"Best" daily driver?

[Guest Jeff k]

My 1983 Olds 98 was the best car I ever owned....

[padgett]

So since my 2007 Crossie is really a 2001 SLK320 it's perfect.

This should be a CL primer.

[Rusty_OToole]

I watched 3 of your Mercedes guys videos and it was all I could stand. Man o man can he waste time bloviating over nothing. He may know what he is talking about, he doesn't really say one way or the other,  but it takes forever to say the simplest thing. 45 minutes of videos could be put into less than 5.

[Guest Xeon]

Well, thanks for the info guys!

 

The reason I asked about that 81 trans am is because my neighbor may(The chances have gone down to near nothing that's why I'm telling) be actually giving me one. For nothing.

[Rusty_OToole]

The price is right. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth they say. If you can get it, bring it home and figure out what it needs to go on the road safely. If it is too much you can get rid of it, otherwise you have some time to work on it before you need a car.

[Guest Xeon]

I don't know what I'm going to do..

 

I've just been looking more and more at safety, reliability and practicality and the old cars I want just don't have any of it.. I don't know what I'm going to get..

 

Cause for like <5k I could get an MX-5 with low miles in good condition where safety, reliability and practicality are all present. For a small convertible I hear they're pretty safe.

 

 

I would just rather something old by a longshot.

 

 

...

[padgett]

Nothing wrong with a Miata, they can be very reliable fun cars with a loyal following. Mazda stepped into the gap when english sports cars departed and American convertibles were very rare. I considered a '90 at one point until I realized I cared more about the AC than the top going down.

Part of the question we have not asked is "what kid of driving do you expect to do ?" One of my requirements is to be able to point south from Orlando, punch the cruise at 70ish, and relax for a few hours. Except for the Judge (kinda thirsty for 93+) any of my cars can do this and go there and back on a tank (380-420 miles depending on putzing done) - gas is usually 10% cheaper here & am scots.

Really the only rule is that there are no rules (am considering a S2000. Like the 9,000 rpm redline but do not care for the dash.) Once you get past basic transportation, it is all individual preferance. That's what makes this a hobby.

[DAVES89]

If you are now looking at a Miata go take a look at a Reatta. Still have some styling, modern convienances, cheap on gas and a very dependable drive train.

 On top of it they are still pretty inexpensive and they have an excellant support forum.

[padgett]

Might be hard to find in Brazil, they were a hard sell in this country. Are two in my .sig. Were milllions of 3800/4T60s made. Didn't mention because was trying to stay unbiased & all of the electronics can be daunting. One of a very few computer cars to have full diagnostics built into the dash. 1991 is probably the easiest to maintain & 89-90 the most common..

[Guest GT52]

I don't know what I'm going to do..

 

I've just been looking more and more at safety, reliability and practicality and the old cars I want just don't have any of it.. I don't know what I'm going to get..

 

Cause for like <5k I could get an MX-5 with low miles in good condition where safety, reliability and practicality are all present. For a small convertible I hear they're pretty safe.

 

 

I would just rather something old by a longshot.

 

 

...

I don't know how "safe" I'd consider a Miata, for a young driver.  Yes, it has all the modern components and has passed the govt's fixed barrier tests, but one has to consider that in the real world mass and size count for something, if not everything.  The 4WD trucks around where I live would mostly drive up and over a Miata, taking the Miata driver's head with them.

 

For "like <5K", you're in the neighborhood of the early 5.0 Mustangs...search ebay for "solds" for any of the early 80s years and you'll see you have quite a choice.  Like this:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Mustang-GT-/171938439215?forcerrptr=true&hash=item280854602f:g:W8oAAOSwv0tVY2df&item=171938439215

 

If you find a car, any car, that has been sitting a long time and needs considerable work, even if you get it for free it will cost you more than something like the Mustang. 

[Guest Xeon]

Nothing wrong with a Miata, they can be very reliable fun cars with a loyal following. Mazda stepped into the gap when english sports cars departed and American convertibles were very rare. I considered a '90 at one point until I realized I cared more about the AC than the top going down.

Part of the question we have not asked is "what kid of driving do you expect to do ?" One of my requirements is to be able to point south from Orlando, punch the cruise at 70ish, and relax for a few hours. Except for the Judge (kinda thirsty for 93+) any of my cars can do this and go there and back on a tank (380-420 miles depending on putzing done) - gas is usually 10% cheaper here & am scots.

Really the only rule is that there are no rules (am considering a S2000. Like the 9,000 rpm redline but do not care for the dash.) Once you get past basic transportation, it is all individual preferance. That's what makes this a hobby.

 

Yeah, except for only seating two which could be a problem they look almost perfect.

 

See, I don't have an answer to that. I really have no idea what kind of driving I'm going to be doing.

 

That's the other one, an S2000!

 

If you are now looking at a Miata go take a look at a Reatta. Still have some styling, modern convienances, cheap on gas and a very dependable drive train.

 On top of it they are still pretty inexpensive and they have an excellant support forum.

 

Yeah, I actually was kinda interested in them. They actually seem pretty cheap for what they are, but they seem to be pretty hard to find around here. And probably even harder to get parts for.

 

Saw a convertible a few days ago. Not for sale though..

 

I don't know how "safe" I'd consider a Miata, for a young driver.  Yes, it has all the modern components and has passed the govt's fixed barrier tests, but one has to consider that in the real world mass and size count for something, if not everything.  The 4WD trucks around where I live would mostly drive up and over a Miata, taking the Miata driver's head with them.

 

For "like <5K", you're in the neighborhood of the early 5.0 Mustangs...search ebay for "solds" for any of the early 80s years and you'll see you have quite a choice.  Like this:  http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-Mustang-GT-/171938439215?forcerrptr=true&hash=item280854602f:g:W8oAAOSwv0tVY2df&item=171938439215

 

If you find a car, any car, that has been sitting a long time and needs considerable work, even if you get it for free it will cost you more than something like the Mustang. 

 

True, but overall I'd still think they'd be safer than most of the older cars in the more common accidents just due to having the modern safety features like airbags.

 

That was my first recommendation, I just can't stand how they look.

 

 

 

I'm still figuring stuff out.

[Guest bkazmer]

a Miata and  Reatta may both be 2 seaters that end in "ata", but they drive completely differently. 

[Guest Xeon]

a Miata and  Reatta may both be 2 seaters that end in "ata", but they drive completely differently. 

 

I think more what he meant was the obvious things. Gas, safe enough, two seater, dependable, sporty etc which is kind of what I'm looking for.  Although I bet a lot of things fall into that catagory.

 

I've been looking at the Reattas, and all the electronics they have inside are awesome! It seems like everything is electronic in that car! Although doesn't that mean just more stuff that can, and will, fail? They're also insanely cheap. There's one on CL here for 2500 that looks like it has an amazing interior and only somewhat faded paint. With only 90-ish k miles!

[padgett]

Now that the subject is broached, for me the Reatta is an ideal daily driver. Went for a year when the blue coupe was my only car. Also is a strong forum here and several parts suppliers. 90s were the first to have a driver airbag but with the long nose an accident is going on way out there and not back at the seat.

 

Parts: some of the electronic modules have to come from one of the vendors but they are very reliable and there is a ton of DIY information on the GM P4 computer system. The Reatta is also one of the few cars that has full diagnostics and error detection built in. Just press off, warm, and wiggle your ears at the same time and it will tell you eveything a Tech-1 can.

 

Finally the whole 3800/440T4/4T60/4T60E/4T65E (were more changes to the trans than the engine) drivetrain was used in almost everything GM from the late 80s to the 00's (with updates). Some have even transplanted the legendary L-67 supercharged engine and a Getrag manual transmission, it all fits just is a different crowd from the SBC in everything guys.

 

Need a tune, try GMTuners.. Just an easily replacable PROM.

 

As to room, I have put a 32" TV in the box behind the seats and then there is a full trunk. Even know of some who have properly mounted a child seat in the back or a luggage rack on the trunk lid. Convertible has less (I have both).

 

And repairs ? GM is being obstinate but suspect you can find service manuals and parts books plus a wealth of tutorials all online (GM recinded permission recently to post their scanned manuals but on the Internet everything is forever).

</fanaticism>

[Guest Xeon]

Now that the subject is broached, for me the Reatta is an ideal daily driver. Went for a year when the blue coupe was my only car. Also is a strong forum here and several parts suppliers. 90s were the first to have a driver airbag but with the long nose an accident is going on way out there and not back at the seat.

 

Parts: some of the electronic modules have to come from one of the vendors but they are very reliable and there is a ton of DIY information on the GM P4 computer system. The Reatta is also one of the few cars that has full diagnostics and error detection built in. Just press off, warm, and wiggle your ears at the same time and it will tell you eveything a Tech-1 can.

 

Finally the whole 3800/440T4/4T60/4T60E/4T65E (were more changes to the trans than the engine) drivetrain was used in almost everything GM from the late 80s to the 00's (with updates). Some have even transplanted the legendary L-67 supercharged engine and a Getrag manual transmission, it all fits just is a different crowd from the SBC in everything guys.

 

Need a tune, try GMTuners.. Just an easily replacable PROM.

 

As to room, I have put a 32" TV in the box behind the seats and then there is a full trunk. Even know of some who have properly mounted a child seat in the back or a luggage rack on the trunk lid. Convertible has less (I have both).

 

And repairs ? GM is being obstinate but suspect you can find service manuals and parts books plus a wealth of tutorials all online (GM recinded permission recently to post their scanned manuals but on the Internet everything is forever).

</fanaticism>

 

Wow.

 

Now, all in all are they as rare as Wikipedia says they are? Are they something that I should feel bad running day after day mile after mile until then engine just wears out? And before someone just goes with the "He's 16 so the engine will probably die at less than 100k miles because he'll never do maintenance" or something, don't. I will.

 

Reliability wise, if well maintained can they last a while? Like 200k miles isn't uncommon or..

 

I don't mean to sound stupid but, when you said millions of the 3800/4T60s were made, is that the engine or..

 

 

Unrelated: For oil in anything, can and should it be converted to synthetic if it's not already? I've just always wondered this.

 

 

And lastly, I'm not buying anything for awhile as everyone knows, but if I were is this about normal for this condition? https://montgomery.craigslist.org/cto/5295294932.html

[jeff_a]

Since you're looking at everything, might as well look into mid-engined cars, too: Fiat X1/9, Toyota MR2 and Pontiac Fiero.

[Guest Xeon]

Since you're looking at everything, might as well look into mid-engined cars, too: Fiat X1/9, Toyota MR2 and Pontiac Fiero.

 

I am, but even though it's gone to mostly 2 seaters I'd rather a 4/5 seater by far.

[jeff_a]

The three I mentioned are cars I've never driven, but have fantastic looks. Not vintage cars, but still in the depreciating-still-a-used-car price curve. Even the Fiat was only sold here 1974-1990 (just old enough to technically be called an antique), with the others a little newer (introduced in 1984). Room and cargo capacity in these cars isn't good. One review of an MR2 said you can lose control if you have to brake while turning. Another called his fun to drive but a flying deathtrap (he spun out in front of a semi and was only saved when another car rammed him and sent him over a guardrail). The good news is that all of these have 4-cylinders (O.K., there was a V-6 available on the Pontiac), are not ridiculously expensive, and won't freak out your insurance agent.

 

You get into a contradiction when you want both a collectible car and a car for everyday use. The only cars I had during my 5 1/2 years of college were a 1962 Nash Metropolitan and a 1930 Model A Ford, and they were only marginally useful. I rode a bike most of the time. The truth is, you probably could not find a better vehicle than a 1990's Toyota Tacoma for a college car. Just my opinions -- you might actually settle on something that's great.

[padgett]

I've had a number of Fieros (one 4 cyl, two V6) and bought the blue Reatta in 2001 as a daily driver and to have something with more space (and was fascinated by the 6.5" touchscreen in the dash). Is one of the few 88s to have a Sunroof (late option). Only real changes are an AGM battery, R134 conversion, air horns, 16x7 wheels, and a call phone mount for HFP, GPS, and 300+ albums with much better sound than from satellite.

 

Were about 20k made in four model years but only 88-89 had the touchscream.

 

[Guest Xeon]

Well, back to the 81 Trans am for a second.

 

If I were to get one, now even if I buy one when I go out looking, is the 301 so slow as to take the fun out of driving or just slower than the trans am should be?

 

 

I've just been doing my research and it just seems like a not very well liked engine. Not very strong, even the turbo, slow as dirt(But people do exaggerate alot) and near no aftermarket parts due to it being different from any of the other Pontiacs.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Xeon (see edit history)

[padgett]

Well if you watch the second Smokey and the Bandit be aware that it took a bunch of nitrous to make the jumps.

 

Just seemed underpowered in a 3800 lb car back then but the modern generation has no concept of what a real muscle car is like. Back in the day my Ram III Judge was not consided very fast. (but could not get a IV with AC)

 

Guess I am a bit odd for rembering which way the screaming chicken is supposed to face.

 

Just be aware "condition is everything".

[Guest mia johnson]

hi,

i daily drive my car audi r8 is good for drive i am happy for buy it

[Guest Xeon]

hi,

i daily drive my car audi r8 is good for drive i am happy for buy it

 

Uhh.. Cool..?

 

Haha.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Xeon (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

A 301 would be a small V8 which is a good compromise for power and mileage. Not a slow car, just slow by the standards of 455 cu in Trans Ams.

 

I am not familiar with the model, maybe the Pontiac fans will chime in. I believe the 301 was considered a low point for power and quality. Or maybe it needs a few simple improvements.

[padgett]

Nothing really wrong with it just was something of a unique design so few aftermarket parts. Small valve heads, and basically a cam-in-block iron engine with a lighter than normal crank. Turbo was stronger but again dissapeared after '81. Would last a long time if not stressed.

 

So the best one was the turbo used in the 1981 Trans/Am but it is not easy to find repair parts. Usually is something goes, a more common engine is swapped in.

[Guest Xeon]

Nothing really wrong with it just was something of a unique design so few aftermarket parts. Small valve heads, and basically a cam-in-block iron engine with a lighter than normal crank. Turbo was stronger but again dissapeared after '81. Would last a long time if not stressed.

 

So the best one was the turbo used in the 1981 Trans/Am but it is not easy to find repair parts. Usually is something goes, a more common engine is swapped in.

 

Yeah, I heard the non turbo is pretty weak but the turbo was quite a bit stronger.

 

So, say I was to get one, would it be best to run it till it dies and then swap for a Pontiac 350 or something? I'd think a Pontiac engine would definitely be the best choice over like a chevy 350.

[Guest jemkerry]

My car has no comparision with performance and speed.!

[Rusty_OToole]

Xeon if you get the 81 for nothing or for a small price go ahead and fix it up and drive it if it is half way decent. If the engine goes try a Chev 350/350 or a Pontiac engine if you can get one reasonable. The TA is a close relative of the Camaro and the Chev engine bolts in if you  have the right parts.

 

The 301 should have enough power to do anything you want and not kill you on gas expense or insurance. You were talking about six cylinder cars a while ago and the TA is faster than they are.

[padgett]

Sounds like a good plan for the 81 but frankly the Pontiac 350 was kind of a boat anchor. Was a 350HO but those are even harder to find than 301s. Personally I'd look for an alloy engine with DOHC and around 300hp @ 6400 rpm. Oh...that's my tow car..

[Guest Xeon]

What happened to a Chevy engine in a Pontiac being wrong? Otherwise I'd be more interested in a Chevy engine as you can get what look like good ones for dirt cheap. Although I do like the idea of keeping it Pontiac.

 

 

I've heard that they're able to get up to 400ish HP with the right stuff without going real expensive. Headers, cam, carb, exhaust, intake. 400HP sounds like alot to me. Or was that exaggerating?

 

 

 

Of course all of the depends on if I even get one..

[padgett]

All true but a SBC is heavier than a 301 (one of the selling points) so a transplant needs to either include appropriate front springs or the SBC needs to be lightened (headers, aluminum intake and heads,...) The car is a system of many interacting components.

 

I just personally consider an iron cam-in-block engine with two valve heads and a single carb to be archaic. Aluminum heads and dual quads is better, all aluminum (think '69 ZL1) more so.

 

For the "stock is stock" folks, what about a 69 Camaro built to Vince Piggins "Green Sheets"  (later the Chevvy Power book but this was earlier) specs. With all GM parts numbers.

 

Xeon: I know this is far out but even back in the day, little was really "stock".

 

ps in late '69 the ZL1 was a $3500 option for a Camaro. Doesn't sound like much today but was more than the base price of the car.

[Guest Xeon]

All true but a SBC is heavier than a 301 (one of the selling points) so a transplant needs to either include appropriate front springs or the SBC needs to be lightened (headers, aluminum intake and heads,...) The car is a system of many interacting components.

 

I just personally consider an iron cam-in-block engine with two valve heads and a single carb to be archaic. Aluminum heads and dual quads is better, all aluminum (think '69 ZL1) more so.

 

For the "stock is stock" folks, what about a 69 Camaro built to Vince Piggins "Green Sheets"  (later the Chevvy Power book but this was earlier) specs. With all GM parts numbers.

 

Xeon: I know this is far out but even back in the day, little was really "stock".

 

See, that's just it, I was hoping it wasn't "wrong" to do something like that. I know I sound stupid but it's true, I've been on other forums asking about other stuff and it's so "wrong" they'll just ask me to get out. I was thinking here especially as it seems like it's mostly vintage cars, but I had to try because the community is so good.

[Rusty_OToole]

The hell with them if they can't take a joke. I'm as much for stock as the next guy but Chev V8s in Pontiacs IS stock. GM even got in trouble for using 'corporate' V8s about that time, meaning they shoved whatever was handy under the hood and sold Pontiacs with Chev and Olds engines, Buicks with Pontiac and Olds engines, Olds with Buick and Chev engine etc. They even raced a Pontiac in the Trans Am series that had a Chev 302 in it, claiming it was kosher because Canadian Pontiacs had Chev engines. Overlooking the point that Firebirds weren't built in Canada and none ever came with a 302.

[cahartley]

Do you want a car to get around in or set speed records?

A straight 6 will get you anywhere you want to go.......anywhere........but this is about YOUR car.

[padgett]

True but sixes tended to be uninspiring and installed in cars that were similar. There were some bright spots (Twin H Hudson, HiPo Slant Six in a Valliant, Sprint 6 in a Firebird) but all had two things in common:

1) not many made

2) had either multiple or four barrel carburettors,

 

Even when living in Michigan/Indiana (alternated) I always looked for cars with AC because they had better heaters (and a few other things) - except when building a race car, then it was just an extra 100 lbs.

 

For a while in Texas I had a beater 68 Firebird that had maybe one option - AM radio. OHC six with a three speed on the floor and a one barrel carb. Looked like someone had laid it on its side and used for batting practise (Texas has interesting hail storms). Think I paid $150 for it but added some tires and a major maintenance and was great transportation. Didn't even bother to switch to a Saginaw 4-speed even though had several & a bolt in (think if I ever needed to do a clutch job, I'd switch but didn't), three speed was fine.

 

So in a light car, a six is OK. Keep in mind that a modern 6 particularly an alloy engine with DOHC and FI is a whole different ball game from the American "loss leaders" of the 60s.

 

Back in the day, GM/Ford/Chrysler all had "loss leaders", specially low priced cars they could advertise but did not really want to sell. Purpose was to get people in the showroom to sell them upscale models. Most extreme example I know of was in the mid-sixties Pontiacs loss leaders had a Ford transmission because GM didn't have a three speed compatible with a Pontiac V8. They really did not want to sell any of those because they were losing money on them.

[cahartley]

My '59 Chevy weighs 3700 pounds........hardly a light car.

My first one had a 235 6 and this one does too.

I've never owned an 8 in my life and ever will.

As long as I can go 70 mph all day long I don't want or need anything more.

Chevy's Stovebolt Sixes and Chrysler's Slant 6's are some of the toughest engines ever built as far as I'm concerned........I've owned/own both.

Plus you can work on them without tearing half the front end off the car....... 

[Guest Xeon]

I am literally so excited right now.

 

We're going to look at the trans am tomorrow morning!!!! I thought my chances of getting it were gone!!!

 

 

One huge problem is that it may be a 1982, rather than an 81. A week or two ago he said that before he gave it to his brother 5 yrs ago he had just put the new giant eagle decal on the front, but just today he was like "Yeah, it's 1981, the one with the flip up headlights." So I guess we'll see tomorrow!!!! Can't wait!!

[padgett]

Actually the '82 was the first "gen 3" and was both lighter and more aerodynanic than the Gen 2 (e.g. 70-81). Most likely a SBC 305 V8 which is a 350 with a smaller bore. My 78 Sunbird had a 305 V8 and has a lot more potential than the 301. That series was the basis for the KITT car.

[Guest Xeon]

Actually the '82 was the first "gen 3" and was both lighter and more aerodynanic than the Gen 2 (e.g. 70-81). Most likely a SBC 305 V8 which is a 350 with a smaller bore. My 78 Sunbird had a 305 V8 and has a lot more potential than the 301. That series was the basis for the KITT car.

 

Well, yeah I probably shouldn't have called it a problem. I've done my research and it's definitely a good engine for what it is.

 

I've heard the 82 had world class aerodynamics for the time. I don't like the look of it as much as the 2nd gen but it's by no means "ugly" to me.

 

I've heard about something called "Crossfire Injection" and that it's a big problem if it has it, do you know much about that?

Edited November 26, 2015 by Xeon (see edit history)

[LAS VEGAS DAVE]

VOLKSWAGON, one of the all time great cars.