Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Bargain "Classics"--$12,000 or Less and 20 Years or Older

11112131416

Comments

  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    Was it just a matter of being down on power (poor breathing, low compression, too much car for the engine, etc.) or were the aluminum Caddy engines somehow inherently unreliable? Cooling system issues?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a 1985 Fleetwood Brougham with the 4.1. They got 0-60 in 14.8 seconds, which is probably a miracle for an engine that small. It also took a 3.42:1 rear end to do it! It also has a test of an FWD DeVille, and that once clocked in at 12.2, using a 2.73:1 transaxle.

    They started putting 307's in the Brougham for 1986. Too bad they didn't start that in 1982. The 307 only had 5-15 hp more than the 4.1 (it had 125-135, depending on year and application) but a lot more torque (255 ft-lb compared to 200 or so), and actually had a better EPA estimate! 18/25 compared to 16/22. Part of this was probably thanks to the fact the 307 didn't have to work as hard, so they gave it a taller 2.73:1 axle.
  • gearhead1977gearhead1977 Member Posts: 15
    No love for the 4100 V8. The Eldo I spoke of in my post had one. Should have listened to my uncle who is a car nut and also had a friend who worked at a B-O-C dealer. "Stay away, the 4100 was junk" he said. I liked the car and so with help from the folks I bought it. 5000 teenage miles later, engine was done for. I'm sure my driving it didn't help. We bought a rebuilt engine for it and within 6 months, it was leaking and using oil. I traded it for a low mileage 89 Acura Legend and never looked back.

    I understand that the later 4.5 V8 and 4.9 were better,until Northstar came along. Of course, the Northstar had it's share of issues too. My folks had a 94 Deville with the Northstar. Still one of the strongest running cars I've ever driven.

    As for the Regal or any similar GM classic car, I'd go with 86 or 87, the last years of that style. My grandfather had an 85 Caprice Classic two-door with the 305,4 bbl and four speed auto. Awful performance from that tranny and engine, thanks to a ridiculous rear-end too. Just never woke up unless you booted it all the time.

    Thinking about it makes me appreciate what we have now in terms of engine and transmission perfomance.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    All of the above. Sometime in the mid-80s GM just gave up and stuck a Oldsmobile engine in the big RWD Caddies. The 4.5 redesign supposedly fixed most of the durability issues with the 4.1, and I suppose the 4.9 might have been just enough to lumber those barges around. The die had been cast, though, and GM didn't put the Northstar in the big boats either.
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    IIRC, weren't the Chrysler M-bodies still equipped with the 2-bbl 318 until the very end of production in 1989? Or was it a 4-bbl?

    I don't believe they ever received the FI Magnums found in the trucks.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Right, the 318 was a 2-bbl right up through the end, although the police cars had a 4-bbl. Now in 1985, they changed the carburetors. I forget what the 2-bbl changed to, but the 4-bbl changed from a Carter to a Rochester Quadrajet. Horsepower went up in both cases. In the 2-bbl, from 130 to 140, and in the 4-bbl from 165 to 175. However, performance did not. I think hp and torque curves on the 2-bbl made it slightly slower from 0-60 but a bit faster from 0-100, and a slightly higher top speed. However, the 4-bbl ended up with more peak hp, but a less broad torque curve, and it ended up hurting both 0-60, 0-100, and top speed.

    I think the 318 in trucks got fuel injection for 1987, but it wasn't anything fancy, and I believe only put out around 170 hp. IIRC, the Magnum didn't come out until 1992, and had 220 hp in the 318 version, and 230 with the 360. In later years though, there were hotter versions. I think the 360 ultimately got up to something like 245-250. I know that sounds tame compared to the Hemi that replaced it, but they could be pretty quick in something like a Grand Cherokee.
  • gearhead1977gearhead1977 Member Posts: 15
    I think it's all of the above in regards to the 4.1 V8 from Cadillac. Also known as the HT 4100, HT meaning "High Tech". It was TBI as opposed to carb. The weird thing was aluminum block and iron heads.

    From Wikipedia:

    HT-4100

    A new engine was introduced for 1982, the HT-4100 (option code LT8). It was a 4100 cc V8, designed for transverse, front wheel drive applications. It was originally slated for 1983 and a new line of downsized Cadillac sedans. Delays in the downsizing program (shared with Buick and Oldsmobile) postponed the introduction of those models until 1985, and the new V8 was rushed into production for the 1982 model year.

