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

1404405407409410854

Comments

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    There are ALL kinds of questions about that '65 Mustang. Very fishy car.
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 17,357
    Yeah, if its something so rare why would you add A/C? It wasn't supposed to have it new because it was the "performance" model. Seems odd to me.

    2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Also there were over 7,200 cars sold with K codes.
  • omarmanomarman Member Posts: 2,702
    If that '65 Mustang only has 1200 miles on it, why did it need a ground-up restoration?

    Not a dumb question. But I think this car was described elsewhere as having just over 1,000 miles since resto.

    Re: Cheap tires. I looked at all the pics taken under the car and didn't notice the tires until reading your post. But after going back and looking, yes. Cheap tires.

    The camera has pretty much laid the car out to see everything that many sellers don't always want to show.

    Why was "Dealer A/C" added which was not available for a K code Mustang from the factory? Well, I doubt if it came from the factory with that kind of body fit and finish either but I'll take it!

    If the seller's prose is being taken to task, very well.

    Just going by what I can see, it appears to be a well-built, well-kept, #2 Mustang vert K code with an unrealistic price. Have seen others offered in the high $70K range and would love to have one!
    A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    Would you mind sharing the details on your MCS? I forget the year and miles already ... did you give a price?

    I was browsing them this weekend. Kind of sort of thinking about an autoX car rather than the Z. Saw a couple of '04 base models with ~80k miles for $8k. But the seats don't look very nice in those. Did see one MCS for $9300.

    '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

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 17,357

    2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    350Z --- just go buy a nice used one for under $20K.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    It amazes me how many people cite the 'mileage' (as actual) on a 45 year-old car when they're restored, but it happens all the time. I seriously doubt that car has 12xx miles on it, or whatever the ad says. Seller didn't ramble on about it, so I take that as meaning post-restore, but still.....plenty of owners act as if they've spent $X restoring a car, it suddenly has come out of the factory brand new.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ....those SS 454 Monte Carlos are not only more rare than the SS Chevelles, they're also more easily documented (actual production numbers exist) thus less likely 'fakes', I think generally at least as attractive, weigh more or less the same, and currently cost about half as much. Certainly, not as flashy as a Chevelle SS (no screamy stripes and silly wheels that everyone insists on installing, as with Camaros, on every single variety even slightly restored). Go figure.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    I found a parts car

    All the parts for a turbo swap and 5-bolt wheel swap for my '85.

    This is exactly the decision I was pondering this past weekend. Buy another car entirely for an autoX project or start going crazy on my Z. Decisions Decisions. Any opinions?

    '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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Won't you have to strengthen the engine internally for a turbo swap? I think the factory did. Also you can buy these older turbos in real nice shape for around $4,500 bucks. I don't think that car is worth more than $300 and I don't think this is the way you need to go here. Besides, do turbos really work for Auto X? I would think (little that I know about it) that a supercharger would be much better.
  • jlflemmonsjlflemmons Member Posts: 2,242
    Tell you a little secret on that Cutlass convertible with the "manual transmission".

    bet it's a 3spd. Back around 68-72 Oldsmobile tried to change their ordering information for the dealers to allow for customization of build, ie no packages. I have seen and driven a 1968 Olds Cutlass Supreme that was heavily loaded, but the order guy forgot to check the "automatic" box for the transmission. It came in looking just like that '72, no console, no buckets, just a shifter sticking up out of the floor with a 3spd fully synchronized transmission. Real oddball, that one!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited March 2010
    Now there's a car nobody would want! On just about every classic car, of all the possible options, such as automatic, 4-speed stick and 3 speed stick, the 3 speed is actually a deduct for value. Another case of rarity being a liability, not an asset.
  • jlflemmonsjlflemmons Member Posts: 2,242
    :sick: My family owned a 1972 Cutlass Supreme conv., purchased brand new by my dad and given to my mom for their 25th wedding anniversary. Beautiful car, 350ci with factory duals, viking blue with white buckets and white top.

