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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
I don't believe they ever received the FI Magnums found in the trucks.
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.
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.
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.
I really don't remember the car all that well, as it got traded when I was 5, for a new '75 LeMans coupe.
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:
http://www.fedrelandsvennen.no/amcar/brochures/chevy/65caprice/65caprice.html
WVK
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...
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...)
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.
Quality endures as does originality and/or authenticity.
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?
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
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....
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.
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.
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
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have Mercy!
I'm beginning to feel a song coming on:
"Get Me To the Crusher on Time"