"Best" daily driver?

[Guest]

Wow. I literally had no idea it wasn't a T/A. Does this happen alot?

 

 

If I may ask, why is the Pontiac 301 V8 so bad?

 

 

Now I wish I could have someone here come with me on my car shopping adventure which I'm hoping will be summer next year. It's going to be hard to post pictures and stuff while I'm out in the wilderness and actually looking at the car meaning I can't take 2 hours to get replies. Although, this place is pretty active. More so than almost any other forum I've been on.

It's not so much a bad engine. The thing is it's not a performance engine and cannot be changed into a performance engine. The 301 & 265 engine is a short deck version of all Pontiac V-8's. It's main bearing webbing, crankshaft with less counterweights, is a weak link if you decide to make more power. The cylinder head intake ports are Siamese and only split down further in the head. The port size and valves are small to create high velocity for better emissions.

Next summer you should be studying for your SAT. forget about cars you have to work on.

[padgett]

Yes well you are talking to fanatics who were there when the cars were new (and some who play it on TV). Problem with the 301 was the same as the Iron Duke, a weak bottom end and now parts are not easy to find. 350 Chev & THM 350 are as common as weeds.

Clones are equally common but ve haf our vays of telling. For many just the VIN or data plate will tell. e.g. http://www.transamworld.com/2genvins.php- the Internet is a trmendous resource. In this case one look at the dash says "not T/A" (all had a tach). However this also means it probably came with a SBC & a THM350.

Where I would be concerned with this one is the claim of 12:1 compression and use of Shell Rotella (diesel oil & tends to sludge up a gas engine). For street use I'd rather see 8-9:1 and Mobil 1. I have 10.25:1 in my Pont 400 and use 93 plus additives.

Can always ask if there is someone local & my cell phone takes great pictures. You just need a place to put (are a number of cloud sites) and include the URL.

But first it would be good to focus on something you can support with local logistics. Your dad can be a great help if you get him interested.

It does help to have a friend with a truck or tow dolly.

Personally I always research a car I am interested in and a strong marque forum with online service manuals really helps. There are a lot of firebird forums.

Nowadays you can figure on $8-9k minimum for a nice car. You cn pay it up front and enjoy immediately or pay over time and not. Your choice. I prefer one I can drive now. (but then I always take about a year to get a keeper the way I want it.

[Guest Xeon]

It's not so much a bad engine. The thing is it's not a performance engine and cannot be changed into a performance engine. The 301 & 265 engine is a short deck version of all Pontiac V-8's. It's main bearing webbing, crankshaft with less counterweights, is a weak link if you decide to make more power. The cylinder head intake ports are Siamese and only split down further in the head. The port size and valves are small to create high velocity for better emissions.

Next summer you should be studying for your SAT. forget about cars you have to work on.

 

We take the ACT here, and I am. Inbetween school and over last summer. See, I homeschool so really I'm almost graduated from high school, but my parents don't really want me going to college until I'm 18. One reason is insurance.

 

Yes well you are talking to fanatics who were there when the cars were new (and some who play it on TV). Problem with the 301 was the same as the Iron Duke, a weak bottom end and now parts are not easy to find. 350 Chev & THM 350 are as common as weeds.

Clones are equally common but ve haf our vays of telling. For many just the VIN or data plate will tell. e.g. http://www.transamworld.com/2genvins.php- the Internet is a trmendous resource. In this case one look at the dash says "not T/A" (all had a tach). However this also means it probably came with a SBC & a THM350.

Where I would be concerned with this one is the claim of 12:1 compression and use of Shell Rotella (diesel oil & tends to sludge up a gas engine). For street use I'd rather see 8-9:1 and Mobil 1. I have 10.25:1 in my Pont 400 and use 93 plus additives.

Can always ask if there is someone local & my cell phone takes great pictures. You just need a place to put (are a number of cloud sites) and include the URL.

But first it would be good to focus on something you can support with local logistics. Your dad can be a great help if you get him interested.

It does help to have a friend with a truck or tow dolly.

Personally I always research a car I am interested in and a strong marque forum with online service manuals really helps. There are a lot of firebird forums.

Nowadays you can figure on $8-9k minimum for a nice car. You cn pay it up front and enjoy immediately or pay over time and not. Your choice. I prefer one I can drive now. (but then I always take about a year to get a keeper the way I want it.

 

Thanks thanks!!

 

I don't yet have a cellphone( ) but by then I should. I actually don't know why I didn't think about that. Haha.

 

Oh, my father is interested. And has access to pretty much anything. Out neighbor, who runs a body shop, will let him borrow his 98 chevy 1500 and a trailer, and another one of his friends will let him borrow his Yukon XL and trailer. We've got that covered.