    So I know where of I speak when I say that based on the amount of rust and where it is on that (non-a/c) Cutlass he is trying to sell, about all you are going to get for your 10K is a good engine, and maybe good tranny. Frame too, if it hasn't been wrecked. But the rust on that car is showing in the typical areas for a '72 Cutlass, and there is a lot more than what you see in the pictures. By the time it looks that bad from the outside, a lot of the inside is gone.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    Few things.

    1. I won't find any Z in nicer shape than mine. At least not within reasonable distance or for reasonable money.

    2. No strengthening needed. The NA to turbo conversion is very common. It is a strong engine. The difference being the turbo model had slightly lower compression thanks to 1985 gas. The result of turbo'ing the NA is a quicker car than the stock turbo model. No reliability issues reported (until you start overboosting, anyway). Stock boost really wasn't much in these. I think something like 10 psi, if I'm not mistaken. Takes a 165hp NA engine to about 200hp.

    3. You'd be surprised what works for autoX. On a good, smooth run, you are spending the entire lap (other than initial takeoff) in the top half of 2nd gear. So big boost and a tall 2nd gear is the ideal setup. Only issue would be too much boost roasting the tires out of every turn.

    4. On a parts-only basis, I'd be looking at $400 for the turbo goodies, a couple hundred bucks for the hubs, another bill or so for the front spindles, and another $150 or so for the wheels. So, in parts alone, the car is worth $800 to me. Of course, I'd like to get it for less. I think I'd offer $500 and limit myself to $750.

    So, shifty, are you avoiding my question about your MCS? ;)

    '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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited March 2010
    Yeah I'd be a bit worried about the different compression ratios for turbo vs NA engines, but if you say so, that it's a no hitch conversion, well okay, because I don't know much about that particular one. I know for instance that I wouldn't DARE do this on certain cars without dropping the compression ratio----too risky for detonation.

    That's also interesting about turbos in Auto X---here again, I would have thought that ON/OFF quality of early turbo design would be a PITA for Auto X.

    What was your question about my MCS?

    Am I going to modify the supercharger? Hell, yes. What I have to do is more research on the effect of a 15% drop in pulley size---I *think* I need to take precautions on heat buildup by using cooler spark plugs and maybe maybe changing the thermostat. So I'm still researching that part.

    I should gain about 25 HP or so, and if I did the air box, maybe 35 HP, giving me an even 200HP.

    So for a 2650 lb car, that's going to be pretty good :)
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    edited March 2010
    somewhere a few posts back... was wondering about the details. I think it was an '04? 7xk miles? What was the agreed price?

    on the Z turbo ... one thing to remember is that compression ratios were much lower back then. I believe the turbo was 7:1 and the NA was 7.5 or 8, IIRC.

    '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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Got it.

    Yeah, it's an '03 with 63,000. It runs great, is the S model, leather, heated seats, sunroof, 6-speed manual trans, DSC, rain-sensing windshield, running lights, sport package, 17" alloys, British Racing Green w/ black top. About the only significant option it doesn't have is the Xenon lighting.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    edited March 2010
    Searching around here, I've only found 1 decent S for under $10k. It's an '03 with 83k miles. DSC, leather, roof. Dark blue with white stripes and roof. Looks to have the 16" white wheels. $9400.

    I just can't justify that for a track toy, though. As much as I'd like to.

    I'd go with a base model, but then I want the sport pack. Not even sure if that was offered all years. The seats don't look very inviting in the base 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

  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    I know I've been told to avoid the 2.5, but I keep coming back to this as something that should be a very good autocross car.
    Lotta miles. Wonder how low he'd go on it.

    '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

  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    I love how he claims "only" 150K miles!

    My '03 has 95K on it, so I find it hard to believe that, in a state where everything is so close, he's put 55K more miles on his car in one extra year.

    Other than that, it sure looks clean.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,117
    love how he claims "only" 150K miles!