    [edit] Design Features

    HT stood for High Technology. For its time, the engine and its electronic control module (ECM) were quite sophisticated. Despite having a throttle body injection system (as opposed to port fuel injection), the HT4100 used an ECM that for the first time incorporated a detailed on-board computer. Every parameter of engine performance could be displayed on the heater control while the car was being driven. The HT4100 also pioneered other design features including removable cylinder sleeves, high operating temperature for emission control (210 degrees, compared to 180 in earlier engines), free circulation of coolant between the block and the heads, and bimetal construction that mounted heat-tolerant cast-iron heads onto a weight-saving aluminum block. The engine had a bore of 3.465 in (88 mm) and stroke of 3.307 in (84 mm), for a total displacement of 4.1 L (≈250 cu in). It initially was equipped with throttle-body fuel injection, with output of 135 hp (101 kW) at 4400 RPM and 190 lb·ft (258 N·m) of torque at 2000 RPM.

    In 1982 the HT4100 was the standard engine for the front-wheel-drive Eldorado and Seville. It was also placed in many rear-wheel-drive DeVilles, and was available for the Fleetwood.

    The HT4100 was prone to failure of the intake manifold gasket. It may not have been the most successful engine to sit under the hood of a Cadillac, but potential buyers were no more satisfied with the other two engines available at the time, the V8-6-4 and the Oldsmobile 5.7 L Diesel. Reliability issues soiled the reputation of the HT4100. Kits were sold to retrofit the cars with Chevrolet engines (Buick and Oldsmobile V6s would also fit, but were much harder to install). Sales remained strong, exceeding 100,000 in 1984.[citation needed] Cadillac's share of the luxury car market diminished rapidly after 1985[citation needed].

    For 1987 a more powerful version of the 4.1 L engine was introduced in the Cadillac Allante, using a different camshaft profile and roller rocker arms to reduce valvetrain friction, in addition to multiport fuel injection. This engine was rated at 170 hp (127 kW) at 4300 RPM and 235 lb·ft (319 N·m) of torque at 3200 RPM. The 4.1 was superseded by larger-displacement engines, and ceased production after the 1988 model year.
  • sandman235sandman235 Member Posts: 7
    I think a 65 or 66 Impala with a small block can be had for $12,000 in good condition. I liked the 65 myself, they ruined the rear end with the "bar tail lites", but that's just my preference.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    I like the '67, too. Like the one they use in 'Supernatural'

    image
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    My paternal grandparents had a '67 Caprice, in light blue with a black vinyl roof. My maternal grandparents were very different--their '67 Caprice was burgundy and lacked the vinyl roof. Both had the 275-horse 327 four-barrel, with the three-speed automatic, significant upgrades over the more common 283 with Powerglide.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    Hard to beat the 327. If you want see more vintage iron, watch 'Life on Mars', set in '73.
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    My grandparents had a 4 door '67 Impala in that dark blue color. I remember thinking at the time that it was an old mans car. I guess mainly because they had those plastic seat cover that you stuck to no matter what time of year it was, and was such a huge beast.

    Looking at them now, I think even the 4 doors look great. Maybe because I am only 9 years young than when my grandfather when he got the '67. I wonder if you can still get those plastic seat cover.....hmmm.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    65 and 67 Chevy Impala's were beautiful cars. The only weak spot visually were the relatively cheap looking dash boards.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    My grandparents bought a new '68 Impala 4-door hardtop with a 327. It was a greenish blue color with a black vinyl top. In 1972, they gave it to my Mom, in exchange for her '66 Catalina convertible, and then used the 'vert as a trade-in on a '72 Impala 4-door hardtop, dark green with a white vinyl roof.

    I really don't remember the car all that well, as it got traded when I was 5, for a new '75 LeMans coupe.
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Definitely by 1983/84 GM started going digital. The corvette had the star wars dash were everything was digital. I bought my wife an 85 corvette with 19K on the clock about 5 years ago for 12K. Its transmission liked to get into 4th as fast as possible, fortunately it was very easy to coax it out with the long skinny pedal ;)
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    We had a 66 Biscayne. Plain as can be with as few options as possible (it's a good thing the doors were standard equipment!). It was a nice looking car. Would have loved the Impala but mom was very guarded on the money front at that point.

