"Best" daily driver?

[Guest bkazmer]

"If you don't know where you going any road will get you there."

I think an earlier poster offered some good advice in suggesting you develop your focus, maybe first with what you don't want.  It's hard for people to comment on a car's fit if they don't know what you are looking for.  I am looking at a car this week for a friend.  I know it's a car that I have zero interest in, but it may be just what he wants.

You are fortunate to not have winter drivability as a concern, but keep in mind that in many older cars AC was not always ordered and if present was based on Freon which means expensive fluid or a refit to a newer refrigerant. 

There is a distinct break point in the early 70's for engines.  Early pollution controls greatly impact driveability, especially in the mid seventies when they are tacked on to earlier designs.

Modified vs unmodified is a major issue.  Figure out where you stand on it.  I'd also suggest you decide if an open car is a strong desire or not, as this greatly impacts both purchase and resale.  Likewise on manual vs automatic.  And FWD vs RWD.

[padgett]

Plastic really started around 74-75 (try to find a 77-78 Firebird with good door pulls and there was a lot of trouble with seat backs and consoles) 72 Cutlass might be worth a look but why does it have a later 403 ?

 

Mercedes makes the worlds best taxicabs but a 240D was bar none the filthiest engine I ever worked on and may have trouble reaching the speed limit on some Interstates. Parts are also not cheap.

 

Please create a spreadsheet of "Musts" and Wants", will help you narrow down the possibilites. Don't think a 4 door taxi is your image.

 

Have bought/sold a number of cars on CL, mostly odd. I prefer to deal locally.

 

AC is a special case and not that uncommon in this era ('67 Camaro I bought new off a showroom floor had V8/4-speed/AC/guages but was in South Florida). Key is that an AC car (particularly GM) comes with a lot of HD equipment (alternator, radiator, eitc) not found on a base car. Heaters are better also.) Only thing not there is floor vents.

 

By now any AC that is still functional has had a new compressor and probably R134A. If not working figure $1k to have cod air. No big just a lot easier if originally equipped from the factory. Can even find R-12 but I would not bother just make sure it gets a really good flush and they use the oil that mixes with anything. Dye is optional.

 

ps for GM emissions controls started in '68, Low compression & net HP in '71, EGR & front bumpers in '73, rear bumpers in '74, and catalysts in '75)

[Rusty_OToole]

I drove a 240D when it was a new car and it had no trouble cruising at 70MPH. I also helped overhaul one (not rebuild) and all parts were easily available and not expensive. As I recall a valve job from the local auto machine shop, a set of gaskets, rings, and bearings and it was ready to go. It had at least 140,000 miles on it when we did the overhaul.

 

Having said that, I don't think I would touch one today unless I wanted a 3d world taxicab.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest Xeon]

This what I was talking about.. There is just so much information here it really is amazing.. I know it may not seem like I'm taking it all in, I know I'm not quoting every post, but I can guarantee you I'm getting it.

 

 

Alright, back to being annoying. I have some more CL posts to show you guys. Just wondering if you guys see anything wrong with them right off the bat. I'm making a list of Musts/Wants and what to stay away from. 

 

First off, I know that the whole emissions crisis and all in the late late 60's to the early 80s(?) but what did it really mean? Is it a huge deal? What did it all really affect minus the HP? Can all the emissions "stuff" just be taken off, or should it really stay on?

 

Does anyone know if an emissions test is needed in AL? I heard it's needed when registering a car?

 

 

I know you guys are probably sick and tired of this, because I'm not even buying anything for a few more months, but now the CL posts. This will probably be the last time.

 

https://huntsville.craigslist.org/cto/5289612847.html  Needs work, but that's what I'm looking for. I want something that me and my father can just work on. This one at $2500 would probably be a little much as it needs a whole new interior, some body work, etc etc but I still think it could be fun. 

 

I guess what I'm looking for is something drivable from the start, but could use some love. Like a new paint job and a new interior later in life.

 

 

https://huntsville.craigslist.org/cto/5290538319.html  I like the older ones more, but I don't hate these. If the description is all true, it looks pretty great to me. But you can't tell much from the one picture.