    At least he didn't make some kind of comment about how it's "only getting broken in" at that mileage. :P

    BTW, how much does the 2.5 have in common with the older 2.4 that Nissan used in the Stanza and the older Altima? I think I've asked this question before, but can't remember the answer. Is the 2.5 an all-new engine or just a bigger bore/stroke 2.4?

    FWIW, the 2.4 in my Mom & stepdad's '99 Altima has over 300,000 miles on it now. And other than the first transmission letting go at 35,000 miles, the car has been pretty reliable
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited March 2010
    I'm smellin' a rat here, as usual for me :P

    I don't like the dents, I don't like the panels removed "to optimize performance" and I really don't like that " we recommend a tune up". As Mark Twain used to say "The only person who can rightfully use the term WE are the Queen of England and a man with a frog in his pocket".

    Maybe it just needs some engine work, having been thrashed for 150K?

    However, I also say that "a car has to speak for itself" so my comments are just speculation.

    RE: MINI -- gee, prices must be cheaper out your way. The only Mini S I saw for under $10K were high miles and a bit tatty.

    Definitely DO NOT buy a base MINI prior to 2006. It has a wheezy, rough (dare we say primitive?) Chrysler-developed engine and a crappier transmission, either auto or manual. :surprise:
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,177
    edited March 2010
    I may have missed it, but I also wonder why no engine shot, something I expect to see in an ad for a 'performance' car. Makes me worry what I'd find...
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    edited March 2010
    Yeah, now let's THINK about it. Why would you *not* tune up a car prior to selling it, if it's running badly?And especially a car that one is selling based on its performance? What's the worst it could cost you, a couple hundred bucks, to avoid a road test with sputtering, spitting, backfiring, or even worse, the dud-dud-dud of a dead cylinder?

    Why even mention "tune up" unless you've already tried, and found something that's much harder to fix?

    Bring your compression tester. :)
  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 17,357
    Yeah, now let's THINK about it. Why would you *not* tune up a car prior to selling it, if it's running badly?

    Look at some of the ads we post here. At least there wasn't Miller Lite cans and McDonald's bags on the floor!

    2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Maybe those ads should have read: "only needs beer cans removed for interior to look really nice"?

    or

    "previous owner installed leftover McDonald's rubbish and I haven't had time to remove it. Easy fix. I got a $15 estimate from a car wash".
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    Oh, of course the tuneup thing threw up flags for me. But I'm pretty confident in my ability to know if a car needs a tuneup or an engine (which, apparently, is quite possible on that car thanks to a pre-cat that can fail and spew shrapnel into the cylinders!). ;)
    And, on that car, I would beat the ever lovin hell out of it during a long test drive to see what, if anything, falls off.

    So the wife's word: "Kinda pricey, but I guess if you sell the Z you can get it."

    :surprise:

    Nah. I don't think I can stand to give up the Z. The odds I'd ever find one as nice are very very slim ... and absolutely nil at the price I paid. I feel like I would be betraying the car somehow by giving it up.

    So I asked at what price do I get to keep the Z. She said she supposes I could drop $2500 on another car if I really feel the need. Oh, and she won't let me dump the Benz. Apparently she has adopted it ... although it has been sitting dormant in the driveway and she walks by it every morning to get in her Mazda. :confuse:

    '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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think your romance with the Nissan would pale in a very short time. This is not my idea of a very exciting car. It's just a Sentra with a zippy engine and a bit of firming up. Whoopie?
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    Don't like to overlap, but in case there are some here who don't follow the CCB thread, stickguy posted this car over there and it got me thinking. It could make a decent ST car. The rules for ST are cars with 4 seats, less than 3.1 liters displacement, factory produced, and not based on a sportscar (eg, a 4-seat Z would not be allowed).

    High miles but very cheap Golf.

    What do y'all think?

    The car that pretty much dominates ST is the late '80s Civic hatchback coupe. Although I'm thinking ... heck, if a 2400lb 115hp Golf could hold its own, why wouldn't a 2700lb 170hp sedan (the nissan) be better? Yet I don't see Nissans running ST very often, so there must be some flaw in my thinking.