    Now you see how that bumper kind of comes to a point in the middle? Did you know that if you slide on the ice and hit the back bumper of a late 50s Pontiac that the Pontiac will survived unscathed but that Chevy bumper will push right up into that grill in such a way as to look bad but not affecting the car mechanically so it can be left that way for years? Don't ask how I know that. :sick:
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • wevkwevk Member Posts: 179
    My parents had one of these. Rather fancy interior for a chevy:

    http://www.fedrelandsvennen.no/amcar/brochures/chevy/65caprice/65caprice.html

    WVK
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Love the cobblestone upholstery :P
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    I remember around 1996 or so local lot had a 65 Caprice 4-door hardtop that was very pristine, it had mileage of something like 70K, it was a greyish silver with a black top and a brocade interior like in a period Caddy. It had a 396. I think they wanted 6K for it...I was almost tempted to beg family for money to buy it, as I was a poor student at the time. I think it would have been worth it. I think I have mentioned it before here...it really stuck in my head, it was very clean, it looked brand new.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Yeah, 65/66 was when the low priced volume leaders got serious about getting into the mid priced car's sales. Caprice, LTD and Fury VIP were all quite nice inside.
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Shifty, what do you think of the 1983 Hurst Olds as a "classic" under $12K. It wasn't as popular as the Monte Carlo SS or the Buick Grand National, but given the fact that they originally made about 3000 units, at least it has some exclusivity on the supply side (and only the good lord knows how many are still around given the build quality of mid-80's GM cars and normal attrition for cars 25+ years old).
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    Didn't some of the early-'80s Hurst/Olds come with the Oldsmobile (rather than Chevy) 350 V8?
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Some did. My dad had one, though for all the world it looked like a standard Cutlass Supreme. Only the little Hurst badge was the way to tell(or by looking at the engine). Basically you ordered a Cutlass and special ordered the bigger engine.

    Very nice car, actually, since you could get it with stick shift. Not a 442, but plenty of fun, nonetheless.

    As for collecting one... Get something older with stick shift. Actually, ANY GM car from the 70s or 80s with a manual transmission is good. They made manuals, IIRC, until 1983 or 1984 as a special order option on some of the Olds and Buick sedans and coupes. I've seen exactly one mid 80s Buick Regal like this... Unfortunately, they never made it an option on the Grand National. Note - these old cars are stupidly fast in a straight line with a 5 speed...
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I'd say compared to any other 80s domestic car, except for the GNX, it's about as "collectible" as you're going to get. Really nice ones can easily punch through $12,000 however, so a $12K is right at the cusp for a very clean daily driver.
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Yeah, I have noticed that these cars are flirting right around that price range (low mileage ones are definitely eclipsing it). Are these cars experiencing the same "softness" felt by other collectible cars? I haven't been tracking sales on these lately, so I am a bit out of touch on the market values...

    I didn't think these cars came with any optional engine transmission other than the good ole lightning rod automatic and the olds 307 in 1983, but I have been wrong before...my wife has a list if you need documentation... LOL. I cannot speak to the late 70's version (1979 I believe...)
  • stephen987stephen987 Member Posts: 1,994
    I thought the manual trans (four speed with the larger engines, five speed with the lame 260 V8) went away in the Cutlass after the 1980 model year.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    I didn't think these cars came with any optional engine transmission other than the good ole lightning rod automatic and the olds 307 in 1983, but I have been wrong before

    Yeah, in 1983 I think that's the only way those cars came. 180 hp 307-4bbl, and the "lightning rod" console shift automatic. A year or two later, I think, was when they stopped calling it Hurst and began calling it 4-4-2, and I believe that was when they dropped the "lightning rod" and just used the regular console shift that was offered in the other G-body coupes.

    I don't think the Cutlass Supreme offered any high-performance engines at all for 1980-82. In fact, for 1982 I think the only way you could even get the mild 140 hp 307 was if you got the station wagon. IIRC, the sedans and coupes that year were limited to the 231 V-6, 260 V-8, and Chevy 267 V-8. Oh, and let's not forget the Diesel. :sick: Buick had a 252 V-6, which I believe was more powerful than any of those engines, but I don't know if it ended up in any Cutlasses. It was used in the Regal and Bonneville though, and probably the Grand Prix.

    In 1978-79 (possibly 1980 but I don't think so), there was a Hurst Olds, based on the notchback Cutlass Supreme. It had an Olds 350-4bbl, and around 160-170 hp. They also had a 4-4-2, but it was based on the clunky "aeroback" style, and had a Chevy 305. I think the 305 had 145 hp in 1978 (2-bbl), and 130/160 hp in 1979 (2-bbl/4-bbl), and I forget what in 1980...probably 145-150.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Totally correct and tasty cars are holding good prices, but anything with "needs", or that are incorrect, or botched up...yeah...they are definitely taking a hit right now.