 

 

https://bham.craigslist.org/cto/5290538884.htmlLooks awesome to me! Although over what I'll be spending. Especially because it looks mostly restored already.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Xeon (see edit history)

[Guest bkazmer]

The Z28 is a POS

I had an 85 GT, new.  It was excellent bang for the buck then (power/weight superior to Z28).  The live axle rear suspension will make 4" sideways hops if you hit a bump when cornering hard.  The build quality was indifferent.  The carburetor was often confused when starting in cool weather (would over choke itself, and yes it was tuned).

The Olds convt with big block option is the most collectible by far but completely differentr in price and appeal.

 

You need to finish those musts/wants list

 

If you want to really get the emissions thing, drive something like a 75 full size GM car with a 455, or a 75 Corvette with an original 350.  They turn large amounts of gas into small amounts of power.  Now drive the analogous type from 1965.

[Guest]

 

 

Alright, back to being annoying. I have some more CL posts to show you guys. Just wondering if you guys see anything wrong with them right off the bat. I'm making a list of Musts/Wants and what to stay away from. 

 

First off, I know that the whole emissions crisis and all in the late late 60's to the early 80s(?) but what did it really mean? Is it a huge deal? What did it all really affect minus the HP? Can all the emissions "stuff" just be taken off, or should it really stay on?

 

Does anyone know if an emissions test is needed in AL? I heard it's needed when registering a car?

 

 

I know you guys are probably sick and tired of this, because I'm not even buying anything for a few more months, but now the CL posts. This will probably be the last time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point I was trying to make when I said is this a waste of time. Did you read post # 100? It tells you much of what you need to know except your particular states emission testing. That's the reason of the frustration. Legally No it can't be removed. Exhaust emissions first started in 1966 and by 67 was a national requirement.

Edited October 29, 2015 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest Xeon]

 

 

 

Alright, back to being annoying. I have some more CL posts to show you guys. Just wondering if you guys see anything wrong with them right off the bat. I'm making a list of Musts/Wants and what to stay away from. 

 

First off, I know that the whole emissions crisis and all in the late late 60's to the early 80s(?) but what did it really mean? Is it a huge deal? What did it all really affect minus the HP? Can all the emissions "stuff" just be taken off, or should it really stay on?

 

Does anyone know if an emissions test is needed in AL? I heard it's needed when registering a car?

 

 

I know you guys are probably sick and tired of this, because I'm not even buying anything for a few more months, but now the CL posts. This will probably be the last time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point I was trying to make when I said is this a waste of time. Did you read post # 100? It tells you much of what you need to know except your particular states emission testing. That's the reason of the frustration. Legally No it can't be removed. Exhaust emissions first started in 1966 and by 67 was a national requirement.

 

 

Sorry for being so rude then..

 

I know, but where is it that I can find out what is legal and illegal here? It seems almost anything that can be legal in certain states is legal here.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Xeon (see edit history)

[John348]

Sorry for being so rude then..

 

I know, but where is it that I can find out what is legal and illegal here? It seems almost anything that can be legal in certain states is legal here.

 

Every state is different, and in some states emission rules can vary from county to county, some states have none!  This is something you are going to have to research off of this site and find something official, not some internet expert telling you the wrong information. 

 

You are of the generation that should have mastered the internet, I fake this crap, anything needing a search my sons do for me. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by John348 (see edit history)

[Guest Xeon]

Every state is different, and in some states emission rules can vary from county to county, some states have none!  This is something you are going to have to research off of this site and find something official, not some internet expert telling you the wrong information. 

 

You are of the generation that should have mastered the internet, I fake this crap, anything needing a search my sons do for me. 

 

True. I'll find somewhere official. Wasn't sure where, but I think I can probably find it.

 

Thanks!

[John348]

Your local DMV would be a start. local Police, maybe? Conservation Officers? either way you will get pointed in the correct direction much more so then here

[Rusty_OToole]

You are not being rude. You just like shopping for cars. So do I. If I bought even 1/10 the good ones I find online I would have 1000 cars instead of just a dozen or so. Don't let the HATERZ get you down lol.