    '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

  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    I think your romance with the Nissan would pale in a very short time. This is not my idea of a very exciting car. It's just a Sentra with a zippy engine and a bit of firming up. Whoopie?

    Not that I'm disagreeing, but doesn't that describe most "performance" sedans/coupes?

    The focus SVT is just a focus with a zippy engine; the CTS-V; any AMG or M; and the MCS is just a base Mini with a zippy engine. :P

    '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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't think you can compare a Sentra to any of those cars, which are much more upscale, far more technically advanced and a lot costlier. In other words, there's a lot more to like in the package. Besides, a MINI doesn't look like anything else, whereas hardly anyone could notice that the Sentra is "special". Even AMG takes pains to radicalize the Mercedes so that you'd notice.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    $3700 would buy you the world's last showroom-fresh B13 Sentra, which is a much better platform for auto-x.

    Put some nice springs and struts on the Z and enjoy it for what it is.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    BTW, how much does the 2.5 have in common with the older 2.4 that Nissan used in the Stanza and the older Altima?

    Nothing of note. 2.4 = KA series. 2.5 = QR series.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,177
    I'm not too crazy about that Golf - you'd have to put some $$ in its suspension to get decent handling out of it - how about an old GTI instead? Better suspension and motor.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    Put some nice springs and struts on the Z and enjoy it for what it is.

    That's all fine and good, but only if I never take it to the autoX again because I'd be in ESP against a 300+hp Legacy GT of note and any number of GT Mustangs that show up that day.

    I would love a B13 Sentra. But I'd really want the SER. Seems to be nearly impossible to find a nice clean one that hasn't been pimped out by an 18-year-old who starts his craiglist ad with, "Whattup C-list!"

    '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

  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    edited March 2010
    I was surfing vwvortex the past couple of days, but nothing so far. Only one that I was partially interested in, but turned out to be on the shore 3500 miles from me.

    '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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    You should download a free copy of "Craigslist Pro Reader"---it'll search ALL Craigslists throughout the country. Don't be fooled though---when you put in your search criteria and punch "Start" it looks like nothing is happening, but the Start box fades a bit and so you just wait. It'll search countrywide in from 30 seconds to 3 minutes.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805
    cool. Thanks for the tip. Will have to do at home.

    '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

  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,177
    Now you've done it, Shifty - our 'Craigslist' project car postings will now be 100 long! (like that's a bad thing :P )
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Fortunately, technology also enables crazy people.
  • martianmartian Member Posts: 220
    I always liked this car, so please help me.
    Briefly, I would like a daily driver, with a good body. Six cyliner engine and auto tranny, with factory A/C. Power steering and power brakes would be nice, but not a deal breaker.
    How much can I expect to pay for such a car?
    And, how much would a decent repaint job cost?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    So what you're asking is how much for a '69 Camaro Coupe 6 cylinder in "fair" condition? You don't want one with a good paint job to start with?

    I would really recommend that you buy a 6 cylinder car WITH good paint because a quality paint job is going to cost you about 50% of what the car costs in "fair" condition.

    Anyway, keep in mind that a 6 cylinder automatic is a 30% deduct off any values you see for a V-8 car, right off the bat. So don't peg pricing to the V8s.

    Actually finding a 6 cylinder car is going to be very very hard. Most have already had the engines swapped out.

    I'm thinkin' $10K to $12K should be plenty for a decent 6 cylinder car. Not super clean, but very decent and ready to roll.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    edited March 2010
    ....not to sound insulting, Martian, but is this an early April Fool's joke? What you want is what everyone else on Earth wants: grandma's grocery-getter, unmolested '69 Camaro that's been sitting in a garage for forty years, for not a lot of money.

