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"
19265 messages, Last post on Nov 11, 2009 at 5:03 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
| I agree with you. the Slant 6 engine and Torqueflyte transmission were extremely solid. I just gave an example of a component that caused grief. If the cracked manifold had been identified and replaced earlier, the car would have provided years of additional service. | |
I remember some review of the Dart/Valiant, years ago, where they joked it was one of the worst cars ever made. Their reason was that the cars tended to leak water through the fresh air intake, but otherwise the cars were so durable that they'd subject their owners to the water torture long after most ordinary cars had long since been junked!  I think one reason Chrysler got their compacts pretty much right, from the get-go, is that in 1960, all of their cars went unitized, with the exception of Imperial. So they probably cross-utilized what they were learning from the bigger cars and applying it to the smaller ones. While GM and Ford were trying to get their compacts built as cheaply as possible, and they tended to be inferior to the bigger cars, in many ways the compact Valiant and Lancer (replaced by the Dart for 1963) were basically scaled down versions of the big cars. One reason the slant six might have ended up being so durable is that it was designed to be used in both small cars and big cars, plus trucks. In contrast, the little Falcon 6 and Corvair 6 were designed for small, lightweight cars, although the Falcon 6 did end up in cars as big as the late 60's Fairlane. GM followed in Chrysler's footsteps when they came out with the 194.5 CID 6-cyl for 1962. It started off as a Chevy II engine, was offered in the Chevelle when it first came out, and was durable enough to spawn 230 and 250 CID versions that moved full-sized cars and trucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 13, 2009 5:29 am) The bottom ends were very strong (I can't recall ever seeing one throw a rod) but 9 out of 10 of them were very sludged up when you took them apart. People were always amazed when the engines were rebuilt, as they were not used to a Slant Six that actually still retained all its horsepower. Most people were driving cripples without knowing it. Similar, ironically, to the Benz 300 diesel motors. The Corvair, on the other hand, was a very sophisticated and technically advanced engine, with all the ensuing problems that can bring with it. The Falcon 6 managed to be both crude AND ineffective. Congratulations. RE: SAn Francisco Automotive Attractions --- actually SF is not a car town. They can't stage successful auctions here and there are no auto museums in the city proper. Best car viewing would be Fantasy Junction in Emeryville (near Berkeley) and of course the Blackhawk Museum in Danville. If you are into American cars, a dealership in Dublin is Kassabian Motors--they have a great showroom of stuff. Fantasy Junction is more very high end foreign exotics and vintage race cars.
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Jan 12, 2009 5:57 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Jan 12, 2009 3:26 pm) Now, a full-on open racetrack? That might be a different story. Something popped up in the autoshopper that caught my eye this morning. A '74 MGBGT. Question is, for the same money, would I be better off with a Miata? My guess is yes, although I won't look nearly as cool. 
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 13, 2009 9:38 am) That MG looks very good, but I think the older ones are more highly regarded. |
|
|
Replying to: xwesx (Jan 13, 2009 9:19 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 13, 2009 9:38 am) If that B had overdrive (most do) that works and isn't rusted, it's a fun car and pretty comfy compared to an open B roadster. I notice the ad says "new carburetors". I hope they didn't put Webers on it, that would be unfortunate and troublesome.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jan 13, 2009 10:11 am) i searched and can't find any specs on the car. Weight and hp are the stats I was looking for. Would you call it more fun, less fun, or same fun compared to an '86 Alfa Spider? I showed the GT to the wife and she said "sweet looking, but it would be too slow for you." She's probably right.  Sure, I like the twisties and have fun, but I find a car that takes 9 secs or more to hit 60 gets on my nerves.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jan 13, 2009 10:32 am) It's as much fun as the Alfa, maybe a little more in that it has a torquey engine and a nice exhaust note, whereas the Alfa is pretty gutless off the line and sounds like a can full of gnats. The Alfa is much more refined though. MGs are primitive in comparison, especially in the ride. The MGBGT is a very practical car, though. That hatch opens up and you can stuff a lot in there. Fun car for weekend trips, presuming you get there of course.
|
|
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
