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

MY FUTURE OLDER CAR?

2»

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I'm sure you could get 6 seconds out of a GTS with a balls to the wall modified 440.

    The usual caveat about taking it with a grain of salt applies here, but I remember a test back in the early 90's, where some Mopar buff magazine got ahold of a '69 Dart with a slant six, and a '69 New Yorker with a 440. Not a hopped-up 440, but just the regular one, that put out 350 hp gross (rather than the hotter 375 hp version, or the 390, which I guess was a 6-pack?).

    Anyway, they dumped the NYer's engine and tranny in the Dart. I'm hoping they also found a way to get the NYer's 8 3/4 rear in there too, because I imagine a 440 would shred the Dart's 7 1/4 rear!

    Still, even with that relatively low-suds setup, they got 0-60 in about 6 seconds. And more than likely, that was just with a 2.76:1 axle.

    Again, take it with a grain of salt. And I wasn't there, so I couldn't tell ya how they measured the acceleration, whether they power-braked or took off normally, or what.

    As for using a stopwatch, sometimes that can give you a pretty sad 0-60 time, too! I timed my '69 Dart from 0-60 once. This one had a 225 slant six. Well, I was stopped at a traffic light and had to make a right turn, so that threw it off I'm sure! Plus, there were four people on board. Anyway, I clocked it at 0-60 in 17.9 seconds, under those less-than-optimal conditions. :blush: But if you want to hear one even worse...one of my friends back then had a 1980 Accord with an automatic. We timed it from 0-60, with only three people on board, and a straight launch from a traffic light rather than having to turn. Came up in a whopping 26 seconds!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    And sure, you can install very low rear ends, use racing slicks, aviation gas, radically advanced timing, ice up the fuel supply, take out the spare and back seat and all that stuff and get at least another second or two out of it I'd guess.

    Actually, even the time of year and weather can make a difference. MT or C&D tested a 1986 or so Buick Grand National once, and got 0-60 in 4.9 seconds! However, even they discounted the time, because it was in the wintertime, and temps were a bit extra brutal. They said that most drivers should expect 0-60 in about 6 seconds.

    When the Michigan State Police did their annual police car test, which was in August, the 1985 models they tested all did horrible, compared to the 1984's. Now one problem was that the Mopars went to different carburetors that gave more peak hp, but the torque bands were narrower. However, that was also a brutally hot, humid summer, something the MSP noted in their testing.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,250
    guess what the MSP still recommends are their #1?
    while we are on the subject of maximizing the performance of vehicles tested by various reviewers, in the old days, guess it would be a cheater engine.
    these days, i can see fiddling with the computer, and/or replacing some of the factory fluids with some high performance substitutes.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I'd imagine the Crown Vic is the highest-rated these days? It may not be the fastest, as I'm sure the Hemi Mopars are quicker, and even the 3.5 Mopars and 3.9 Impalas may be close. But overall, it's still probably the best bet. Big, roomy, and durable.

    IMO though, the Crown Vic sort of won by default. When the Panther first came out for 1979, it tended to be rated last. The Chrysler Newport/Dodge St. Regis were the top rated back then, with the Impala coming in next and then the Crown Vic at the bottom of the heap.

    The Mopar R-body went away after 1981 and for 1982, the M-body Diplomat/Gran Fury were used. I think they still tended to be the top rated, although by 1985 they were slipping, while the Impala was steadily improving. Ironically, for 1985 the cop Mopars started using GM 4-bbl carbs. Maybe it was sabotage! :surprise:

    By 1989, the Caprice (they dropped the Impala name after 1985) finally surpassed the performance levels of the 1979 St. Regis/Newport. Kinda sad, when you think about it, that it took police cars a full decade to get back UP to performance levels achieved by a car that was issued in one of Chrysler's darkest hours! 1989 was also the last year for the Gran Fury/Diplomat, but I think they still ranked it higher than the Crown Vic. So once it went away, the Crown Vic moved up to #2.

    I've heard that the 1991-93 "Whale" Caprices were pretty good police cars, even just with the TBI 350, which put out 185 hp. And when the 1994-96 models came out, with the 260 hp LT-1, they simply blew the Crown Vic away. After the Caprice was discontinued, many police departments would rather refurbish a used Caprice, rather than buy a new Crown Vic!

    After the Caprice, GM did try putting out police versions of the Lumina and Grand Prix, but they were best suited to patrolling neighborhoods, serving court summonses, doing doughnut runs, etc. Chrysler experimented with a police version of the Dynasty, but never really went anywhere with it. I think it actually performed fairly well, but just wouldn't have been very tough and durable...and a police car has to be both. Probably wouldn't have been any worse than the police Taurus, or the Lumina/Grand Prix, though.

