Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
19272 messages, Last post on Nov 11, 2009 at 7:38 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Nov 08, 2008 6:28 am) Now, is it roomy? For my needs, I'd have to say no. Front legroom is something like 41.3 inches, and rear is around 34.5". Shoulder room is about 52.7 up front, around 52 in back. Headroom is where it gets its volume from. Something like 41" up front, 39 in back. So essentially, it's sort of like a 1984 Cavalier with a VERY high roof. If you were comfortable in a 1984 Cavalier, then you'll be fine in this thing. However, that shoulder room is going to feel tight to me, most likely putting the door right up against my shoulder, and don't even get me started on the curvature of the windows, which would probably force me into a "gangsta lean" driving position. And that mimimal front legroom is probably gonna be a killer for me. As for fuel economy, I'm sure the Fit would do much better than 27/33 in the real world. I'm convinced that the numbers the EPA uses these days are way too low, and designed so that ANYBODY could beat them. Sort of a "no child left behind" of the automotive world?  I'm going to take a wild guess and say that 27/33 would roughly equate to around 31/37 using the EPA's older numbers.
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Nov 08, 2008 11:25 am) Military truck... cool!!! Nice price too!!! Only if I lived in the bush...... Carpice that seats 9 - exact same car I learned to drive on. The 3rd row rear facing seat is fun if you're a kid. Olds Cutlass coupe- I like the color of that period. Jag XJ6 - not sure abour yellow on that car. The Dual Gas Tanks feature... first time I heard of it, I always thought one of the gas caps is a dummy and for look only. 4X4 van - i ahve a Matchobx van like that but it's GM. Caddy on cider road... wow... someone has been smoking the pipe there...you can pick up average girsl in that car that look like ...cartoons and surboarders...... wow!!! I'm gonna go out and buy it now!! Panel van: very REAR find... I'm sure! Granny's comet: I like preserved originals. It's like a time capsule. Dodge Lancer Shelby: I always liked the style of those Lancers. Decent looking car for the 80s. Saab 9000: talk about depreciation. I always get shocked when I see entry level or luxury cars from the 90s selling for so cheap, because it seems that not so long ago in the early 90s when I was a youngster drooling over such cars, they were $30-$50k new. Now all they're worth is few hundred bucks for parts or scrap. It's those darn electronics in newer cars that render them inoperable and useless.
|
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Nov 08, 2008 12:03 pm) I always liked those Lancers and LeBaron GTSes too. Probably about the ultimate evolution of K-car styling. The '87 LeBaron coupe/convertible was nice too, about as sexy as a K-car could get! I hear the dual gas tanks on those Jags are a real pain. Plus, I think they're actually mounted inside the trunk, rather than underneath, which makes it even worse.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 08, 2008 12:21 pm) Dual gas tanks means more trouble Iguess: two fuel pumps, fuel lines.....
|
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Nov 08, 2008 12:51 pm) I dunno about the Jag, but I think my Silverado still just has one fuel pump, mounted up on the side of the engine. It has a switch in the cab you can use to change tanks, and I'm guessing that just operates a valve or something, that swaps between tanks. I'm sure a Jag would be more sophisticated (i.e., more expensive) though.  And now that you mention it, that is kind of a vulgar color for that Jag. Normally I find those cars sexy...almost dangerously sexy. Even though I know how troublesome they can be, they still look good enough that I forget about that sometimes! But that yellow just does nothing for me. I had an '88 LeBaron coupe for awhile. Considering the source material, it was actually a very nice car. It became a total piece of junk after around 100,000 miles, but by that time it was my ex-wife's, so it was out of my hair. It had also been stolen a few times, which probably contributed to its problems in later years. It was also a turbo, which added to the complexity. I wouldn't mind having something like a non-turbo LeBaron from that era as a beater. I wonder if I'd find the 2.5 4-cyl adequate? |
|
|
|
|
57 210 wagon 56 w/power pack 55 w/70 engine
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Nov 08, 2008 3:06 pm) I really like that '56 Chevy. You don't see the 4-door hardtops that often. Of the '55-57 generation, the '56 was always my favorite. I never liked the too-small grille of the '55, or the way its headlights jutted out. And by '57, with a new Ford out, and a radical new line of Mopars that instantly made everything else look like it was about 4 years old, the Chevy's styling was just over-the-hill by that time. They made up for it with their engines though. The 283 was a good performer. Not as durable as the bulky Plymouth 277's and 301's, but a much better revver. It was also a nice touch that Chevy would let you order dual quads or even fuel injection in anything. The only way to get a hot Plymouth was to order the Fury, with its hot 290 hp 318. The 301's were adequate, but nothing to write home about. |
|
|
Fintail coupe: owner is in way over his head $17.5k less than the one on ebay with low mielage Renault 5 This Opportunity Won't Last- no tire kickers!!! I wouldn't worry about that on your 91 Topaz! In other words it's junk..... Collector Scorpio, yeah right Mustang V8 Convertible I think it would make a fun summer project car. The car's face is coming off MB 190D "You can hear the engine running" That's good to know. I like the key words at the bottom of the ad: E55 AMG, Brabus. SL500.... Yeah like if I'm looking for a high performance Benz, I just might buy this dead Diesel from the 80s....  Decent looking LeMans Worth restoring? One Seller, 4 cars, all with crazy prices:$18k for a first gen RX-7, $15k for second gen RX-7 conv, $8500 for 78 Lincoln Mark 5, and $36k for a hot rod 67 Ford truck |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Nov 08, 2008 4:44 pm) 85 Renault R5 -- price is fair enough. You could part it out for that. They all need parts. 280 Coupe -- it's not a V8? Then nobody much cares to restore one. 85 BMW 735i -- price is fair enough, you won't lose much money. These are good cars. 88 Merkur Scorpio-- oh, isn't that the V8 car with the wheezy Buick engine? That might be worth a shot at bargain pricing. Mustang V8 -- also worth risking the benjamins. You could part it out for that. Just don't get in too deep is all.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Nov 08, 2008 4:44 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