 

On the question of pollution and lousy cars-

 

First government mandated device was the PCV or positive crankcase ventilation system. This took oil fumes from the crankcase and burned them in the engine instead of releasing them to the air.

 

This cut pollution by 25% at a cost of $5 bucks with no effect on economy, power, or driveability.

 

Year by year the restrictions got stricter, and the remedies got more difficult and expensive.

 

The worst cars were from 1968 to about 1974. As time went on they figured out better ways to do things and the cars slowly got less lousy.

 

Another factor was the removal of lead from gas in 1970. General Motors was responsible for this, appropriate as it was GM who introduced leaded gas in the twenties. The sole reason to do away with lead, was because it poisoned the catalytic converters and GM claimed catalytic converters were the only way to control pollution. This was not true as Chrysler and Honda proved but it made no difference, out went the lead.

 

Not all cars had problems all the time and by now most of the real bad ones have been fixed or scrapped. Also, in most places they don't test cars for pollution or if they do there is a cutoff date.

 

This means that old cars can be retrofitted or modified to run properly.

 

I have only touched the surface.

 

You might like to know that by the late seventies all cars were 97% pollution free. Yes 97%. Your greeny neighbors won't believe it but they don't know anything anyway. When they started talking about electric cars being 98% pollution free I shrugged my shoulders and said so what, new cars are already 97% pollution free. They were shocked but it's true.

 

Achieving this high level of pollution control in such a short period of time was extremely difficult which is why they had such problems. But as time went on they figure out better ways to do it, electronic engine controls and electronic fuel injection were major breakthroughs but of course there was no such thing in the sixties.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest]

Sorry for being so rude then..

 

I know, but where is it that I can find out what is legal and illegal here? It seems almost anything that can be legal in certain states is legal here.

You can find your local vehicle emission requirement from the motor vehicle department

You cam find the Federal emission standard from the EPA or DOT

As said before cars that are 49 state certified known as Federal emission standards cannot be altered. yes people do it, but their can be a price to pay when selling a car to someone in a county or state that has testing, also government gets very interested about tampering, which causes more rules and regulation and penalties, just ask some of the smog station owners in Ca. that are in prison today.

California has their own emission standards and are stricter than Federal laws so they are held to their standard.

What we are talking about here is Exhaust emissions ( not crankcase emissions ) which is tailpipe emissions. Exhaust emissions began on cars in California in 1966, and in federal cars in 1967. It wasn't until 1971 that these emission systems began to have a adverse effect on drive ability. This is when the compression ratio's started to come down. In 1973 the requirement for CO and HC were so lean that trying to achieve the proper CO levels would lean the mixture so much that a lean misfire would appear and then this would drive the HC numbers off the gauge scale. Then to compound this EGR was introduced in 1973 & some cars 74, which further effected driveability. What was needed was a way to somewhat fatten up or return the engines to a more normal 13.5 to one air fuel ratio. The catalytic converter allowed use to do just that and return driveability back to near pre 1973 days.

[padgett]

OK but thought I outlined emissions chronology earlier: varied a little for some things (MOPAR still had high compression in 71, GM didn't). Also HP rating changed from Gross (dump the clutch and see how far the Toledo swings) to Net (essentially RWHP about 2/3 gross) If you really want to compare performance, look at torque curves & the area under the PV graph (get a copy of "The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine" by Sir Harry if you really want to understand combustion.

 

If not then understand that iron cam in block engines with a poorly controlled leak (carbs - OTOH I like dual quads) cannot be very efficient without kludges like boost but what killed hp and compression in the '70s was NOx (NO and NO2 and not N2O). High compression = high combustion temperatures = Nitrogen Oxide = brown rings around the world. When low compression was not enough we first got EGR (73) and then Catalytic Converters (75). Now TEL (lead) greatly reduces detonation but also poisons converters so it had to go and gas tank nozzles got smaller.

 

This placed a double whammy on bores over 4" & compressions had to drop further, under 8:1 for one 455 I know. Efficency nosedived.