    I dunno if there was ever a police version of the first-gen Intrepid, but around 2001, IIRC, Mopar did issue a police version of the 2nd-gen. 3.5 V-6, 250 hp. It was actually a good performer. Tied the Crown Vic in 0-60, but had a higher top speed. The next county over from me uses Crown Vics and Intrepids, and one cop I talked to said that in his opinion, the Intrepid blows the Vic away. Whenever I go over there, I still see Intrepids in circulation, so they must not be doing too bad. They do have one little achilles heel, though. Evidently, work the brakes too hard, and they'll burst into flames! I think the MSP managed to achieve this in their testing, and that scared away a lot of police departments.

    There's a local used car lot that has a 2004 Intrepid copcar, ~41,000 miles. Dark grayish-green. I've looked at it, and have to admit I've been tempted. They're asking $7995, but it's been there for months now, so I'm sure they'll take much less.

    The last thing I need right now is another car though. And if I do replace my 2000 Intrepid, I'd feel kinda silly replacing it with another one!
  • merckxmerckx Member Posts: 565
    I,too,pine for a weekend,hobby car....but it must be a European car from,say 1960 to about 1973....

    Speed doesn't matter,nor does exclusivity.....I just don't want a money pit......

    I'd love a Fintail,or the model after that,like a 220 or 220D...I do like a lot of oddballs like a Renault 12 or a Fiat 124 sedan.....I wont mention my admiration of the Renault LeCar......
    Hemmings just featured a 1975 Opel 1900...that was nice..

    Any suggestions?

    Any suggestions?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    An old MB doesn't have to be a money pit, a car that has received proper attention will not be bad to own. Mechanical failure will consume a chunk of change, but if the car is maintained, this won't be a huge risk. My old car doesn't give me many problems - it has small needs, but isn't a problem to keep going as a sunny Sunday driver. I'd bet a cared for fintail or replacement is less troublesome than a Fiat or a French car...

    A nice fintail can be had for 5K today, I think it is a good deal for a good driving old car. Of course, I carry some bias :P
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well if you don't want a "money pit" you need a car with a very active aftermarket parts network. That might include VW, Benz, MG and to some extent BMW and Alfa Romeo. (less so Fiat). Renault parts are almost unobtainium, ditto Opel.

    How about an Alfa Berlina 4D sedan 1750/2000? Way fun to drive, don't cost too much, and you can get parts and service.

    Or a BMW 2002?

    Or an ordinary Alfa Spider, 1982-93?

    I'm trying to think of cars that are FUN to drive as well, so I'm limiting suggestions somewhat.

    MGB--GT. You can get any part you need, 2nd day UPS.

    Triumph Spitfire -- tinny piece, but easy EASY to work on, and really fun in summertime.

    Peugeot 504-- parts are hard to get but they have a certain charm and are tough as nails. Good cars. Avoid the ZF automatic---good trans but if it breaks, you junk the car.

    Renault LeCar -- you could buy 1/2 dozen of them for the price of one very tired BMW 2002, and then cannibalize them into one possibly good running car.

    Fiat 124 coupe -- hard to find but handsome and fun to drive.

    My bias suggests that you generally don't buy anything European that is a) big, b) heavy, and c) has 4 doors. Why? Because you end up putting money into something that isn't worth much and generally isn't fun to drive, IMO. Of course, if the deal of the century comes along, or the car is so quirky that its very weirdness compensates for all the rest, well then....
  • lokkilokki Member Posts: 1,200
    My real choice for a future older car is a 1970 or so Alfa GTV. I had a chance to buy one with a mildly tuned engine and panasports back in 1977 but turned it down to buy a Spider instead. Many's the time I've regretted that I just had to have that convertible top - but I guess it was the right thing to do at the time. I enjoyed that Spider.

    Still - ain't they pretty? I have no idea what a decent one would cost these days. eBay didn't have any and neither did Craigslist in my city.

    image
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    May I offer some suggestions- and here is my Swedish car bias kicking in:

    How about a late '60s Volvo (122) Amazon? They're reasonably priced, well-built and generally last indefinitely. Shifty will probably tell you to go for the '66-'68 models, as those will usually have the durable B18 engine. Avoid automatics, and look for camshaft wear in the engine.