 

Well, I guess we'll see what we find! I'm saving up, and by summer next year I hope I'll have a nice amount!

Edited October 15, 2015 by Xeon (see edit history)

[padgett]

Always glad to see someone else interested, even if you wind up with an Aztek.

[Guest Xeon]

Always glad to see someone else interested, even if you wind up with an Aztek.

 

Hey thanks.. I'm looking more for an AMC Gremlin!

 

Really though. How bad were gremlins besides how people thought they were ugly? I'd love either a Ford Pinto or AMC Gremlin..

[Rusty_OToole]

How nice of Ford to tell Plymouth they were bringing out the Mustang, far enough in advance for them to design a new model and get it to market before the Mustang!

 

Most likely both were inspired by the success of the Corvair Monza. Let's not forget the Pontiac GTO that came out in 64 and in fact, practically all car makers were working on sporty performance models at the time. It's just silly to say everyone copied the Mustang when the idea of a sport model or performance model had been around for years.

[Rusty_OToole]

Gremlin was actually a pretty good car compared to its rivals, Vega, Pinto, Cricket, VW beetle.

 

I know people that had them. They were a boring car but rock solid reliable with the AMC 6 cylinder, one of the toughest longest living engines ever made. The same engine was used in Jeeps until 2006.

 

If you want one, and can find one in decent shape, you should be able to drive it practically the rest of your life before you wear it out.

[Phillip Cole]

Hey thanks.. I'm looking more for an AMC Gremlin!

Really though. How bad were gremlins besides how people thought they were ugly? I'd love either a Ford Pinto or AMC Gremlin..

I bought a used 70 Gremlin in 1972 when I was in grad school in Atlanta. I drove it to Charlotte, NC at least once a month and averaged about 75 mph. Never had a minute of trouble. It was a six banger with 3 in the floor. Yes, some folks thought they were ugly, but the car was surprisingly quick and very functional. A lot of the "ugly" goes away with the right color combination. Mine was white with red stripes and a luggage rack on top. Traded in on a new MGB in 1976 and got good money for the Gremlin. Edited October 15, 2015 by Phillip Cole (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

Nothing really too bad about a Pinto either.  In a rear end crash serious enough to make a Pinto explode there are other concerns related to the crash that might do you in anyway. If a person is that concerned then mount an aftermarket racing fuel cell.  Lots of other cars are as dangerous , the very popular 1965 to 1970 Mustangs for example. The engines are quite popular in vintage racing, both pushrod and S.O.H.C.. Other than being a bit overweight they are not as bad as their reputation.

 

Greg in Canada

[ScarredKnightfan]

First of all, reliability. Really, I want it to perform good, have great reliability, be practical and be affordable, but I know that's asking to much.. I really don't know.. What I do know is reliability comes first. I want this to be able to be my daily driver for years to come.

 

 

Why do you think that's asking too much?  Because of the particular combination vs. type of vehicle you want?

 

My current daily is a 1979 Caprice Classic.  For me, it is practical, affordable, performs well & has awesome reliability ... never had an issue with it not starting, even in winter.

 

 

Cort www.oldcarsstronghearts.com

pigValve, paceMaker, cowValve | 1979 Caprice Classic (awaiting new owner)

"Why can't this be real?" __ Restless Heart __ 'Fast Movin' Train'

[Larry W]

I once had a'71 Pinto and I believe the factory recall fix for the exploding gas tank was to mount a sheet of plastic between the rear axle and the gas tank. I didn't have it very long, but the only trouble I had, besides rust, was that the automatic transmission just stopped pulling the car at an intersection. A friend gave me an identical transmission which he happened to have lying around, and the car was back on the road. Because I owned too many cars at the time, I sold the Pinto to a co-worker. A few days, later I inquired to him on how he liked the car and he told me that the engine timing belt had broken the day after he bought it. Oh well, aside from all that, I thought it was a pretty nice car.

[Guest GT52]

Anyway, what kind of car makes a good daily driver? ...

 

 

For someone your age, I would never recommend using anything older than an 80s vehicle for a daily driver...reason being: crashworthiness.  We have come a very long way from the 60s...Nader could have probably made the "unsafe at any speed" argument stick on most any car built back then, not just the Corvair.  Your first priority should be living long enough to enjoy the hobby.

 

I don't own one, and I'm not trying to sell one, but my recommendation would be the 5.0 Mustangs from the early to late 80s.  They drive like a modern car and typically have all the modern accessories, including air conditioning.  They are reasonably quick, handle well, stop well, have reasonable fuel economy, and reasonable exhaust emissions.  To get an airbag you'd need a '90 or newer, but any of them would be much safer than any 60's or '70s models.