 

So Detroit was caught in a real bind trying to meet fuel economy and emissions standards. At the same time most American cars qualified as land barges and even mid-size cars were hitting 4,000 lbs and aerodymamics were barn door. This state lasted from about 1975 to 1990 with a few bright spots. Meanwhile the National 55 mph speed limit had mfrs focussing on mpg at 55 so very long gearing became popular unlil overdrive/lockup trannys came along. Frankly it is amazing that cars of the 80's like my Reattae cruise so well at 70"ish" & 2k rpm but by then many were low drag (compare the nose on a 73 Monte Carlo to an 80 and see the aero difference. In retrospect my 72 Goat wagon with "economy" axle was turning 3k at 70 & got 12.5 mpg with the air on.

 

Now before VVT, cams were optimised for a torque peak at 2k rpm and many were ded by 4k. This is where you see 455s putting out 185hp - change the carb, intake, cam, and exhaust (need all not some) & many will really wake up.

 

That said I've seen continual improvement in cars since 1990, something that has accellerated in the last decade and then next big thng is direct ignition and boost (to avoid detonation you need DI to achieve nice compression ratios and high IMEP & dual catalysts to manage emissions. (Joke when this started was that in some cities new cars would have to clean the air) - expect 125hp/liter to become common.

 

Emissions laws vary & are enforced by states (does the fed have control of DC ?) but often only enforced to a certain age usually not for cars more than 25 or 30 years old. Check with your DMV but ask about age as well. (Many figure that by x years old most will have been crushed and few remaining are not worth the effore of training inspectors. Others are different. (Have heard are a lot of cars are registered in Nevada that don't live there).

 

Some don't like me to ramble so had best stop...

 

ps can't resist but FI goes much earlier, Bendix had an electronic one in 1957 & can't go into how early the opposition had PWM. When I was at GMI there was this competition about how to meet emissions in '75 with power. The "official" group had a current Firebird 6cyl with turbo. I had a '67 Camaro 'vert with 275hp/327, Saginaw 4 speed, Delcotronic ignition, and a trick 64 Rochester port FI....

[Guest]

This is part of the problem;

ps can't resist but FI goes much earlier, Bendix had an electronic one in 1957 & can't go into how early the opposition had PWM. When I was at GMI there was this competition about how to meet emissions in '75 with power. The "official" group had a current Firebird 6cyl with turbo. I had a '67 Camaro 'vert with 275hp/327, Saginaw 4 speed, Delcotronic ignition, and a trick 64 Rochester port FI....

A friend who I was helping was trying to meet emissions for a smog test. The car was a 1969 GTO with a 370 hp RA4 engine. Pontiac division had a very tough time even getting these cars EPA certified, and with a few mile having JUST past certification would fall out of compliance. Can you imagine this friends car at about 50k miles. It got to the point that we were going to change the 041 for a 744 just to get the emissions to pass. We came up with another idea though and that was to use the 041 cam but make our own intake and make a multi port motech fuelie with 2 cats and all. Everything worked fine and in my companies emission lab the car passed no problem. It even pasted our seven bag/ seven mode EPA test for a car of the mid 80's. Trouble is Federal and state requirements say that the vehicle must pass the test with what it came with from the factory no matter how clean the car was.

The law as it stands today is no tampering unless your aftermarket has a carb#. Take a cat off..illegal install headers...Illegal, change intake without a carb# ...illegal.

[Guest]

I just went to the EPA site and here is some information on tampering. This is Federal law which trumps State law unless state law is more stringent like California. Anyroad like I said all along here.

 

 

If you have any questions, please call the EPA Imports Hotline at (734) 214-4100 or email them at Imports@epa.gov.

top of page

 

 

I just bought a used car and discovered the catalytic converter is missing. Is that legal?

