|
 http://orlando.craigslist.org/cto/4482364495.html I don't know much about cars but that is deeply appealing. sleepy.eyes fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 23, 2014 |
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
I'm getting some pics sent over but a friend of a friend wants to sell me a rebuilt '88 MR2:quote:I bought this 1988 White Toyota MR2 a few years ago from REDACTED. The car had a blown motor (NA) and was sitting in his garage. It had 102k miles on it and had a blue interior. I also bought a 1989 MR2 SC that had front damage from Copart and I had the mechanic swap the Supercharge motor from the red one to the white one along with the black interior, rear spoiler (SC one has red led brake light), and rear engine lid (SC one has an opening for the intercooler). Since the Supercharge one has a different gauge cluster, I used the one from the red one as well so it has higher mileage shown. The SC engine has been fully rebuild by Su at Aggressive Performance (a well know MR2 mechanic) with new Pistons, Cams, Valves, etc. The new Pistons are slightly bigger than the stock one. It has the following upgrades: I've never bought an older car (or owned two cars for that matter) so I need internet advice: does 9k for this sound fair? EDIT: the HIDs bum me out thechalkoutline fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
thechalkoutline posted:I'm getting some pics sent over but a friend of a friend wants to sell me a rebuilt '88 MR2: 9k? 2/3 of that at BEST in perfect condition. Seems way overpriced.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
thechalkoutline posted:does 9k for this sound fair? If you were selling it, $9k would be an awesome price! As a buyer no, no no no.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Ah alright, thanks for saving me the time guys. I've just wanted an 80s MR2 since I was a kid and got excited.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Here are some pics   
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I'd probably go $5-5.5k on it just because it looks to be in great shape and they're fun cars from all accounts (I'd never fit in one), but it's still an 80s car even if it's a cool 80s car
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:I'd probably go $5-5.5k on it just because it looks to be in great shape and they're fun cars from all accounts (I'd never fit in one), but it's still an 80s car even if it's a cool 80s car Yea, $5k max. It looks to be in good shape, but the motor is stock and prolly getting a little worn out. Hell, if you want a nice mr2, this just popped up on the mr2.com forums FS/FT 1985 hardtop mk1.5 (Gen4 3sgte) with lots of tasteful mods- $7500 '85 stripper model with a gen 4 3sgte. I want it. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:That is awesome. Those kind of Frankenstein cars blow my mind. This one for example, is it just a Cadillac shell and everything else from a Blazer? The steering and suspension has to feel ridiculous, right? Lifted monsters always feel ridiculous. I very much want something like this and $7k seems very reasonable if the bits n' pieces like A/C work. I wouldn't have anywhere to put it, except maybe my neighbors lawn.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/4484627662.html
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I'm considering trading my car, a 97 acura rl, for a 90 jaguar xjs convertible with the 5.3 liter v12. I am leery of paying cash on top of my car. Even though I would only need the jag to run until September, I have no reason to expect less than 1000s in repairs and inconvenient breakdowns before then. Any opinions? http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/4479838446.html I'd post a pic but I'm on my phone.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Vim Fuego posted:I'm considering trading my car, a 97 acura rl, for a 90 jaguar xjs convertible with the 5.3 liter v12. I am leery of paying cash on top of my car. Even though I would only need the jag to run until September, I have no reason to expect less than 1000s in repairs and inconvenient breakdowns before then. Any opinions? I'd rather pay blue book or more for an Acura than get a free Jaguar.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:I'd rather pay blue book or more for an Acura than get a free Jaguar. I know. I looked it up- the 5.3 liter v12s are prone to dumping fuel into the exhaust and blowing up. I'm just so, so bored with my car.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
There's always Italian if Japanese cars are too boring and predictable. Have you thought of looking at Maserati Biturbos?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Crossposted because although it was relevant to the discussion, it's certainly not terrible car stuff: I've called the guy. He's currently driving the Crown Vic because his 99 Mustang crapped out. He says he'll call me when the Mustang is running again. Hopefully spending a week as this guy's daily driver would help shake out any faults before they might land in my lap. As you might guess with that mileage, it belonged to an old guy who died; this guy took it from the widow to sell for her, so I guess it's unclear if the title was transferred or if there will be fuckery. Apparently the old guy was a smoker, seller claims it doesn't smell bad, that remains to be seen. I had one of these big fuckers (well, a '90) as my first car in high school and that thing was pretty awesome. Took a lot of abuse and could haul a whole drum set and a big bass amp for pep band while still carrying 5 people. I used to shut the door by driving into a garbage can in the parking lot (I was 16, that's why). Can these things take a turbo? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
To bad you are all the way across the country. I have a 1989 LTD Vic that I will be selling soon. I had the ENTIRE brake system re-done on it, and had the heater core done in it. The AC blows ice loving cold too.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Vim Fuego posted:I know. I looked it up- the 5.3 liter v12s are prone to dumping fuel into the exhaust and blowing up. I'm just so, so bored with my car. I am not sure if you are trolling, but the Jags of that era, especially the v12 are known to be _literally_ the least reliable and most difficult to work on cars. Possibly ever. Seriously, the only thing more costly to own might be an '80s italian super-exotic.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Tai-Pan posted:I am not sure if you are trolling, but the Jags of that era, especially the v12 are known to be _literally_ the least reliable and most difficult to work on cars. Possibly ever. Seriously, the only thing more costly to own might be an '80s italian super-exotic. I'm planning on ordering a 2015 challenger in june, which would then ostensibly arrive in September. So if I did swap my car for something different it would only need to work for 4 months and then I could junk it. That's why it even colorably makes any sort of sense to get something as horrible as the xjs. In any case, I doubt the jag guy will go for it. I may post my car for trade and see what offers I get. Or screw the challenger, get this de tomaso pantera: http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/cto/4483990416.html