 

They built the same basic car by the millions, so parts will never likely be a problem, and the aftermarket and performance market for them is huge...so much so that they've been referred to as the modern '55-'57 Chevy.  They are lightweight and easy to work on and there is virtually no limit to what can be done with the basic package.  The early 80s cars were carbureted, with minimal electronics, if that's your thing.

 

They are readily available in any condition you might settle on, from "needing restoration" to pristine garage queen...all very reasonably.

[padgett]

Hoo boy: try this - the Barracuda & Pontiac GTO in 64 were both the same, they were minor mods on exiting platforms. Gremlin also was a minor mod of an AMC Hornet (BITD most were sold with a "free" AC). This makes the drivetrains of all three common to many many other cars. OTOH the Mustang shared little with the Falcon (though early ones had four bolt wheels AFAIR).

 

Personally I've been wearing seatbelts since before the Mustang came out (true, was mainly to stay in the seat on a hard turn), then we got collapsible steering columns (68), and then 5 mph bumpers (73/74- though could say modern cars are less safe since they don't). Fortunately some safety items were short lived (seat belt interlock - 74)

 

Do like ABS (all of my cars except the '70) but to me the biggest improvement in safety is in tire technology and traction: cornering and stopping power. Why the 14x6s my Judge came with are in baggies and it has W30 sway bars, T/A variable ratio steering, disk brakes, & 15x8" WS6 snowflakes with 235/60 front and 255/70 rear radials. Also has a Hands Free Phone. Guess that makes it a resto-mod.

 

So with the right tires/wheels, suspension, steering, and brakes almost any car since 68 can be made much safer than they came off the assembly line

 

True the heep is said to have 10 air bags. Crossie has 6 and is two passenger. Could be but dunno until they go off.

[Guest Xeon]

Anyway, what kind of car makes a good daily driver? ...

 

 

For someone your age, I would never recommend using anything older than an 80s vehicle for a daily driver...reason being: crashworthiness.  We have come a very long way from the 60s...Nader could have probably made the "unsafe at any speed" argument stick on most any car built back then, not just the Corvair.  Your first priority should be living long enough to enjoy the hobby.

 

I don't own one, and I'm not trying to sell one, but my recommendation would be the 5.0 Mustangs from the early to late 80s.  They drive like a modern car and typically have all the modern accessories, including air conditioning.  They are reasonably quick, handle well, stop well, have reasonable fuel economy, and reasonable exhaust emissions.  To get an airbag you'd need a '90 or newer, but any of them would be much safer than any 60's or '70s models.

 

They built the same basic car by the millions, so parts will never likely be a problem, and the aftermarket and performance market for them is huge...so much so that they've been referred to as the modern '55-'57 Chevy.  They are lightweight and easy to work on and there is virtually no limit to what can be done with the basic package.  The early 80s cars were carbureted, with minimal electronics, if that's your thing.

 

They are readily available in any condition you might settle on, from "needing restoration" to pristine garage queen...all very reasonably.

 Posting this from my tablet so, sorry if my grammar is off/short answers. Now, I don't mean to sound snooty, but to me it pretty much takes away the whole reason for my wanting an old car when it gets up to the 80s. Although I do get the safety concerns.. I don't know..  

Hoo boy: try this - the Barracuda & Pontiac GTO in 64 were both the same, they were minor mods on exiting platforms. Gremlin also was a minor mod of an AMC Hornet (BITD most were sold with a "free" AC). This makes the drivetrains of all three common to many many other cars. OTOH the Mustang shared little with the Falcon (though early ones had four bolt wheels AFAIR).

 

Personally I've been wearing seatbelts since before the Mustang came out (true, was mainly to stay in the seat on a hard turn), then we got collapsible steering columns (68), and then 5 mph bumpers (73/74- though could say modern cars are less safe since they don't). Fortunately some safety items were short lived (seat belt interlock - 74)

 

Do like ABS (all of my cars except the '70) but to me the biggest improvement in safety is in tire technology and traction: cornering and stopping power. Why the 14x6s my Judge came with are in baggies and it has W30 sway bars, T/A variable ratio steering, disk brakes, & 15x8" WS6 snowflakes with 235/60 front and 255/70 rear radials. Also has a Hands Free Phone. Guess that makes it a resto-mod.

 

So with the right tires/wheels, suspension, steering, and brakes almost any car since 68 can be made much safer than they came off the assembly line

 

True the heep is said to have 10 air bags. Crossie has 6 and is two passenger. Could be but dunno until they go off.