The act of removing a catalytic converter without replacing it with an approved replacement (known as "tampering") is illegal under federal law and is of great concern to EPA because of the high pollution levels that are emitted by vehicles without properly functioning emission controls. The original antitampering law was part of the Clean Air Act of 1970; it applied only to manufacturers and car dealers. The antitampering law was expanded by the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments to apply to all automobile repair facilities, commercial mechanics, and fleet operators. And the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) broadened the tampering provision even further; it now applies to everyone, including car owners. Here is the text from the 1990 CAAA:

"Section 288 – Enforcement: ( TAMPERING WITH VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROLS –

(1) Section 203(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:

'(3)(A) for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this title prior to its sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser, or for any person knowingly to remove or render inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser; or

'(

for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install, any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine in compliance with regulations under this title, and where the person knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put to such use; or '

(2) At the end of section 203(a) (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)) insert the following:

'No action with respect to any device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if (i) the action is for the purpose of repair or replacement of the device or element, or is a necessary and temporary procedure to repair or replace any other item and the device or element is replaced upon completion of the procedure, and (ii) such action thereafter results in the proper functioning of the device or element referred to in paragraph (3). No action with respect to any device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if the action is for the purpose of a conversion of a motor vehicle for use of a clean alternative fuel (as defined in this title) and if such vehicle complies with the applicable standard under section 202 when operating on such fuel, and if in the case of a clean alternative fuel vehicle (as defined by rule by the Administrator), the device or element is replaced upon completion of the conversion procedure and such action results in proper functioning of the device or element when the motor vehicle operates on conventional fuel.'."

The resale of a vehicle which has already had the catalytic converter removed is not specifically addressed by federal law. Therefore, the person who removed the converter violated federal law, but not necessarily the person who sold the vehicle. However, the sale of vehicles that have had the emission control system removed, disabled, or tampered with may be further governed by state or local laws.

[padgett]

Key part is "'No action with respect to any device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if (i) the action is for the purpose of repair or replacement of the device or element". Guess it mostly depends on your definition of "device or element".

 

May have left out "Nothing in paragraph (3) shall be construed to require the use of manufacturer parts in maintaining or repairing any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7522

 

So adding FI and dual catalysts seemed to meet  the intent even though the original emissions controlled carb (Quadrajet not CARB) was removed. Just as I was able to reduce emissions by adding a Rochester FI back before 1975. Agree the feedback and PID controls of today are much better than the crude stuff we had then

 

Personally have always been concerned about all three: power, mpg, and emissions. Much harder than focussing on one. Never liked the smell of rotten eggs.

 

ps all my cars have all factory emissions equipment in place. The factory did a very good job of tuning them.  Besides a modern catalyst makes a good muffler (why you see a lot of cat-back systems). California is different but then why would so many people settle in the "Valley of Smoke" and expect clean air ?

[Guest Xeon]

Whoa. Man, a lot of stuff is illegal..

[Guest]

Key part is "'No action with respect to any device or element of design referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that paragraph if (i) the action is for the purpose of repair or replacement of the device or element". Guess it mostly depends on your definition of "device or element".

 

May have left out "Nothing in paragraph (3) shall be construed to require the use of manufacturer parts in maintaining or repairing any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7522

 

So adding FI and dual catalysts seemed to meet  the intent even though the original emissions controlled carb (Quadrajet not CARB) was removed. Just as I was able to reduce emissions by adding a Rochester FI back before 1975. Agree the feedback and PID controls of today are much better than the crude stuff we had then

 

Personally have always been concerned about all three: power, mpg, and emissions. Much harder than focussing on one. Never liked the smell of rotten eggs.

 

ps all my cars have all factory emissions equipment in place. The factory did a very good job of tuning them.  Besides a modern catalyst makes a good muffler (why you see a lot of cat-back systems). California is different but then why would so many people settle in the "Valley of Smoke" and expect clean air ?

This was in California, and in CA they won't even stick a wiffer up the tailpipe until the visual portion of the test is complete and the car passes. Modified= no pass

[Guest]

Anyroad, this should not matter to any of the AACA people here that have post 1966 cars because they know that if they are showing a car at a regional meet or national event that their car must be on the show field with original equipment or they either get disqualified or have point reduction in scoring. This also goes for having Antique auto insurance.....when applying for one of the first things they ask is has the car and in particular the engine been modified. 