    Quality endures as does originality and/or authenticity.
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Andre, your knowledge is amazing... I seem to recall an article on the Hurst Olds in one of the car rags of the day. It had a comparison between the Olds, the Monte Carlo SS and the Buick Grand. My faded memory recalls the Buick was running high 14s in the 1/4, the Monte Carlo in the 15's, and the Olds in the upper 15s/low 16s...I may be wrong on that though....I had a 1968 Cutlass Supreme at the time, so I was (still am) a big Olds fan. Looking back now (25+ years later), it just seems that that car has aged nicely. :)
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    I seem to recall an article on the Hurst Olds in one of the car rags of the day. It had a comparison between the Olds, the Monte Carlo SS and the Buick Grand. My faded memory recalls the Buick was running high 14s in the 1/4, the Monte Carlo in the 15's, and the Olds in the upper 15s/low 16s

    I think I remember that article! And those times sound about right. I do remember the Monte SS being a tad quicker than the Hurst, even though they both had the same hp...180.

    Of that bunch, I think I preferred the Hurst/4-4-2 the best. I never cared for that big nose they had to put on the Monte to make it more aerodynamic. And while the Grand National was a better performer, I just liked the idea of a hopped-up V-8 better than a turbo V-6. Just seemed like it would be less trouble in the long run. I think the Cutlass had the nicest interior, too. The Monte seemed kinda cheap and plasticky in comparison, while the Grand National had a horrible dash display. I think you could either get the cheap old-lady strip speedometer with the 2-inch high numbers, or a digital display that looked cool, but had very little information on it.

    It's kind of a shame that the 80's Hurst/4-4-2 didn't catch on like the other two did. Seems like SS Montes and Grand Nationals are still all over the place, relatively speaking, and it's not hard to find one in nice shape. A lot of them have been modded, though. But with the Olds, it's rare that I see one at all anymore, and if I do, it's usually all ratted out and looks like it needs to be put out of its misery.

    I guess the rare numbers are a result of low production. Like you mentioned, production of the Hurst and 442 probably never exceeded 3,000 in a year. In contrast, I think the Monte SS broke 40K a couple years, and the Grand National, I believe, broke 20K a couple times.

    I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe, in a light silvery green/blue they called "jadestone". It had a matching landau top and rally wheels. It just had the 231 V-6, so performance sucked and it blew up prematurely, but I always thought it was a really pretty looking car, especially in that color.

    I bet that '68 Cutlass Supreme was a cool car to have! What engine did you have in it?
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Hey Andre

    The 68 cutlass (which may or may not be a classic, but will easy fit under the $12K criteria) had a 350 with a 4 barrel. I took it to Fremont Raceway on a Wed night when anyone could run the 1/4, it ran a mid-16 at 85 mph, I guess the 2 speed transmission wasn't the best for drag racing...LOL. Later in life, I bought a 68 442. Sometime in that car's life the 400 must have gone kaput, and there was a 455 replacement block in it (no vin stamped on the plate). Shifty came out and gave me a market analysis on it when I was ready to sell it and he nailed the selling price within a couple of hundred dollars. I would have kept the car, as my then 2 year old son absolutely loved Daddy's race car, but it only got 7-8 mpg if you behaved yourself...ouch... I wouldn't mind getting a Hurst Olds, but I will have to sell my 1972 Datsun 240z first...and then get spousal approval for yet another car purchase... :shades: I know there is a way to posting pics of the 442 and 240Z, but I will have to research it as the jpeg files I have are BIG BIG BIG
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Andre, here it is...

    http://www.carspace.com/garv214/?50@@.5c8db9b4

    For what it is worth, I did pay $12K for the car, but had to put in another $6K to get it to this state...mostly interior and mechanical corrections....
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    I like the 442 , but I really wanted to see some pictures of the Z.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    Very nice 442+. And thanks for the '8 mpg on a good day' comment, I'm tired of hearing from folks complaining about current cars, saying stuff like 'my friend had a '69 Charger with a 440, got 18 mpgs, no problem!' Right.... We had a '69 Cutlass with just the 350 2bbl, but it would scoot.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    And thanks for the '8 mpg on a good day' comment, I'm tired of hearing from folks complaining about current cars, saying stuff like 'my friend had a '69 Charger with a 440, got 18 mpgs, no problem!'