Thanks for the info again!!!!

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

Plymouth Duster

 

https://www.carsforsale.com/plymouth-duster-for-sale-C962991

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

I like this one,

https://www.carsforsale.com/vehicle/details/9119511

[Guest Xeon]

I like this one,

https://www.carsforsale.com/vehicle/details/9119511

Man that's a nice looking car!!

Is that something that would be hard to get parts for?

I was just looking at some fixer uppers and there are some cheap ones!

http://auburn.craigslist.org/cto/5252837002.html (I know, not original engine.)

http://tuscaloosa.craigslist.org/cto/5196349125.html (Same)

[1957Birdman]

I would look at an 85 or 86 Mustang GT or a T-Bird Turbo Coupe of the same vintage. The seventies cars have too many drivability problems for my taste. You could also do worse than a mid sixties Falcon or Comet. Any older car will require more maintenance than a new one. I love classic cars but would not like to have one as a daily driver.

 

As for the original Mustang vs Barracuda, the sales speak for themselves. The Barracuda was really a warmed over Valiant with a fastback roof and the Mustang was a completely new design that caught the imagination of the buying public. A million Mustangs were sold within the first two years. I'm not sure if the Barracuda ever reached a million sales. They are both interesting collector cars, but just for different reasons.

[jeff_a]

I was helping a lady find a car for her two sons...she wanted a 1967 Impala 4-door sedan for them. Except for driving one with a 327 3,700 miles to Alaska in 1974....I have no experience with them. What is interesting is that there is a huge supply of these cars out there: every state, every condition, every factory option, plus some modified. You might want to consider one because of the big range of powerplants they came with, and because the police and insurance agents won't profile you as Teenager In a Muscle Car. I thought the 327 was plenty of motor. Doesn't exactly handle like an MG...but like a Chevy Tahoe, they're big but predictable. 

 

 

Don't completely rule out the Eighties. Again, if you don't mind a 4-door:

 

 

 

Pictured is a 1989 Lamborghini LM002

4WD, 444 h.p. V-12, 0-60 7.7 seconds.

Cost: not so good. Daily driver: with the 6 dual Weber carburetors, not so good.

The insurance on this puppy will cost more than any of the cars you're looking at. Fuel consumption is bad, but you can go 600 miles on a fill-up (76-gallon tank). Collectible: very. Coolness factor: fair to good.

photo: Wikipedia

 

Good luck in your search for a vehicle as you take off for college!

Edited October 16, 2015 by jeff_a (see edit history)

[padgett]

Duster is nice but look for a 71-72 Twister with 340. Sweet spot for you to mix desires with amenitities may be 1968-72. After 72 bumpers got silly and the concentration was on driving from Denver to LA on a tank.

 

There were some interesting cars in the later seventies (1971-1974 Trans/Am 455 particularly the SD-455) but they ain't cheap OTOH a ' 73 Ventura Sprint is essentially what became the '74 GTO (with optional camper package). Or for safety, the 69-72 Grand Prix had the longest hood in the industry. Have an accident ? It'l be going on somewhere in the next county & not where you are sitting. Were even a few with four-speeds (years ago I had a '70. H-78 tires and open 12-bolt. It was called asphyxiation.

[Guest Xeon]

Duster is nice but look for a 71-72 Twister with 340. Sweet spot for you to mix desires with amenitities may be 1968-72. After 72 bumpers got silly and the concentration was on driving from Denver to LA on a tank.

 

There were some interesting cars in the later seventies (1971-1974 Trans/Am 455 particularly the SD-455) but they ain't cheap OTOH a ' 73 Ventura Sprint is essentially what became the '74 GTO (with optional camper package). Or for safety, the 69-72 Grand Prix had the longest hood in the industry. Have an accident ? It'l be going on somewhere in the next county & not where you are sitting. Were even a few with four-speeds (years ago I had a '70. H-78 tires and open 12-bolt. It was called asphyxiation.

 

There are too many awesome cars... I'm writing them down for ones I know to definitely look out for. But I know there are many more..

 

 

Now, are there any cars that look awesome and might catch my eye, but I should really stay away from?

[padgett]

Well with Vegas it was a race between rusting out and blown engines (OTOH I had a steel sleeved Astre that was a nice wagon). Anything with a two speed automatic or engine over 400 cid. Aluminum engines (unless you enjoy "getting out and getting under"). Anything with Lucas electrics.

Leather interiors are great if nice but very expensive to replace. Aftermarket wheels with strange offsets or missing/mismatched lug nuts are a danger sign. If locking lug nuts make sure there is a key that fits.