    Maybe a mid-to-late '70s Saab 99? Nimble handler, and quite fun, if you can find one that hasn't blown its transmission or head gasket. If you can get a '78 Turbo, you'd be looking at the first mass-produced turbocharged European car.
  • merckxmerckx Member Posts: 565
    i'd really love an old Benz. and many here say they shouldn't cost much....But in Virginia Beach,any $5,000 or so one i've seen would have numerous issues...Cracked interior parks,a dash warning light on,small rust perforations by the wheels....I still often look,though....

    A Peugeot 504 is one of my all time favorite cars.....I want to buy local,if possible,and 504s are never seen here.....Even though we were a major port of enty for them.
    the first Bugeye is the only roadster that has any real appeal.....i'm forgetting personal favorites like a Caravelle.....
  • merckxmerckx Member Posts: 565
    An Amazon has immense appeal,but again,when one is found here,it's rather expensive......All i can surmise is that kiving in an oceanfront rersort town,all the "sophisticates" are causing high prices....i've never seen an Amazon for less than about $9,000.

    i had a chance to buy a 1971 BMW Bavaria,but the seller(whom i worked with)wanted $8,000....Before I could gently tell him that was about 2.5 times what it was worth,he got rear-ended in it.....But boy,it was a stunning car.....My definition of a really fun to drive car.......

    Until something really enticing comes along,I'm just waiting until my current hobby car,my 2001 Catera,gets old enough to be interesting..
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    BMW Bavaria? That's the very definition of a money-pit. Bad cars, don't ever buy one IMO. Don't even take one for free, you'll lose money.

    Alfa GTV 1750/2000? Sorry the market has run away on them. Figure $15,000--$20,000 for something nice.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,092
    You might have do a little traveling and buy a west coast car to keep away from those ailments, and then you'll have to be sure to keep it dry. Old MB do rust as well as any other car, and the 1960s dash pads crack pretty easily yeah.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    Renault LeCar -- you could buy 1/2 dozen of them for the price of one very tired BMW 2002, and then cannibalize them into one possibly good running car.

    Ah! Bring back the old advice that it's better to own seven $100 cars than one $700 car....
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • piCARsopiCARso Member Posts: 16
    Back at post 10 you mentioned a Ford Falcon Futura as a possible choice. Look at the 64' convertible item number 170292403101 on ebay. Would this be a good choice for a Sunday driver ? It looks really clean, small but would it be fun to drive? How is that 6 cyl. engine, reliable ? Without a lot of money right now I want something for the summer that is period but won't have to spend a lot of money on for repairs. This is the second go around, what should I expect to pay do you think. Is it a piece of junk ?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well it looks clean but you know, a 6 cylinder auto with the 170 cid engine is going to be a very sedate car to putt around in. Dealer's feedback is good.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I have no idea on value, but it looks like a nice little car. The 170 straight six isn't a bad engine, but is pretty weak....maybe 110 hp by that time? And keep in mind that's the old gross hp rating. By today's net standards, we're talking 85-90 hp.

    I can't see the shift quadrant well enough to see whether it's a 2-speed or 3-speed automatic. Neither one is going to be a barn-burner, but hopefully it's the 3-speed! I'd guess 0-60 would come up in around 17-20 seconds. But for nice, leisurely cruising, it should suffice.

    Also, I'm not sure how the later years of the first-gen Falcon were, as they beefed up its looks a bit for 1964-65, but the earlier models were ultra-fragile. They also scare me, because the puncture-prone drop-in gas tank sits about 2 inches from the rear bumper! In a rear-end collision, these things are almost as bad as a Pinto. In fact, considering how long Ford had been making these explosion-prone cars, I'm surprised it took until the late 70's and the Pinto for them to finally get called on it!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    You can ask him to read you the transmission code on the door plate. That'll tell you if you have a C4 (good) or a Cruise=o-matic (not so good).
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    My first car was a '65 Mustang with a 170, but a 4 sp. manual. Certainly not fast, so the auto would be slower still. You would need to drive one to see how you like it, it requires a major change in driving style. It was reliable for 6 years, just required frequent tune ups (points and plugs, set the timing).

    These Fords were rustbuckets, so you'd have to check carefully for rust. Mine rusted heavily, to the point when a relative was driving it, the fuel line let go, and the flames came back through the 'firewall'. Just need to check. I echo Andre's comments on the convertibles, not a lot of body strength, so any rust is an even bigger issue. Sellers sometimes try to conceal it with a fresh coat of paint and bondo. This one sure looks good, but you'll want pictures of the floor pan from below, they often rust out under the pedal area (from water dripping through rusted-out ventilation area sheet metal). You'll see carpet!
  • piCARsopiCARso Member Posts: 16
    News from the dealer, Ford O Matic, two speed code 3. It has floor and quarter panel work but no holes now. Unknown drive- train rebuilds but it runs and shifts excellant. The vin number tells me 6 cyl. 170 cid, horsepower 101, carbs 1-1bbl, compression 8.7:1. Engine- 101hp economical engine offering good performance while delivering 22 mpg off reg. gas. 16 hours and counting at $5900.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Wife bought a 1969 Barracuda 340S new. I had a 68 Firebird Formula 400 at the time and my seat of pants thought that the Firebird was a little faster. The 340S had a nice growl on acceleration. I would guess it did 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds.

