Where to Start? / Easiest to own?

[padgett]

I grew up in Florida, one of the last states to require anything. Remember that there were Federal and stricter California emissions (and for a while High Altitude) but the rules are different here (Florida slogan).

 

ps suspect in this context CA is California and not Canada.

 

pps Given the cars described as desired you should be able to find a nice rust free one within 100 miles of Charlotte. No need for long distance exchanges or transport expenses unless you really want to.

[mercer09]

Hey Bernie,

the 450sl's are bullet proof as long as you dont buy a rust bucket, but that goes with all older cars. The parts are cheap and the only drawback is the gas mileage..................

but I digress, as we were talking about American boats that dont generally get great gas mileage either.

[Guest]

On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 10:04 PM, padgett said:

Depends, I never liked the Dynaflow 2 speed (or the Powerglide for that matter but the Turboglide was worse) however for Olds and Pontiac, 63 was the last year for the four speed Hydramatic which was very reliable. The 64 Roto-hydramatic now the less said the better.

Just a FYI on Olds and Pontiac auto transmissions. 1956 Pontiac Chieftains and Oldsmobile 88 used the old "D" type dual range slant pan 4 speed HydraMatic. New for 1956 in Pontiac StarChief , Olds Super 88 & 98 and all Cadillac was the 4 speed Controlled Coupling HydraMatic or also called Dual Coupling HydraMatic. Cadillac called it 315 or P315 HydraMatic Olds Called it JetaWay and Pontiac called it Super HydraMatic. After 1956 all full size Pontiac's used this transmission until 1961. In 1961 Roto Hydramatic was used in all 1961-64 full size Oldsmobiles. For Pontiac from 1961-1964 the Super HydraMatic 4 speed was continued to be used in StarChief and Bonneville, while the smaller wheelbase Catalina, Ventura, and Grand Prix from 1961-1964 used the Roto HydraMatic.

There is nothing wrong with Roto HydraMatic. In operation it is a 4 range 3 speed HydraMatic and ratios are 3.50, 2,93, 1.56 and 1 to 1.

Cadillac used the 4 speed Controlled Coupling HydraMatic from 1956-1964. some Cadillac models of 64 also used T-400.

Aside from the Turbo HydraMatic all of HydraMatic's listed above have fluid couplings  ( Roto has a stator in it's coupling) and all of these HydraMatic's except T-400 have split torque which means only 40% of the engine torque is going through the coupling in high gear and the rest is in mechanical connection. They are more efficient than the T-400 or any other automatic with a non lock up converter. They are the most efficient transmissions made until lock up torque converters were use in mainstream automatic's starting in the mid to late 70's. I know Packard had a lock up in 1950's. 

[padgett]

What I remember was this giant drop in revs inna 64 GP from first to second. It was like this one leap to about 25 mph and then bog. Is even worse when 2nd becomes thoroughly ex. Did that to a C6 also but first in the 'bird could manage 45.

 

Imagine that just cruising the Roto could be smooth

 

ps you are correct in 64 the SWB Pontiacs got the Roto and the LWB cars got the Super.

 

pps if you ever see a early 60s Chevvy with Gr on the quadrant instead of L, run do not walk.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, padgett said:

What I remember was this giant drop in revs inna 64 GP from first to second. It was like this one leap to about 25 mph and then bog. Is even worse when 2nd becomes thoroughly ex. Did that to a C6 also but first in the 'bird could manage 45.

 

Imagine that just cruising the Roto could be smooth

 

ps you are correct in 64 the SWB Pontiacs got the Roto and the LWB cars got the Super.

 

pps if you ever see a early 60s Chevvy with Gr on the quadrant instead of L, run do not walk.

That drop that you refer to is the 2-3 range shift or the 1-2 gear shift. If the trans is not adjusted properly this is most noticeable. If you want me to PM you to explain how and what is going on in the trans just say so. But in short in a Roto the single fluid coupling is doing the job of both fluid couplings of the Dual coupling HydraMatic, and we know the smaller coupling in dual coupling controls the front planetary gear set. When Roto shifts from 1-to 2 or 2nd to 3rd range it's single coupling drains just like dual couplings small coupling and when it does the trans is in full mechanical connection. That means timing adjustments must be exact for smooth gear changing timed at the right speed and engine load. I have a 63 Catalina with one and it took a while to get it just right.  

[Guest]

FYI, the corporation made Pontiac take Roto. Pontiac didn't want it, but Oldsmobile didn't make enough cars to make Roto profitable so Pontiac was forced on the short wheelbase full size cars to use it.

[padgett]

Be a little difficult, it was traded for a new 66 Caprice.

[60FlatTop]

19 hours ago, mercer09 said:

Hey Bernie,

the 450sl's are bullet proof as long as you dont buy a rust bucket, but that goes with all older cars. The parts are cheap and the only drawback is the gas mileage..................

but I digress, as we were talking about American boats that dont generally get great gas mileage either.

 

I like the SEC's. The rear quarters on those cars had an unfinished look to them that I never cared for. They lacked flow in the design. When I first started driving my silver '86 Park Ave convertible around town someone asked if they saw me in a Mercedes. I was not happy.

 

If one has the discretionary money to own a $20,000 toy gas mileage shouldn't be any concern on a car driven 1500 or so miles per year. It's like the guy who asked me about the cost of my tires on another of my cars last week. I told him they cost about $900. He said "Ohhhh, I'd never pay that much." Did you see what they are attached to?      I didn't even mention the sandbasting, epoxy primer, and Imron paint that went on the wheels before I put them on.

Bernie

[John348]

1 hour ago, 60FlatTop said:

 

If one has the discretionary money to own a $20,000 toy gas mileage shouldn't be any concern on a car driven 1500 or so miles per year.

Bernie

 

I really never understood the gas mileage train of thought about a hobby vehicle from people in the hobby! I just don't get it

[D Yaros]

38 minutes ago, John348 said:

 

I really never understood the gas mileage train of thought about a hobby vehicle from people in the hobby! I just don't get it

I get it, sort of?

 

I once was driving my 1962 Olds Dynamic 88 convertible with a 394.c.i., 2 bbl carb engine from Milwaukee to Indianapolis.  I filled up at start in Milwaukee.  Got caught in Chicago grid lock.  It was more than touch & go as to whether I would run out of gas on the Dan Ryan X-way; a mere 100 miles or so down the road!  I know now to carry a container of fuel in the trunk. 

[John348]

I don't think the MPG issue is about planning a trip, but rather cost of operation

[padgett]

When I visit my friend in Boynton having a 420+ mile range is needed to avoid the high priced gas in south Florida. Other than about 10 miles at either end, that can be non-stop with a 70 mph limit. Other than the Judge which only has about a 200 mile range, any of my cars could do that tomorrow (well the GTP once I get the "Highway mode" enabled).

 

ps have a first place trophy from the National Fuel Economy Challenge. Is as much a competition as anything else. Ask any racer about the value of one less pit stop.

 

pps ALL of my cars are hobby cars, even the tow car.

[60FlatTop]

I hardly ever let my cars get below half a tank. When I stop to top then off it's usually 10 gallons. EVEN if the gas was $0.50 more a gallon that's still only 5 bucks. That stuff makes me think of the old guy opening his leather change purse and getting out a quarter tip.

 

If you are young and getting into the car hobby make it your mission to end these stereotypes. Five years ago I found a nickel and a quarter under the back seat of my convertible. I threw them on the front floor hump and leave the car unattended with the top down. It's a flagrant display of extravagance and recklessness to some.

 

Above all, this is a hobby. Buying gas for your car is like buying bullets for target shooting. You just get more bang for your buck.

Bernie

[padgett]

It's not the money, it is the competition (sometimes with yourself). Moderrn cars I try not to get under 1/4 tank so the pump stays cool.

[mercer09]

well Bernie and John,

my point on gas mileage was that it is the only drawback I see in the 450sl. Yes, 10-12 mpg sucks when you are running a small sports car that weighs in close to 4000 IBS.

They needed to put an overdrive in the SL's and Mercedes didnt. Many guys are putting them in after mkt today.

Anyway, I was trying to find something that I didnt like about the sl, and there really arent many. They are perhaps one of the best bargains out there and 20k will buy you a pristine example that will win just about every show.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, mercer09 said:

well Bernie and John,

my point on gas mileage was that it is the only drawback I see in the 450sl. Yes, 10-12 mpg sucks when you are running a small sports car that weighs in close to 4000 IBS.

They needed to put an overdrive in the SL's and Mercedes didnt. Many guys are putting them in after mkt today.

Anyway, I was trying to find something that I didnt like about the sl, and there really arent many. They are perhaps one of the best bargains out there and 20k will buy you a pristine example that will win just about every show.