[padgett]

Part of the reason I live on the right coast, too much gov = too much tax on the left. Used to attend more meetings of the So Cal POCI chapter than Florida so have some knowlege of what goes on there. But discussion keeps switching from the fed clean air act (main concern is clean air not how it is accomplished) to what California (special case) requires. I'm just waiting for Antelope Valley to become seashore.

 

And then you talk about show judging when half the cars have repoped service replacement batteries and few even know how to find/read date codes on tires (part of reason why I quit judging). Nearly every dashboard changed on 1 January, 1972. Why ?

 

Heck I'd bet most would just look at a Quadrajet and not know if it was a 750 or 800 cfm

 

Getting quite far afield here but all touches on things that Xeon needs to be aware of and spending time with someone in Alabama law enforcement finding out just his state/locale cares about would be worth while. I suspect that if he spends the time to make sure his emissions equipment is up to snuff he won't loose any power (particularly with feedback FI and catalysts) and may gain some reliability.

 

Now what I want to know is how do these reality shows get away with playing fast and loose with how they rebuild cars. Are a few in California even.

 

ps most Antique Car Insurance carriers just move a car from "Antique & Classic" to "Modified or Custom" if not close to stock & charge a bit more, not that you can't get insurance. In general they do not care about wheels and tires (asked).

[Guest Xeon]

Man.. Thanks for the help guys.. I still have a lot to research before I get a car..

 

I know I'm jumping right back to what kind of car, but how were the AMC Hornets? Like this one. https://huntsville.craigslist.org/cto/5296788119.html

 

It seems to have almost everything I want. Depending on what the 6cyl is exactly. I know it'll make it easier to insure..

[Guest bkazmer]

and what is on that list of what you want?

[Guest Xeon]

Uhhh not much yet..

 

2 door.

 

I mean I want it to be "sporty" er but still easy to insure. I love the look of fastbacks. I've heard 6cyl makes it much easier to insure meaning it being a 6cyl is on there. Although I'm not sure how "quick" any of the 6cyls were back then. Working AC, or at the very least had at AC at one point. And in the description he did put "ac". 4+ seats, I think it has 5? Automatic is a plus.

 

I know it probably sounds stupid..

 

I really don't have as much of a "want list" as everyone wants me to have. I'd love anything I posted. Even the 240D, even if I'd rather something sportier.

[Guest bkazmer]

check out 78-80 Supra.  Fastback, very nice 6 cyl ohc engine, 2+2 seating, doesn't alarm insurance companies

[Guest Xeon]

check out 78-80 Supra.  Fastback, very nice 6 cyl ohc engine, 2+2 seating, doesn't alarm insurance companies

 

Starting to look a little bit too "80s" for me, but I definitely wouldn't mind one!

 

I'm writing all of these models down so when I go on my car buying road trip I know what to look for. And of course, whatever catches my eye. I'm just afraid I'm going to come home with something that's known to blow up at 50k miles or something..

[Rusty_OToole]

Hornet and Gremlin were the SAME car, the Gremlin had the back sawed off. The Hornet was a nicer, better looking car with a trunk and it only cost $40 more than a Gremlin.

 

Hornet was a good looking car to me anyway, and had the best ride of the small cars. Their six cylinder engine was extremely tough and long lived and economical on gas but not very exciting for performance.

 

One of them raced in the Indy 500 back in the day. Legendary hot rodder Barney Navarro built a turbocharged 700HP alcohol burning 199 cu in AMC  six cylinder. He was impressed by its extremely strong bottom end and figured it would stand the gaff. He used stock block, head, and rocker arms with 105PSI of boost!

 

http://justacarguy.blogspot.ca/2013/02/700-hp-199-cu-in-amc-rambler-straight-6.html

[padgett]

I remember a very pretty 66 or 67 Rambler American 2 door coupe and then there was the SC/Rambler but was not a 6...

Insurance can be strange. When I went to insure my factory V8-4spd Sunbird the only question they asked was "Is it a V6" (Buick V6 was an option to the base 4 cyl). I said "No."

One thing I remember about AMCs of the early '70s was that AC was often included for free.

ps many cars that were considered "boring" back in the day have no problem keeping up with traffic now.