As mentioned factory AC is a big plus because they were not bought to be raced and all of the other HD stuff they got. Aso by now there should be little left running R-12. If the AC doesn't work ("just needs a can". Right.) and there are no R134A nipples on the dryer it is going to be ex$pen$ive.

Personally prefer to see half-worn tires that are wearing evenly to new cheap ones that may be hiding something (I never go cheap on tires because so much depends on them. Since we tend to get a bit of rain here, I prefer Michelins for daily drivers. Judge is on BFGs because they have big 15"s).

Vinyl tops were common in the early 70's but are great at hiding rust. Push on the lower edge of the sail panel and if feel a crunch, walk away.

And the oldest adage of them all: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." (but occasionally...)

[Guest Xeon]

Well with Vegas it was a race between rusting out and blown engines (OTOH I had a steel sleeved Astre that was a nice wagon). Anything with a two speed automatic or engine over 400 cid. Aluminum engines (unless you enjoy "getting out and getting under"). Anything with Lucas electrics.Leather interiors are great if nice but very expensive to replace. Aftermarket wheels with strange offsets or missing/mismatched lug nuts are a danger sign. If locking lug nuts make sure there is a key that fits.As mentioned factory AC is a big plus because they were not bought to be raced and all of the other HD stuff they got. Aso by now there should be little left running R-12. If the AC doesn't work ("just needs a can". Right.) and there are no R134A nipples on the dryer it is going to be ex$pen$ive.Personally prefer to see half-worn tires that are wearing evenly to new cheap ones that may be hiding something (I never go cheap on tires because so much depends on them. Since we tend to get a bit of rain here, I prefer Michelins for daily drivers. Judge is on BFGs because they have big 15"s).Vinyl tops were common in the early 70's but are great at hiding rust. Push on the lower edge of the sail panel and if feel a crunch, walk away.And the oldest adage of them all: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." (but occasionally...)

Thanks!

This look too good? http://bham.craigslist.org/cto/5270482300.html

[Rusty_OToole]

I know a lot of people won't like this but I would avoid a Chev V8 from 1968 to  the mid 80s. Terrible mileage, terrible reliability, known for wearing camshafts, valve recession and general poor quality. Some were coupled with a transmission originally designed for the Vega, and put into full size station wagons! Needless to say, in those the transmissions didn't even last as long as the engine.

 

When this molting period ended I do not know or if Chev ever did improve. They drove me away and forced me to stop buying their cars around 1980.

[Guest Xeon]

Well with Vegas it was a race between rusting out and blown engines (OTOH I had a steel sleeved Astre that was a nice wagon). Anything with a two speed automatic or engine over 400 cid. Aluminum engines (unless you enjoy "getting out and getting under"). Anything with Lucas electrics.

Leather interiors are great if nice but very expensive to replace. Aftermarket wheels with strange offsets or missing/mismatched lug nuts are a danger sign. If locking lug nuts make sure there is a key that fits.

As mentioned factory AC is a big plus because they were not bought to be raced and all of the other HD stuff they got. Aso by now there should be little left running R-12. If the AC doesn't work ("just needs a can". Right.) and there are no R134A nipples on the dryer it is going to be ex$pen$ive.

Personally prefer to see half-worn tires that are wearing evenly to new cheap ones that may be hiding something (I never go cheap on tires because so much depends on them. Since we tend to get a bit of rain here, I prefer Michelins for daily drivers. Judge is on BFGs because they have big 15"s).

Vinyl tops were common in the early 70's but are great at hiding rust. Push on the lower edge of the sail panel and if feel a crunch, walk away.

And the oldest adage of them all: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is." (but occasionally...)

 

Also, why is the mismatched lugnuts and aftermarket wheels a danger sign?

 

I know a lot of people won't like this but I would avoid a Chev V8 from 1968 to  the mid 80s. Terrible mileage, terrible reliability, known for wearing camshafts, valve recession and general poor quality. Some were coupled with a transmission originally designed for the Vega, and put into full size station wagons! Needless to say, in those the transmissions didn't even last as long as the engine.

 

When this molting period ended I do not know or if Chev ever did improve. They drove me away and forced me to stop buying their cars around 1980.

 

Wow, thanks for the info!

[Guest Xeon]

EDIT: It's gone.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Xeon (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

Re the reliability of Chevs of the 70s. It is likely most of the defective engines have been rebuilt or replaced by now but it is something to watch out for.

 

I am of 2 minds about the Chevs, I see the appeal and the popularity, which by itself is a reason to buy one (easy cheap repairs, easy cheap to get parts) but at the same time, quality is often lacking. I have had better luck with Chrysler products, parts not so easy and cheap to get but you don't need so many of them.