    The Barracuda had the handling package and was real nice to drive enthusiastically. Whille the engine and trans were bullitproof, there were numerous other problems with the car. Some she got covered under warranty. Others came up after warranty. Got rid of the car after 2+ years. That car was the worst car that we have ever owned in our lives and caused us to swear off any Chrysler product for life.

    Would not recommend buying any Barracude, if any still exist.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "That car was the worst car that we have ever owned in our lives and caused us to swear off any Chrysler product for life."

    Since the engine and transmission were bullet-proof, the engine emitted a nice growl, and you praised the handling package, what specific issues caused you to have such a strong negative reaction to Chrysler products?
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    When we got rid of it, we joked that we should write notes, maybe a book, about all of the problems. I will ask wife later tonight to try to recount. But, here are some that come to mind.

    Found oil spots on garage floor beneath differential at about 6 month point. Dealer replaced differential, housing had a crack.

    At about 1.3 year age, noticed braking diminishment, longer stops, a little more pedal pressure needed. Examined front brake calipers and found that on one side, don't remember which, that piston was rusted shut in the bore. Had full shop manual and it advised to use a Chrysler part number piston remover to pull out piston. Went to Plymouth dealer and bought part, pulled out piston. Cylinder bore was not badly pitted, so used fine emery to polish bore. At about 1.8 year point, the other side brake caliper piston rusted shut and had to repair. Was familiar with taking off calipers, refacing rotors, putting new pads on front of 68 Firebird. Had 68 Firebird for about 10 years and never encountered rusted caliper pistons. Chrysler engineering very poor in bad design not being able to keep moisture out of cylinder bores.

    At about 1.5 year point, and on vacation in Colo, votage regulator failed and had to be replaced.

    At about 1.2 year point, and while driving on vacation, noticed strange sensation under right foot and gas pedal came off of lever/mount. Quickly pulled off on shoulder and was able to put it back together. Don't remeber any specifics on parts, perhaps there was a C ring involved, can't remember. This was probably the most outragous, unbelievable thing to happen on that car.

    Therre was much more. Maybe wife has better memory.

    Stay away from Barracudas.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I have heard that those early disc brake setups that Chrysler used were pretty bad. I just had drum brakes on my Darts. 9" on the '69, which had a slant six and 10" on the '68, with a 318. I tended to go through front brake shoes about every 10-15K miles, rear was around every 15-20K.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,685
    "101hp economical engine offering good performance while delivering 22 mpg off reg. gas"

    I don't think it has what I'd call 'good performance', you'll be the slowest car on the road, but it'll be fine for leisurly drives on city streets and back roads. Just stay off the freeway! And I'd sure want to take a careful look at it for rust.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The bid is about there for real value....I'm thinkin' fair market with issues noted is about $6500 tops. It would be nice to have a photo of the repair work. Professional? A stolen detour sign riveted into the floor?
  • piCARsopiCARso Member Posts: 16
    With the mesmerizing chant of the auctioneer from Barrett Jackson in the background I must send my appreciation for your astute observations concerning that Ford Futura. A second email to the seller pushing for rust details elicited this response : " Yes, it has had extensive underbody patches on all floors and heavy undercoating, quarter and rockers have patches and bondo. This is a very reputable 100 % positive ebay seller and with all the pictures and detailed positive info the rust issues were not mentioned. A good example for buyer beware. How easy to be seduced by the shiny surface. It ended at less then 7, reserve not met. The seller informed me that the buy me now price was $16,950. That seems a bit extreme. Not knowing the reserve during the bidding it is hard to show restraint, the clock ticking , the bid sitting for days at less then 6. I know that is what they count on. A good learning experience. The search continues. Thank you again for your knowledge and input, you hit this one right on the head.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    $16,950??

    HAHAHAHAHAHA.....You could buy a fairly decent (#3 condition) Falcon Sprint V-8 convertible for that.....and maybe even a 6 cylinder Mustang convertible.

    Get real Duffy!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Looks good. Color's not the best, price seems fair enough.
This discussion has been closed.