Ask the Car People.SM


Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"

25638 messages,  Last post on May 20, 2013 at 7:41 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Classic Cars

Messages Page 2434 of 2565

#24322 of 25638 Re: it makes no sense... [Mr_Shiftright] by andre1969

Apr 22, 2012 (7:02 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 22, 2012 6:35 pm)
I thought Ford started offering fuel injection on the 302 in 1983, but maybe that was just on cars like the Crown Vic and T-bird? I just looked at my 1985 Consumer Guide, and it's showing a Crown Vic with a TBI 302 and 140 hp, and a Mustang with a 302-4bbl carb, and 210 hp.
 
And, somewhat splitting the middle, is a Continental Mark VII LSC with a 180 hp 302 TBI. And interestingly, it's billed as just a "Continental", rather than a "Lincoln" Continental!

#24323 of 25638 Re: it makes no sense... [Mr_Shiftright] by hpmctorque

Apr 22, 2012 (9:25 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 22, 2012 6:35 pm)
Wouldn't the Grand National be considerably more expensive, and, therefore, not comparable to the SVO?
 
Don't know about the fuel injection, but '86 sounds about right.

#24324 of 25638 Re: it makes no sense... [Mr_Shiftright] by lemmer

Apr 23, 2012 (7:15 am)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 21, 2012 8:00 am)
Let's hope the SVO fan club isn't as nutty as Fiero/DeLorean/Etc. types. They might hunt you down. But I agree.

#24325 of 25638 Re: it makes no sense... [andre1969] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Apr 23, 2012 (8:46 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 22, 2012 7:02 pm)
1986 was the first year for the 5.0 HO engine to get MPFI--I think some earlier years had it in smaller engines.
 
1986 was also the end of the SVO. The SVO club is certainly welcome to love their cars, but facts are facts, and the fact is that the SVO was taken off the market because the V8 Mustangs gave you equal or better performance for a lot less money.
 
I think the Buick GN and the SVO were priced just about the same---the GN might have actually been cheaper!
 
So you see the SVO "problem"---you could buy equal or more HP, and more "car", for less money
 
DeLorean: Well what can I say? There's really nothing whatsoever exceptional about the car--it's a Volvo with funny doors and a vastly unfulfilled promise.

#24326 of 25638 Re: it makes no sense... [Mr_Shiftright] by hpmctorque

Apr 23, 2012 (9:10 am)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Apr 23, 2012 8:46 am)
Didn't realize that the GN cost the same or less than the SVO. I agree with you completely, then, that the GN is the better car.
 
That jointly developed Volvo-Peugeot-Renault V6 used in the DeLorean was known for having issues. A friend owned a Volvo with one, and it was trouble.

#24327 of 25638 1970 by duff333

Apr 23, 2012 (9:28 am)

All, good afternoon. I have a buddy who is looking at a 1971 GMC 4X4 Sierra. Nice repaint a few years back, rebuilt 350 and transmission, rebuilt transfer case (all in last year), has 65K miles on body (which is in good shape), no A/C. Truck drives and looks nice, etc...no rust isues....any rough idea as to what a nice driver truck of that vintage with 4X4 is worth these days??
 
Also, a guy at work here has a DeLorean...I wonder how much they'd be worth if Back to the Future never used that car. Maybe have??
 
Thanks

#24328 of 25638 Re: it makes no sense... [hpmctorque] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Apr 23, 2012 (9:30 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Apr 23, 2012 9:10 am)
Well aside from electrical problems, leaks, no power and a finish that makes every one you sell look exactly like every other one you sell----it's fine!
 
Hey, 130 HP, 0-60 in 11 seconds and 18 mpg---what's not to like?
 
You know, when nobody builds a car using glued-on stainless steel panels for the previous 100 years, that should tell you something.

#24329 of 25638 Re: it makes no sense... [hpmctorque] by andre1969

Apr 23, 2012 (9:57 am)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Apr 23, 2012 9:10 am)
My old car book is showing the SVO MSRP as...
 
$15,596 in 1984
$14,521 in 1985
$15,272 in 1986.
 
In comparison, for the Grand National...
 
$12,118 in 1984 (this was actually the T-type...Grand National was a package on top of that and I'm not sure how much extra it was)
$13,315 in 1985
$14,349 in 1986
$15,136 in 1987
 
My old car book also mentions that the V-8 Mustang GT was faster than the SVO in any given year, and a lot less fussy to drive.
 
As for pricing, I wonder if the SVO came pretty-much fully-loaded, with power windows and all the niceties? The Buick Grand National was actually pretty basic. You still had to pay extra for power windows, locks, upgraded stereo, T-tops, etc. Air conditioning might have been standard, but I'm not sure. It was still optional in the regular Regal Custom/Limited.
 
For some reason, when Pontiac came out with that lame Grand Prix 2+2 aeroback for 1986-87, it came fully loaded, and as a result, cost more than a Grand National, Monte SS, or Cutlass 4-4-2. But, whereas the Monte used a 180 hp 305, the 4-4-2 had a 180 hp 307, and the Grand National/T-type had a turbo 3.8 putting out 200+ hp, the GP 2+2 just used a tame 150 hp 305-4bbl. The same engine that would have gone into a regular Monte Carlo, Bonneville G, or Grand Prix. And the 305 that went in the Impala/Caprice and Parisienne was actually stronger, with 165 hp.

#24330 of 25638 Re: it makes no sense... [andre1969] by gsemike

Apr 23, 2012 (11:12 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 23, 2012 9:57 am)
The SVO is an interesting car because a number of the styling cues became standard for all Mustangs in 87 such as the front treatment and spoiler. But whether the miles are legit or missing a 1 at the front, that one is rough for the money. The headlights are completely yellow, the color is faded out from the spoiler and why shoot the backseat instead of the front? The car could have 218k with the backseat having been say in 3 times.
It was an interesting idea that wasn't very well executed and got buried by it's GT brethren.
Even in today's dollar, find a turbo regal T Type for the same dough. They seem to command less than GNs but are I believe, mechanically identical.

#24331 of 25638 and another thing by gsemike

Apr 23, 2012 (11:24 am)

I changed the air filter on my wife's 04 Sienna over the weekend. Do they make it a b**** to change these things on purpose???? What exactly was wrong with one wing nut?

Messages Page 2434 of 2565

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement