. They made up for it with their engines though. The 283 was a good performer. Not as durable as the bulky Plymouth 277's and 301's, but a much better revver. It was also a nice touch that Chevy would let you order dual quads or even fuel injection in anything. The only way to get a hot Plymouth was to order the Fury, with its hot 290 hp 318. The 301's were adequate, but nothing to write home about.
$17.5k less than the one on ebay with low mielage
Renault 5
This Opportunity Won't Last- no tire kickers!!! I wouldn't worry about that on your 91 Topaz!
In other words it's junk.....
Collector Scorpio, yeah right
Mustang V8 Convertible I think it would make a fun summer project car.
The car's face is coming off
MB 190D "You can hear the engine running" That's good to know. I like the key words at the bottom of the ad: E55 AMG, Brabus. SL500.... Yeah like if I'm looking for a high performance Benz, I just might buy this dead Diesel from the 80s.... :lemon:
Decent looking LeMans
Worth restoring?
One Seller, 4 cars, all with crazy prices:$18k for a first gen RX-7, $15k for second gen RX-7 conv, $8500 for 78 Lincoln Mark 5, and $36k for a hot rod 67 Ford truck
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
85 Renault R5 -- price is fair enough. You could part it out for that. They all need parts.
280 Coupe -- it's not a V8? Then nobody much cares to restore one.
85 BMW 735i -- price is fair enough, you won't lose much money. These are good cars.
88 Merkur Scorpio-- oh, isn't that the V8 car with the wheezy Buick engine? That might be worth a shot at bargain pricing.
Mustang V8 -- also worth risking the benjamins. You could part it out for that. Just don't get in too deep is all.
Mustang is a chop job, the Fox droptop didn't come out until MY 1983 IIRC.
The 4 car guy is an idiot of some kind.
MB owner claims it is a V8, but it is a high grille car...hmmm. $900 can't be right.
As for that Mercedes 190D, we've been repeatedly warned to stay away from these things in the Classics discussions. I happen to like them, but I heed expert advice, so I wouldn't buy one.
I kinda like that '82 Cordoba, too, although I wonder how bad that body damage is. I'm sure once you started tearing into it, it would be worse than it looks. I also don't relish the idea of driving around in something that size with a 90 hp slant six. This was one instance where you'd actually get better fuel economy with the bigger engine! The 318 had a 2.26:1 axle and enough power to move these cars. Not blindingly quick with 130 hp, obviously, but it didn't have to work very hard either. The 225 slant six was mated to a 2.94:1 axle though. Emissions controls tended to hurt its power and economy worse than they did with the V-8's.