Last post on Dec 08, 2013 at 4:50 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
#28800 of 30859 Re: Maverick [ab348]
Mar 23, 2013 (11:13 am)
Interesting. None of what you said surprises me. With the benefit of hindsight the best approach to car ownership from, say '72-'74, would have been to buy the best low mileage pre-'72 that one could find. Allowing for exceptions, and depending on make and model, cars slowly improved from '75 on.
#28801 of 30859 Re: diesel [tjc78]
Mar 23, 2013 (12:02 pm)
not likely a rack, since it is an old guy (even compared to me) and he has a ball on the hitch. So must tow some kind of trailer.
Mar 23, 2013 (12:03 pm)
hit 50 and sunny today, so a few old cars out. Saw a really nice looking (must be fresh red paint) GTO or Lemans convertible (69 or 70 I would say), and a same vintage Malibu 2 door.
#28803 of 30859 Re: diesel [stickguy]
Mar 23, 2013 (5:35 pm)
Diesels have loads of torque so even a small displacement four cylinder will have much more towing capacity than if it was gas-powered. The old guy probably has a canoe or rowboat.
#28804 of 30859 Re: Maverick [ab348]
Mar 24, 2013 (6:01 am)
My perception could be wrong, but it seems to me that GM's 250-6 and AMC's 232/258-6 cyl engines did fairly well in the 1970's, with regards to emissions controls, whereas the Mopar slant six and Ford's 250 had more issues.
In the case of the slant six, it tended to run cool, so making it conform to emissions standards, which made it run hotter, caused problems with it. The slant six also had a long stroke, which made it naturally torquey, but not a good revver. I wonder if that might have caused problems with conforming to emissions as well?
I don't know what the issue was with Ford's 250, but once they started using net figured for horsepower, it never had more than 98. In 1975, my old car book actually lists it at 72 hp! I've wondered if that was a misprint though. Most years, it was usually at least 90.
The Chevy 250 was usually good for 105-110 hp I think, although it might have been choked down to 100 once or twice. The 250 was usually good for around 110 hp, but in one year, 1976, it only had 98 hp in the Matador, yet 120 in the Pacer. Again, that could be a misprint.
The Mopar slant six started the 70's with 110 hp (145 gross), but in 1972, there was a California version that was choked to 100. A few years later, I think they were all down to around 95, but then they recovered a bit, to 100. In 1977, they even had a 2-bbl version that put out 110 hp. But, by 1980, the 2-bbl went away, and the 1-bbl was down to a measly 85.
#28805 of 30859 Re: Maverick [andre1969]
Mar 24, 2013 (6:36 am)
well, back in my HS/College days, I had the pleasure of owning 2 different 6 cyl AMCs (don't remember if 3.8 or 4.2, and back then they did badge the Gremlin in liters. I think mine was a 3.8). I also owned a Duster slant 6. The AMCs were a Gremlin and a Hornet. And for good measure, a '67 Camaro straight 6.
the 70s models from what I remember were fine. Solid, started and ran no problem, didn't have any notable drive-ability issues that I remember.
I think the real problem with the slant 6 was later in the 70s, when you got into the Aspen/Volare days. Which I assumed meant lean burn? A HS friend used their family Aspen wagon. What a dog. Ran like crap, and had a tendency to stall every time you made a left turn. That was fun!
#28806 of 30859 Re: Maverick [Mr_Shiftright]
Mar 24, 2013 (6:43 am)
This one was sold as the Standard Gazelle, I think, and wasn't sold in Europe - the Triumph Herald wasn't made as a 4-door car over here.
#28807 of 30859 Re: Maverick [andre1969]
Mar 24, 2013 (6:45 am)
andre, we had a '67 Chevelle with 250/155 gross hp, and a '73 Nova with the 250 with 100 net hp. My sister had a '73 Chevelle Deluxe wagon with the 100 hp 250!
Both 1973 250's in our family were just awful about driveability--absolutely impossible to not stall at least once, if not twice, maybe thrice, in the morning while attempting to back out of the driveway. The wagon had a tendency to diesel when shutting it off, too. The Nova was a stick and the Chevelle wagon, a Turbo-Hydramatic.
Our '74 Impala 350, bought new, was much, much, much better in this regard. It was purchased in Aug. '74 after our Nova was involved in a pretty major accident. The '75's were trickling in already but Dad wasn't interested in paying for unleaded gas!
#28808 of 30859 Re: Maverick [uplanderguy]
Mar 24, 2013 (7:20 am)
The only car from the malaise era that I really remember being a problem, when it came to warming up, was my Mom's 1980 Malibu. However, in those days, when it was cold we tended to let the cars warm up for as much as 4-5 minutes, which was probably not good, in and of itself. Still, I remember you could let that thing warm up, and then, pulling out of the driveway, it would still stall out.
It would diesel on after you turned it off on occasion, as well. Usually during hot weather.
My '82 Cutlass Supreme could be a bit finicky in cold weather as well, but I give it a bit of a pass because it was 11 years old when I got it. I remember the Malibu being bad even when it was fairly new!
I remember my '69 Dart GT, which had a 225 slant six, didn't like cool, damp weather. If it was downright cold, below freezing, it seemed fine. And in more temperate weather it was fine as well. But, a cool, drizzly morning with temps in the 40's and it was miserable.
My '79 5th Ave also gets a bit cranky in cold weather. It'll start up just fine, and fast idle works great. But, once it's been running for a few minutes and has kicked down to normal idle, it'll sometimes stall at traffic lights, sudden stops, etc.
Mar 24, 2013 (7:42 am)
I've only seen one 4-door Triumph Herald in my life and it was right hand drive, so it could have come from India or some other "colony".