Last post on Dec 07, 2013 at 8:26 AM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
#24872 of 26450 Re: Has Andre written all over it. [toomanyfumes]
Dec 27, 2012 (5:53 am)
I wonder if Pontiac was doing anything special to the 455 that went into the Trans Am by 1976, versus the one that went into regular cars like the full-size and intermediates? I think they're all rated at 200 hp, but I guess they could have still done something different with the camshaft, carb, or whatever, to give you a broader hp/torque curve, but still end up with the same peak hp?
Still, with a 4-speed, and in a car that wasn't especially heavy for the time, it must have been a fun ride!
In 1977, Pontiac offered two versions of the 400. There was a 180 hp version that was used in the mid- and full-sized cars, and a 200 hp version that was used in the Firebird/Trans Am and the "1977.5" Can Am. Or, if you were in CA or a high-altitude area, they'd substitute in a 185 hp Olds 403.
#24873 of 26450 Re: Has Andre written all over it. [andre1969]
Dec 27, 2012 (8:34 am)
I think it was a standard 455, I remember it had about 200 hp, and miles of vacuum hoses under the hood. When I bought it, they were all rotted, and I had a hell of a time figuring out where they all went with the vague diagram in the shop manual.
I was nervous when I took it for inspection, because I wasn't sure I had them in the right places, but the guy at the DMV had the same diagram I used, stared at the spaghetti pile of hoses for about 30 seconds, and said "looks good."
It was a fun car, though, good torque and would do a good smoky doughnut in a parking lot. (I bought it when I was 18 or 19.)
Dec 30, 2012 (5:10 pm)
First sunny Sunday here in 5 weeks, I got to take my old project car out for a spin. I was a little concerned about starting, as the battery is ~6 years old, and the weather is cold - but the car fired up on the first turn of the key as usual. Running pretty OK, an occasional miss here and there - eventually some adjustments will be needed. Not looking too bad:
Most interesting thing in the lot by far:
#24875 of 26450 Re: . [fintail]
Dec 31, 2012 (12:39 am)
"The weather was cold." You crack me up sometimes, fintail!
#24876 of 26450 Re: . [xwesx]
Dec 31, 2012 (10:40 am)
There's been some frost the past couple mornings - that counts as cold for here!
#24877 of 26450 Re: . [fintail]
Dec 31, 2012 (12:08 pm)
Car shows nice. Perfect condition IMO. Nice enough to drive and park at a show, but not a trailer queen you are afraid to breathe on.
I have serious old car withdrawl. I want an older barge, but I shouldn't right now.
#24878 of 26450 Re: . [tjc78]
Dec 31, 2012 (12:35 pm)
Thanks. It's a good 10 footer - not embarrassing to be seen in, but not exactly a trophy winner. I can drive it hard and not worry.
You should buy that 61 Caddy!
#24879 of 26450 One that was over-"projected"
Dec 31, 2012 (10:37 pm)
There is a 1971 Volvo 1800E in Hemmings Motor News this month. The seller apparently had a $103,000 rotisserie restoration performed. Now he is selling it. He doesn't mention how much he is asking, but I've got to believe that boy is about to get a hard lesson in return on investment.
#24880 of 26450 Re: One that was over-"projected" [bhill2]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Jan 01, 2013 (9:29 am)
He's asking $121,000 for it, which is about $100,000 too much, sad to say.
#24881 of 26450 Re: One that was over-"projected" [Mr_Shiftright]
Jan 01, 2013 (4:23 pm)
He's asking $121,000 for it
Well, he said that he has $121,000 into it. I'm tentatively giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't expect all of that back. But I bet he's not expecting to lose $100K, which as you indicated is about what he will have to accept if he sells it. I foresee him owning that car for a l-o-o-o-ong time.