Last post on Oct 13, 2009 at 9:31 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Coupe, Convertible, Sedan
#803 of 852 Re: Well....it's [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 24, 2009 (4:42 pm)
Probably some unobtanium in there, good parts car.
#804 of 852 Re: 1983 vs 1984 Hurst Olds [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 24, 2009 (4:43 pm)
If I had one of those I would send it to that guy who does the whole Back to the Future conversion, with the flux capacitor and Mr. Fusion etc. I'd also want a better powertrain, and maybe make it sound like the BTTF car.
#805 of 852 Re: Well....it's [fintail]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Mar 24, 2009 (5:11 pm)
Well by all means strip the small bits off...
#806 of 852 Watched 'Sandlot 2' last night
Mar 24, 2009 (7:53 pm)
looked like a '72 auto 4-4-2 in it. Gold with white convertable. Brings back memories. In '78 my friend bought that exact car from his friends parents for $1100. About 120k miles on it in S. Fl. We cruised around Lake Park until he got so many tickets he had to sell it. He wanted to show me what the 455 could do once, so we started at a stop sign. He floored it. rubber all through first, all through second, and at least 50 feet of third gear as we went through the third stop sign at somewhere over 70mph in a 25 zone. We blew through 2-3 more stop signs before he got it slowed down. I would have bought it from him if I could afford the gas or the car. I had a '70 Delta 88 with a Rocket 350 at the time. There was no comparison. I did manage 20mpg on a trip to NY in the Delta 88 with the radial tires that came on it and a 2.56 rear axle ratio.
#807 of 852 Re: 1983 vs 1984 Hurst Olds [garv214]
Mar 25, 2009 (2:15 am)
Any insights on the "lightning rod" transmission 200-4R (is it durable?). I seem to recall that someone had posted that certain GM transmissions were a bit more fragile than others.
When that transmission first came out in 1981, it was troublesome. It was improved over the years, but I don't think it was until around 1984-85 that they really got it right, more or less. There was a beefed-up version of it that was used for the Grand National. I'd presume that it would've also been used in the Monte SS and the Hurst/442, but you never know, with GM!
I had an '85 LeSabre 307 and '86 Monte Carlo 305 with the 200R4 tranny. The LeSabre had 157,000 miles on it when we finally got rid of it, and the Monte had 192,000 on it when I got t-boned while delivering pizzas, and neither ever had any tranny trouble.
Now that I think about it, there was a guy at work who had one of those Hursts. AT least I think it was the Hurst and not the 442, as it had the lightning rod shifter and not the normal one. I forget how many miles he ultimately got out of it, but I know it was well over 200,000. I forget the year, but it was a grayish-silver, if that helps. It was pretty worn out when he finally got rid of it. I remember asking him if he'd ever be interested in selling it, and he told me that I wouldn't want the thing, as it was high-mileage and getting tired. Nevermind the fact I was driving a '68 Dart with over 300,000 miles on it at the time.
The 200R4 transmission was also used in full-sized station wagons and in the big RWD C-body coupes and sedans in the 80's. Many of those easily topped 4,000 lb. I wonder what would stress out a transmission more...an engine with a lot of torque, or a lot of weight to lug around?
I've also heard that the beefed-up version of the transmission was used in Impala and Caprice copcars in the 1980's, even with the 350 V-8, but I think that was actually a truck transmission, like the 700R4 or something?
#808 of 852 Re: 1983 vs 1984 Hurst Olds [plekto]
Mar 25, 2009 (4:32 am)
Your post possessed me to do an eBay search for "1981 Buick", and I found this gem.
Sounds like a great car, but the only thing I'm having trouble deciding, is whether there's only one too many zeroes to the left of the decimal point, or two!
I'd really like to see a Riv Diesel get 41 mpg, and suuuuure, the thing has anti-lock brakes.
I actually like these cars, but gimme an '84-85 model with the 307/4-speed automatic...none of this Diesel crap. And for some reason, I actually prefer the Toronado, although most people find it to be uglier.
#809 of 852 Re: 1983 vs 1984 Hurst Olds [andre1969]
Mar 25, 2009 (6:57 am)
It might even be three too many zeroes.
I noticed the "diesel" emblem is the same as used on the period Monte Carlo diesel.
#810 of 852 Re: 1983 vs 1984 Hurst Olds [andre1969]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Mar 25, 2009 (8:30 am)
81 Buick -- looks like around $700 bucks to me, on a good day, if you can pawn it off on someone. They are hard enough to sell when they are in GOOD condition, much less this.....thing. Some people are mad, totally mad.....
Book says $1200 bucks in "fair" condition....okay, I was a little off....
#811 of 852 I know I have weird tastes...
Mar 25, 2009 (8:51 am)
but I really like this old beast. Kinda makes me wish I had a spare $2695 laying around!
I really love that shade of green. The bucket seats are cool, too, but I hate when they give a car bucket seats, but then stick in a column shift! What's the point in that?! My old '69 Dart GT was like that.
Overall, it looks like it's in decent shape, just with the interior being a bit rattier than my '76. Has the rust spots in the same place as my '76, and even has a tear in the driver's seat, as does my '76!
I know I'd be better served taking that $2695 and putting it into the LeMans I already have...especially since it quit running. Or one of my other cars. But still, I feel the siren song of Nebraska calling out to me....
Oh well, it'll pass, I'm sure.
#812 of 852 Re: I know I have weird tastes... [andre1969]
Mar 25, 2009 (10:00 am)
Nice color, although I really don't care for the pinstripes or the side moldings. Are those stock?