Yeah, but those cars run so smooth and look so good I would overlook the 10-12mpg. I saw one yesterday at one of our local car shows and got to talking to the owner ( original owner) and he's still in love with it.  Definitely " The Cat's Whiskers" for sure!

[padgett]

This is what happens when you take something out of context. The R107 Merc was a lot of different things ranging from a 280Sl (DOHC 6) with a five speed manual (European spec) to the 450SL with a 3 speed automagic (4 speed after 1980) for the American need for bloat. MPG was not a concern.

 

Personally, I'd rather have the 6 (well I do, just a later version cobbled together from leftover R129 parts).

[John_S_in_Penna]

I notice that the conversation of the last few days

has gotten away from offering advice to Mr. Get Off My Lawn.

The other subjects would be interesting in a

separate thread, and more people might find them there!

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

I notice that the conversation of the last few days

has gotten away from offering advice to Mr. Get Off My Lawn.

The other subjects would be interesting in a

separate thread, and more people might find them there!

 

Probably because the topic ran it's course.

[Guest Soggytom]

I'm sorry, padgett, did you say Grand Am 4-door? How about with a 4-speed? Yes, it is a 1974, with a 1975 rear bumper.

[Curti]

That Pontiac is a good looking car. It has great lines.  Is there a two door version?

[victorialynn2]

This '79 Lincoln Town Car would be in your budget. I have been driving it preparing it for sale and it's like riding on a cloud. Something to consider.

 

You might also check out specific car groups in your area to see which ones are active locally. They have events that would be fun to get involved in.  Good luck on your search!

[John_S_in_Penna]

The original poster hasn't been back to this forum--

for any topic--since May 13, 2016.  He joined May 4, 2016

and participated for 9 days.

 

He probably got good advice from this topic.  If he ever

comes back, it would be interesting to learn which (if any)

antique car he's acquired.

[victorialynn2]

On 5/11/2016 at 6:29 PM, 60FlatTop said:

Since supper is still cooking I'll add an opinion. Although I have had interest in Mercedes cars, I feel uneasy to buy one. I have bought British cars with bad reputations and passed up the M-B's; not so hot on Japanese cars either. Maybe I just like cars from the side that won.

A 10 year old CLK would interest me. A 20 year old 450, and it's derivatives, is at an age where major work could be quite disheartening. A clean early 2000's CLK  might be worth the risk.

Bernie

 

Drove a '98 SLK (Hard Top Retractable) last summer a lot. I LOVE it! They are not expensive either and the fit and finish is excellent!

 

[padgett]

Quote

Drove a '98 SLK (Hard Top Retractable) last summer a lot. I LOVE it!

Am considering an '06 SLK350 (DOHC 6) myself since just came across one with a manual transmission and "more depreciated" than a Cad XLR. Downside is at a dealer and was sold in New Jersey (prefer to avoid dealers/no rust a must). If a convertible rather than a retractable is OK, the Chrysler Crossfire (I have a coupe) is a 98-02 SLK320 (even built in Germany) and a lot less expensive. Since it took a sawzall and cut off tool to cut away a (non structural) bulkhead to get the seat back where I am comfortable (recline A Lot so carry weight of back on shoulders) am hoping the 350 has more legroom.

 

ps I always thought the 73-up A-Body (Grand Am) to be better looking as a 4 door than a 2. Too much "stuff" behind the windows & roofline/trunk does not flow well for me.

Edited March 20, 2017 by padgett (see edit history)

[Curti]

In my eyes there is no four door that is better looking than a two door.  I will agree the sail panel needs to be filled.  

[alsancle]

31 minutes ago, Curti said:

In my eyes there is no four door that is better looking than a two door.  I will agree the sail panel needs to be filled.  

 

Are we talking any era?   I can list a few from the 30s that might make anybody's top 10 list. Starting with the 20 Grand. 

[Curti]

2 minutes ago, alsancle said:

 

Are we talking any era?   I can list a few from the 30s that might make anybody's top 10 list. Starting with the 20 Grand. 

OK, I'll bite.,convince me.  The came car when both body styles exist. Say for instance a 31 Model A phaeton four door or two door. 

[alsancle]

There is no 2 door version of this.  But I would say it is better looking than 95% of call cars produced in its era.

 

[Curti]

You make your point well AJ.  It would look better with black walls.