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Possible actual gold? http://eugene.craigslist.org/cto/4487819787.html
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
blk posted:Possible actual gold? Dammit I love those cars. The shape is so loving gangster.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:Dammit I love those cars. The shape is so loving gangster. Me too. Last time I drove one I remember the handling being terrible, but I might go take a look at this.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
I have never even seen one of those before, ever. Infinitis are very few and far between around here but it's still surprising. It does look baller as gently caress though.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
We got both kinds of transmission here, manual and automatic. ________________________/ 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:We got both kinds of transmission here, manual and automatic. we have two cars with both? you have to shift it manually? so confusing!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
I was all set to go look at that 86 Crown Victoria, then I saw this by the side of the road: A 1985 Ford F-150. It seems pretty clean:     The only rust I could find:  Not exactly sure what's up with the spring here:  He's asking $2500. It has 160k miles, 6 cylinder 4.9l engine.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Looks clean. Seems like for the price you should be able to find one with a V8, though?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Raluek posted:Looks clean. Seems like for the price you should be able to find one with a V8, though? That would be a downgrade for most purposes. The 300-6 is probably the best regular production motor Ford has ever made.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Mr-Spain posted:we have two cars with both? you have to shift it manually? so confusing! I am guessing it has a manumatic like most infinitis after the "I" line died.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Motronic posted:That would be a downgrade for most purposes. That's a pretty bold claim. They're reliable, sure, but best production motor?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Raluek posted:That's a pretty bold claim. They're reliable, sure, but best production motor? That's a pretty empty statement. That's a statement, sure, but do you have a specific motor you would like to talk about?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Motronic posted:That's a pretty empty statement. That's a statement, sure, but do you have a specific motor you would like to talk about? FE? Windsor? Both great motors, reliable, good torque, good power, sound good, etc etc. Why is the 300 better?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Raluek posted:FE? Windsor? Both great motors, reliable, good torque, good power, sound good, etc etc. Why is the 300 better? Well straight sixes do kick all sorts of rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Raluek posted:FE? Windsor? Both great motors, reliable, good torque, good power, sound good, etc etc. Why is the 300 better? To begin with, the 300 was good enough to run from the mid 60s to the mid 90s. It is a true "commercial motor" that is used in everything from 1/2 ton pickup trucks to dump trucks, generators, baggage tow tractors, and UPS trucks. Many of them still in service today. They have more torque at the low end than just about any of the V8's of the time, making them real work motors for the poo poo they were put in. History has shown that they are loving bulletproof, right on up there with the AMC straight 6. And this is what it comes down to: capable and reliable. Well ahead of their time. Comparing them to the rotating door of asthmatic underpowered V8s of the time is just further proof of them being the steady workhorse of their three decade run.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Motronic posted:To begin with, the 300 was good enough to run from the mid 60s to the mid 90s. It is a true "commercial motor" that is used in everything from 1/2 ton pickup trucks to dump trucks, generators, baggage tow tractors, and UPS trucks. Many of them still in service today. The Ford 300 I6 powered these motherfuckers right here. 6,250 Lbs of solid steel whoop rear end.  http://www.globalgse.com/product.php?used-gse=11
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
All that, and they're naturally balanced!
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
There's some serious rose-tinting on these memories of the 300. It's reliable, absolutely, but it never made more than 170hp from the factory, with less than 300ft-lbs. Most of them were rated at significantly less than that. It's a great engine, but just about any V8 Ford put in a truck after 1967 made considerably more power and torque.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:It's a great engine, but just about any V8 Ford put in a truck after 1967 made considerably more power and torque. First of all, I said low end torque. Second of all LOL at "considerably". Do you seriously not remember post emissions V8s of the 70s and 80s? They're almost all a travesty, Ford or otherwise. For example: the 302 Windsor was a blazing 200 HP (if it held together at 4600 RPMS) and didn't make 300 ft-lbs of torque until 2600. And that was in 1967. It dropped to as low at 122 HP in the mid 70s once they cut off it's clean air supply and any chance at free flowing exhaust. Numbers barely recovered (across the board) on V8s until fuel injection.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
I'm going to check it out today. Still wondering about the bottom part of this spring:Pham Nuwen posted:Not exactly sure what's up with the spring here: see also:  It's like that on both sides, and I don't know if that's normal or if it's missing a binding around those or something.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I'm going to check it out today. Still wondering about the bottom part of this spring: that's normal.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 20:12
|
|