    If not a joke, good luck finding ANY '69 Camaro six-cylinder (most have been converted to V-8 at this point, anyway) let alone one with factory A/C (this alone would be a SUPER-strange combination) and power steering and brakes. I'm sure a few exist on earth, but here's a breakdown:

    According to my source, of the 230,799 1969 Camaros built for U.S. production:
    65008 (roughly 28 percent) were six-cylinder;
    37878 (less than 1/6 of total output, including V-8s) had factory A/C
    about 120k each (over half) had automatic and power steering, so odds are in your favor there, at least.

    So, (correct me if I'm wrong, stats experts), you're already at 1/2 of 1/6 of 28 percent (~2 percent), IF ALL sixes had factory a/c, which they certainly didn't; then figure 1/4 to 1/3 of all '69 Camaros had power brakes (power brake 'take' rates were typically considerably lower than that of power steering back then). Then, subtract from that already miniscule number, those that are destroyed or have been converted to V-8 power. You see what I'm getting at here.....chances of finding one equipped with all four 'wants' (at least from the factory), and in fair condition, are bordering on astronomical at this point. This is about as close as I found on eBay (and notice it's not a six, nor does it have factory A/C) but it is original and certainly in fair condition:

    link title

    .....also note its first bid.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,117
    That Camaro you found makes me think of one that someone I knew back in high school drove, although hers was a louder, brighter green rather than that more silvery sage green. She had a 307/powerglide. Can't remember if it had a/c or not.

    I'd imagine a/c on a 6-cyl Camaro would be rare indeed. For all intents and purposes, a car like that, while it looks pretty, is just a bare-bones economy car, or at least what passed for it in those days. My 1969 Dart GT, which had a 225 slant six, had a/c, and I was told it was pretty rare in those days for something like that to have a/c.

    I wonder how a 307/Powerglide would do as a daily driver, when it comes to acceleration and fuel economy? The 307 only had 200 hp gross, which comes out to around 130-140 when you convert to net, so it's not a screamer. But then the 6-cyl would probably be around 105-110. It might be fairly economical, while still not too embarrassing in the 0-60 tromp.
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,920
    I have no idea what the ratios are on the Camaro's powerglide, but my '69 Chevy C20 (pickup) has the 307 in it (with 4-speed manual). It accelerates as well as any of my modern vehicles (which are in the 8-9 second range 0-60) when it is running empty, but tops out in terms of practical speeds at about 70 due to the exceptionally low gearing. I have never felt it was wanting in power or torque. I can pull pretty much anything (I have pulled a load that weighed 12,000# without trouble) if i keep it in 3rd gear (max speed ~35 mph), but it gets a little dicey in 4th when I get on any sort of incline. Of course, I don't care about speed with heavy loads because I still have to control the rig....

    A friend of mine has a '67 El Camino that originally had a powerglide mated to a V8. If that car was at all similar, any performance from the engine is likely to be heavily muted by that transmission.
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,805

    '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

  • tjc78tjc78 Member Posts: 17,357
    Call me completely crazy here, but I think a nice swap for the 69 (if you could sort out the wiring and computer controls) would be a 3800 V6 / 4speed auto from a 95+ Camaro/Firebird. You could have the looks of a classic and the MPG/reliability from a more modern car for a daily driver.

    2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart

  • martianmartian Member Posts: 220
    Yes, the question was asked before I took a look at ebay! Migawd, what people want for these clapped out heaps!
    Another question for Chevy experts: why on earth did Chevrolet change the Camaro styling in 1970? The 1969 style was nice and crisp-it even looks modern today. I don't like the 1970 front end at all-that menacing-looking beak!
    I did drive a '69 Camaro with a HUGE V-8-the engine had so much torque that it was stressing the frame-not a pleasant ride at all.
    Guess I better plan on buying a used 2010 camaro!
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    I think the 92's were pretty problematic and that price it has to be trashed inside and out.

    I like the MR2, almost impossible not to have fun in.

    Civic? What's the point. Kinda fun to drive...

    Are you selling your BMW convertible? Do you not like it?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.