    Heck, 8 mpg out of something like a 455 Cutlass actually sounds respectable! I've managed to achieve similar mpg with much less impressive vehicles. In fact, I just filled up my '79 New Yorker, with it's macho 150 hp 360-2bbl lean burn, and I think it came out to about 8 mpg. :blush:

    I'm curious to see what kind of fuel economy my '67 Catalina convertible gets, now that it's been all fixed up. It used to get around 9-10 mpg around town, but I swear it used to be able to get 17-18 on the highway, if I kept my foot out of it.
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Yeah, our 68 cutlass with the 350 + 4bbl achieved 20 mpg on a long trip up Hwy 5(on 78 series tires...LOL). It was typically more around 14-15 mpg on a more typical commute. The 442 was getting 8 mpg on a combination of freeway and idling around town, I do not have a heavy foot, so I shudder to think what I would have gotten if I opened up the secondaries on that spread bore more often....

    I will post some pics of the 240Z in about a week or so. It is over at my Father in law's house as my wife's hot rod kicked it out of the garage...(she inherited her grandfather's 68 mustang GT 390 coupe)...wish grandpa had checked the fastback box instead...heh heh heh..... I just posted a couple of pics of that one today...

    http://www.carspace.com/garv214/?50@@.5c8db9b4

    FWIW, I have been getting in the low 20's in the Datsun 240Z. The best I have done was 27mpg on a 100 mile round trip to Pescadero off of Hwy 1. I was being a very good boy that day ;)
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    I could never figure out (when I was 16) why I didn't have any money--driving my '71 Buick Electra, 455 4-barrel, 315hp, 4900 lbs. to work 12 miles each way @ $3.35/hr. pay (minimum wage in IL in 1985) with gas around $1/gallon. 5 hour after-school shifts. Duh.
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    I remember those days...although I did get a $0.15 raise at the pizza parlor after 3 months so between the extra pay and free pizza, I was living large! ;)
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Shifty

    I have been watching a number of EBay auctions and reviewing a number of ads for 1983-84 Hurst Olds. It strikes me that the 83's seem to be commanding a bit of a premium over the 84's. Does your little "black book" support that? If so, any thoughts why (other than people like black better than silver)?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    No the books do not differentiate them. The only substantive differences I can think of that might affect price a bit would be that '83 was the 15th anniversary edition and also that they made about 500 more of the '84 models. Neither of those seems significant, but who knows....could be a "mini-trend" that you've spotted.

    Certainly there are other little niches of preference in the collector car world between what might seem identical cars. Usually a first year model has the edge...but again, not always....sometimes if the car was vastly improved over its model run, the LAST one has the edge.
  • garv214garv214 Member Posts: 162
    Maybe a mini-trend, but I am skeptical of many of the E-Bay auctions I have seen. The last 83 hurst olds I saw "sold" for $13.5K, but the same bidder outbid himself around 6 times to "win" the auction AND the car is still listed on the seller's website still (for about $6K more than the sale price). maybe his is just behind in updating his webpage...or something....

    Any insights on the "lightning rod" transmission 200-4R (is it durable?). I seem to recall that someone had posted that certain GM transmissions were a bit more fragile than others.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    "but the same bidder outbid himself around 6 times to "win" the auction"

    You're right to be skeptical, but I think that kind of bidding history results from automated bidding, when you specify a maximum amount. Not necessarily bogus.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I don't know much about that transmission.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    I remember when you literally couldn't GIVE those things away. They were slow miserable things with enough smog equipment to choke a horse. Bad suspension, bad interior, and worthless transmission.

    But if someone wants to pay you that much for one... laugh all the way to the bank I guess. :P

    The smart money is on a early to mid 70s GM muscle car.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Every dog has its day...
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Yes, but wow it's amazing. I even saw someone trying to sell a 1981 Buick Regal the other day(normal sedan with the 3.8 and 3 speed auto and about 110HP) for an astounding 4K. :confuse:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Wonder what this proud owner wants for his "classic"?

    image
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    $12,000 or less, isn't it?

    Have Mercy!

    I'm beginning to feel a song coming on:

    "Get Me To the Crusher on Time"
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    Probably some unobtanium in there, good parts car.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    If I had one of those I would send it to that guy who does the whole Back to the Future conversion, with the flux capacitor and Mr. Fusion etc. I'd also want a better powertrain, and maybe make it sound like the BTTF car.
This discussion has been closed.