[Rusty_OToole]

They never had trouble keeping up with traffic . They just wouldn't burn rubber for 200 feet. Somehow this does not seem as important now, as it did then.

[Guest Xeon]

I remember a very pretty 66 or 67 Rambler American 2 door coupe and then there was the SC/Rambler but was not a 6...

Insurance can be strange. When I went to insure my factory V8-4spd Sunbird the only question they asked was "Is it a V6" (Buick V6 was an option to the base 4 cyl). I said "No."

One thing I remember about AMCs of the early '70s was that AC was often included for free.

ps many cars that were considered "boring" back in the day have no problem keeping up with traffic now.

 

I have no idea what I'm going to do about insurance.. Hopefully when the time comes, it'll all go smooth, but chances are it won't.

 

Is the fact that they came with AC for free a good thing, or a bad thing?

 

See, I mean I really don't need anything "super fast". If I can go on the highways, pass slow people and take off from a red light at a reasonable speed, I'm happy. My father drives a 2002 s10 2.2l with around 90HP to the tires, and that's just a little slow for me. Has a hard time climbing small hills if we're hauling anything.

 

They never had trouble keeping up with traffic . They just wouldn't burn rubber for 200 feet. Somehow this does not seem as important now, as it did then.

 

Sounds good to me.

[Rusty_OToole]

For a while American Motors motto was "the only race we care about is the human race". Their cars were economical, durable, comfortable, and not bad looking. They had the first modern heating and defrosting system (1938) and were the first to offer a fully integrated  air conditioning, heating and ventilating system with all components under the hood (1954) and the first to offer air  as standard equipment (1968 Ambassador).

 

Comfortable, quiet, smooth riding economical cars were their specialty. Having the most advanced heating, air conditioning and ventilation systems was part of it.

 

Their systems were much like everyone else's and they bought pumps and components from the same suppliers everyone else did. They weren't so much "free" as included as standard equipment. Since by then most expensive cars were ordered with air, it was probably cheaper just to put it in all the cars and raise the price a couple of hundred bucks.

 

I should point out that the "free air" was only in the Ambassador, their top of the line car, that was selling against  full size cars like Ford Galaxie or  LTD, Chev Caprice or Impala , Dodge Monaco or Polara  and similar.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[cahartley]

See, I mean I really don't need anything "super fast". If I can go on the highways, pass slow people and take off from a red light at a reasonable speed, I'm happy. My father drives a 2002 s10 2.2l with around 90HP to the tires, and that's just a little slow for me. Has a hard time climbing small hills if we're hauling anything.

 

My '02 S10 has an automatic with the anemic 2.2 liter engine RATED @ 120 HP ahead of it too.

At 75 MPH it's all in.......   .......and that's with AC OFF.

At a curb weight of about 3000 pounds it's pretty doggy.

My '65 Mustang Coupe with 200 cubes in six cylinders in a car that weighs about 400 pounds less is snappy as all get out @ 120 rated HP....... 

My '59 Chevy with 235 cubes in six cylinders rated @ 135 HP ahead of a 3 speed manual in a car weighing about 3700 pounds will wipe the floor with the S10.

Horsepower, in and of itself, doesn't really mean all that much.

 

Getting back to BEST daily driver.......there isn't ONE.

I would and DO drive both of the cars mentioned above frequently and wouldn't be afraid to drive them anywhere so don't get stuck in a particular time frame.

 

That said quantum leaps in COLLISION safety are built into later cars so you might want to consider that....... 

Edited November 3, 2015 by cahartley (see edit history)

[padgett]

Forget HP it is not important except for top speed. Torque and more importantly the torque curve is what is important. That said there have been great improvements in recent years with variable valve timing.

My 59 Jag with a 3.4L/210 cid 6 had a torque peak of 240 lb-ft at 4800 rpm, rpm, '12 Jeep 3.6 260 lb-ft at 4800 rpm. Howerver the Jag was rated at 250 hp and the Jeep, 290hp the main difference being the Jeeps torque curve is almost flat (within 90% of peak) from 1800 to 6400 rpm so the area under the torque curve is far greater for the Jeep than the Jag. That area is what determines accelleration. (of course the Jeep weighs about 50% more than the Jag so hardly faster).