 

You have to be careful will all the cars we are talking about. They are 30 - 40 years old but were built for a life of about 10 -15 years so, anything is apt to happen.

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

Man that's a nice looking car!!

Is that something that would be hard to get parts for?

I was just looking at some fixer uppers and there are some cheap ones!

http://auburn.craigslist.org/cto/5252837002.html (I know, not original engine.)

http://tuscaloosa.craigslist.org/cto/5196349125.html (Same)

you would be better to find one in running condition.

you would spend more in the long run on a project.

And in the meantime you could be driving the running car.

I suggested the six cylinder,

because of

• price
• reliabilty
• parts availability

a V8 is tempting, But for cruising and everyday driving the six cylinder will be cheaper on the front end, if not for gas mileage and parts

[JamesBulldogMiller55Buick]

There are too many awesome cars... I'm writing them down for ones I know to definitely look out for. But I know there are many more..

 

 

Now, are there any cars that look awesome and might catch my eye, but I should really stay away from?

I would stay away from Chevrolet of any year model.

The Chevies are way over priced.

A Buick, Dodge or Plymouth can be had for much lower prices and no less reliable than the Chevrolet 

[padgett]

Heck after about '75 they were all using "corporate engines". Agree the other NOVAs (Omega, Ventura, Apollo) are probably less ep$en$ive than a Chevvy but still easy to get parts for. That said probably the best GM auto trans of the period is a 700R4 with both overdrive and lockup. Personally prefer a manual transmission in a toy though.

 

Do the people you will look to for help prefer a particular brand ? One of those would be the easiest to get help with.

 

All of that said there are always going to be people with preferences, the car does not care whose name is on the valve covers. Problem with sixes of the sixties and seventies (except the Pontiac OHC) was they were usually in loss leaders & low power so unless the driver was the same tended to be overworked. Remember having a '70 Chevvy II rental with a 6 and strange two speed with a torque converter that had to be manually shifted (Torque Drive ?) that overheated if you got near 70 for any distance.

 

GM did have some 4 cyl in that period that are best avoided.

 

GM V8 Engines to avoid: 67 Chev 350, 70 Pontiac 455. Both had crank issues that were corrected the next year. Then there was the SBC 400 cid - less said the better. OK but ded: Chev 262, 305 and Olds 307. Any of the GM 350 V8s of the period were pretty good engines but the Buick had the most torque (very underrated engine but almost no parts available). Best was the Olds 350 but got drowned by SBC crate motors.

 

Tend to know more about GM of the period because those were the parts I had in the garage.

[Guest]

Heck after about '75 they were all using "corporate engines". Agree the other NOVAs (Omega, Ventura, Apollo) are probably less ep$en$ive than a Chevvy but still easy to get parts for. That said probably the best GM auto trans of the period is a 700R4 with both overdrive and lockup. Personally prefer a manual transmission in a toy though.

 

Do the people you will look to for help prefer a particular brand ? One of those would be the easiest to get help with.

 

All of that said there are always going to be people with preferences, the car does not care whose name is on the valve covers. Problem with sixes of the sixties and seventies (except the Pontiac OHC) was they were usually in loss leaders & low power so unless the driver was the same tended to be overworked. Remember having a '70 Chevvy II rental with a 6 and strange two speed with a torque converter that had to be manually shifted (Torque Drive ?) that overheated if you got near 70 for any distance.

 

GM did have some 4 cyl in that period that are best avoided.

 

GM V8 Engines to avoid: 67 Chev 350, 70 Pontiac 455. Both had crank issues that were corrected the next year. Then there was the SBC 400 cid - less said the better. OK but ded: Chev 262, 305 and Olds 307. Any of the GM 350 V8s of the period were pretty good engines but the Buick had the most torque (very underrated engine but almost no parts available). Best was the Olds 350 but got drowned by SBC crate motors.

 

Tend to know more about GM of the period because those were the parts I had in the garage.

These engines to avoid are simply JUST YOUR OPINION. I have had very good luck with any of the 455 Pontiac years of use and I have used these engines not only on the drag strip, but on the Grand Touring circuit-high speed endurance .

  I have seen 400inch Chevys go 200K without a rebuild.

 Pontiac 350's of the H-O era make more power and torque than Buick or Olds 350's, and unlike Olds and Buick all internals except pistons are shared with 400",and most other internals with 326,336,389,421, 428, 455 .

  As far as the Gen 3 ( 1962-1979) Chevy straight six, it is one of the best engines built, SEVEN main bearings, forged rods, Pontiac's independent ball rocker and stud valvetrain. No timing chain-Gear to gear no slip! This engine was still being produced in Brazil until 1990 

. If you are trying to hot rod one of these sixes, you can use a pre 1976 head instead of the 1976-79 mono head, although the 1976-79 mono head in a stock setting properly maintained will last forever.

Stop filling this kids head with your unfounded bias.

Edited October 19, 2015 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest Xeon]

Ermm... Thanks for the info everyone!

Where does Ford figure into all of this?

Like this maverick looks awesome! http://bham.craigslist.org/cto/5275143219.html

And what about the Laguna? http://bham.craigslist.org/cto/5237776008.html

[vermontboy]

The only way you are going to know what car is "right" for you is to get out there and look at them and drive them.

 

Mopars, GM's and Fords all drive differently. Steering, brakes, ride and handling, responsiveness and general "feel" are different. I think a lot of people who have owned cars from all of the big 3 could tell which company produced a car within a quarter mile of driving, no matter what steps were taken to camouflage it.

 

You need to see which manufacturer feels best to you.

[Larry W]

My dad bought a '73 Maverick brand new. It was a nice car, but a plumber's nightmare when addressing the pollution controls. The one you have pictured looks like it may have been modified somewhat. That's okay if the vehicle runs good and will not have to undergo an emmisiions test at any time that you own it. ANY VEHICLE THAT YOU BUY, gMAKE SURE IT PASSES AN EMIISSION TEST BEFORE YOU HAND OVER ANY MONEY, IF IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO TESTING BEFORE YOU REGISTER IT OR WHILE YOU OWN IT!!!!

Edited October 19, 2015 by Larry W (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

Not a big Ford fan myself but some people love them. The Maverick was a nice looking car but basically an economy car, replacement for the Falcon, the modern equivalent would be a Focus.

 

This means the insurance companies won't be out for blood if you buy one. But they are a decent looking car and practical transportation. The 302 V8 is icing on the cake, giving you basically the performance of a 5 liter Mustang without the high cost and insurance hassles.

 

The Maverick platform was used for many years in various cars and parts are cheap and easy to get.

[padgett]

Was kinda thinking about the Maverick Grabber but like a full instrument panel and a stick shift.

There was an interesting Firebird with a 350 HO & dual hood tachs but I have never seen one.

Pontiac 455 was a good engine except for the 70 which had Bonnes losing cranks right and left. 71-72 455 HO and 73-74 SD were almost great but the Buick & Olds 455s were always a better place to start.

Why ? Mainly because unlike the other divisions Pontiac never had the money for a "big block" All were derived from that original 287 in 1955 & just kept being bored and stroked to 316, 326, 347, 350, 370, 400 from 1955 to 1978 engines sold in 1979. Then we have the same basic design just with large crank journals: 421, 428, 455 but the tight bore centers are why the 455 is the only "big" GM engine that is undersquare & the SD455 had an 80 psi oil pump to make it live under stress.

True Pontiac had some great engineers and did amazing things with the funds they had but some just didn't work (like the tunnel port 303 that had gas puddling in the intake under 4 grand with carbs. Did have a neat FI or at least the one in the GMI lab did).

Will admit that I prefer smaller oversquare engines with lotsa carbs (DOHC & FI is a plus) that can wind to the moon so am biased. Also prefer cars I can just fire up. Turn right at Wildwood, left at Lake City, & on to Our Lady of the Angels. Built right the 455 can be a torque monster but takes a lot of attention to detail.

[Guest]

Was kinda thinking about the Maverick Grabber but like a full instrument panel and a stick shift.

There was an interesting Firebird with a 350 HO & dual hood tachs but I have never seen one.

Pontiac 455 was a good engine except for the 70 which had Bonnes losing cranks right and left. 71-72 455 HO and 73-74 SD were almost great but the Buick & Olds 455s were always a better place to start.

Why ? Mainly because unlike the other divisions Pontiac never had the money for a "big block" All were derived from that original 287 in 1955 & just kept being bored and stroked to 316, 326, 347, 350, 370, 400 from 1955 to 1978 engines sold in 1979. Then we have the same basic design just with large crank journals: 421, 428, 455 but the tight bore centers are why the 455 is the only "big" GM engine that is undersquare & the SD455 had an 80 psi oil pump to make it live under stress.

True Pontiac had some great engineers and did amazing things with the funds they had but some just didn't work (like the tunnel port 303 that had gas puddling in the intake under 4 grand with carbs. Did have a neat FI or at least the one in the GMI lab did).

Will admit that I prefer smaller oversquare engines with lotsa carbs (DOHC & FI is a plus) that can wind to the moon so am biased. Also prefer cars I can just fire up. Turn right at Wildwood, left at Lake City, & on to Our Lady of the Angels. Built right the 455 can be a torque monster but takes a lot of attention to detail.