BTW back in the day the adage was that for the first 20 feet off the line, nothing could beat a VW. Except a man on foot.

ps speaking of flow, it is a lot easier to make a 6 breathe well than an 8. IMNSHO.

[Rusty_OToole]

Xeon you would be wise to check with your insurance co before you buy a car. My guess would be, rates should not be too bad for an older, six cylinder or small V8. Get a big V8, like over 350 cu in, or a car with a "fast name" like GTO, Road Runner, Mustang etc and rates can be much higher.

 

But, they change the rules all the time so it pays to ask.

[Guest Xeon]

Sorry I've been off for awhile. Although you guys are probably getting a little bored with me anyway haha!

 

So, I'm not going in depth about why it really matters as I think it may have fallen through, but..

 

All in all, how do you think a 1981 Trans am would fit into what I want from the thread? Any major problems for that year? Any really awesome things from that year? Just anything big as I don't even Standard/Automatic.

 

I'm going out of town, leaving tomorrow and coming back on Thursday/Friday and won't have secure internet, so I'll only be able to read replies and reply when I get back.

[padgett]

Well the turbo 301 was only available with automagic and was not a memorable motor. If you want a fast turbo TA, 89 is the only year.

Can tell an 81 TTA by the screaming chicken facing the driver's side. See the second S&B movie but they had to add nitrous for the jumps.

Or here at about 1:08.

[Guest Xeon]

Well the turbo 301 was only available with automagic and was not a memorable motor. If you want a fast turbo TA, 89 is the only year.

Can tell an 81 TTA by the screaming chicken facing the driver's side. See the second S&B movie but they had to add nitrous for the jumps.

Or here at about 1:08.

 

 

Was it a well built motor? Reliability wise?

 

Chances are, whatever it is it's going to need all new decals.

 

 

Is it an engine that will come alive with all of the "basic" engine upgrades? Cam/Carb/Exhaust/Headers/Intake etc or is it just slow?

Edited November 10, 2015 by Xeon (see edit history)

[padgett]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_301_Turbo

 

It wasn't a bad engine per se and while the turbo version had a stronger block, it was never considered a "strong" engine like the Chevrolet 302, more like the 305 except there were virtually no aftermarket parts, it was a different family from any other engine though shared some design features from the 303. Biggest limitation was releatively small valve heads. 81 Turbo is more refined than the 80 version and had a lock three speed automatic trans.

[Guest Xeon]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_301_Turbo

 

It wasn't a bad engine per se and while the turbo version had a stronger block, it was never considered a "strong" engine like the Chevrolet 302, more like the 305 except there were virtually no aftermarket parts, it was a different family from any other engine though shared some design features from the 303. Biggest limitation was releatively small valve heads. 81 Turbo is more refined than the 80 version and had a lock three speed automatic trans.

 

So overall, it wasn't a great engine for anything really.

[Rusty_OToole]

81 wasn't a good year for Detroit cars. But, it could have had a new engine by now who knows.

[padgett]

One way to think about it was that 68-72 was the first gen of smog controls that did not do much though by 72 compression ratios were dropping. 73-80 was the second gen where Detroit was still trying to update old designs. Though there were some precursors to the third gen slightly earlier and catalytic converters came in 1975 true feedback control did not arrive until 1981. So 81-92 is the third gen as everything downsized but Detroit was still resisting new technology. 93-about 03 is the next group but still dominated by iron blocks with cams in. Innovation was really comng from Europe and the Orient with OHC and VVT but Detroit was still retooling for alloy engines for everyone.

 

And now we are in the new golden age and horsepower is back, this time with MPG to go with it and boosted/Direct Injection engines are starting to appear. True we are seeing innovation in the form of electric/hybrids/diesel but our whole infrastructure is based around petrolium and it is still the densest energy medium around (a few thousand Teslas are fine but a million or two ? Ever hear of logistics ?)

 

Personally, I'm just enjoying modern times when I can have 500 albums on my telephone and there is a slot for it on all of my dashes. And no tapes to wrap around the capistan.