Do you have some data to back the 455 crank failure??? TSB's, Pontiac Service Craftsman publications, Factory warranty statistic's???? 

In the Pontiac racing community it has been said the best 455 cranks are 1970-1973, although 74-76 have been successful.

Pontiac engineering was never strapped for development money, and if GM had never had a racing ban in 1963 you would have seen SOHC, and DOHC four valves per cylinder 389 & 421's in production cars. The fact that Pontiac kept the original basic design from 287 to 455 is a testament to better engineering than the rest of the four divisions.

You talk about Pontiac 455 being the only large engine that is undersquare which is untrue. The Olds 455 is even more undersquare than the Pontiac. The Pontiac 455 is 4.15 X 4.21 and the Olds is 4.126 X 4.25. Yes, the 455 Pontiac is a medium block, but so is the Olds. The difference is Olds has a short and a long deck versions (not to be confused with small and big block engines), where Pontiac does it all with one basic dimension block. The only Olds that does have a bigger bore is the 403 (short deck), but at 4.351" it like the 400" Chevrolet you hate has Siamese cylinders with no water jacket completely around the cylinders. I say unless you are endurance racing these engines they will lead a normal life even if they were drag raced.

Lets not get into the 303 T/A series engine because it was never fully developed and was never a production engine just like RALV.

[padgett]

No but can look. Was just there at the time and saw a lot of '70 Bonnies with problems that resulted in crank replacement. A few synaps are saying the early 455 D-port two-bolt engines had an unusual number of connecting rod or bearing cap failures. It may have been an assembly issue but resulted in a bad rep and people avoiding the much improved T/A 455HO in 1971. Today the 71-72 455 HO is recognised as a very good engine.

Anyone here remember exactly what the problem was ? In 1970 I was more interested in beating Z-28s in autocrosses with a Buick GS & didn't get interested in Pontiacs until 1972 & that was a while ago.

ps thank you for that info on the Olds. In 1970 I considered the Rallye 350 but liked the Buick GS better. Must admit that part was because in 1970 no-one took the Buick seriously & it didn't have a lot of stripes.

[John348]

Very interesting topic, and getting back to the OP's original question the answer can vary depending to many things. The first thing comes to mind is where and the weather conditions you are operating it in. I have not had to look in 30 years but do they even still make snow tires? Are you driving in an urban or rural area? Do you have alternate means of transportation if something brakes and you are waiting for a part? Are you familiar with the systems in an old car especially fuel delivery and ignition?

 

While everyone here on the site respects and appreciates the desire of a younger person using an old car for everyday transportation, the vast majority of employers and educators don't understand the reason for being late or missing a day is because your broke down (more then once) which can happen when a vintage machine is pressed into full service use in extreme conditions. Everyone here on the site has different needs and requirements as far as "everyday" transportation.

I did use 35-45 year old cars everyday to commute into NYC from Long Island, but the novelty wore off  about 15 years ago as I got older and parts were not ready over the counter for a needed repair. Just things to factor in.

However I use a 30 year old car as an every day driver when I go to my other home in Florida. I have an 1985 Caprice Wagon, ironically I had one when new and never really liked it then. It suits me just fine now in my retired lifestyle, where every day is Saturday and there really is no rush. I use for local use, but I know it is a 30 year old car the few time I ventured on the interstate, where 80+mph is the norm, so local roads it is. My point is that the only essential trip I need to use it for is to go to Publix to get the NY Post, so if it does not start so I don't read the paper, no big deal. It is not like I have to go out and earn a degree or a day's pay.

 

Two of my three son's are in the hobby and this same conversation came up in our house. The important thing is to have a back up plan for those "if" and "when" moments. Not much different then someone who depends on a motorcycle as their main means of transportation who lives in the northeast

Good Luck, there are plenty of nice cars out there

Edited October 20, 2015 by John348 (see edit history)

[Zimm63]

Good daily driver? Find an old Volvo. Been running them for years, currrenty driving a 94 940, which is a nice car. Get the red block engine, which was in the 940 up to 95 and the 240 up to 92. Avoid any sort of 6, as they blow up. 780 turbo's are the best of the lot, but rare and expensive.

Boring? Yes, but easy to repair and good parts availablity. Hard to find a nice one now, as most have lots of miles and are getty scruffy. Miles is less of a concern than documented maintenance on these cars. My 89 had 317,236 on it when it was murdered by a 16 year old in a Nissan who had no concept of how to drive on a slippery road.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Zimm63 (see edit history)