|
i've been itching for a new daily driver, maybe it is time
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
I've had my eye out for one of those it's really rare to see a clean one with manual+LSD, even with that many miles. I would seriously consider it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2019 11:11
|
|
|
chrisgt posted:I'd love to get a TDI. Instead I daily drive a.... chevy metro. Same mileage, cheaper fuel. Not nearly as good. I've been looking at the PriusC lately, it gets more than twice the mileage of my xB. Sat in one and it's pretty nice for an econobox, still wanna drive one to get the full feel of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
Pricey, but do want. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:I've been looking at the PriusC lately, it gets more than twice the mileage of my xB. Sat in one and it's pretty nice for an econobox, still wanna drive one to get the full feel of it. A friend of mine had one, they're actually pretty nice to drive. Of course my view is skewed because everything I own is an old flaming pile of poo poo. The biturbo may be one of the most comfortable cars I've ever been in, though... I just can't justify buying a new car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 11:26
|
|
|
I get that people love their trucks in the south, but I mean goddamn. https://memphis.craigslist.org/cto/d/millington-1998-gmc-z71-4x4/6904926974.html Bonus No Contact Info, either a troll or an idiot. Hard to tell since it's CL, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 11:29
|
|
|
Those are very reliable but from what I’ve experienced they are absolutely terrible to drive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Most trucks are terrible to drive tbh
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Vanagoon posted:I get that people love their trucks in the south, but I mean goddamn. You can contact via Craiglist's email system if you prefer not to list contact info publicly. But, yeah, those trucks aren't worth near that unless it's a southern car in the rust belt of something. I can find a thousand examples of a newer truck, probably in better shape, for less here in TX. That said, when I tested that, one of the first page results was this: https://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/ctd/d/tyler-1993-chevy-k-1500-z71-72k/6904427396.html  OK, it's a nice example, and relatively low miles, but $20K?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:Most trucks are terrible to drive tbh Toyota seems to have sorted that out on their trucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Uh, maybe. I’ve driven a few old Toyota Pickups and they are horrendous to drive, even by the standards of the time. My friend had both an ‘90 Corolla Sedan and a ‘90 Pickup - the Corolla was decent to drive (and rather fun in a way) but the Pickup was all kinds of awful. He later replaced it with a ‘92 Celica GT-S which was an infinitely better car than either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Toyota seems to have sorted that out on their trucks. People always seem to bitch about the seating position. At least in the Tacomas. My work has currently 3 first gen Tundras. The seating position isn't all that comfortable in them (for me personally) either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
I've driven two new Tacomas and one Tundra. The Tundra is built for large people, the Tacoma is fairly comfortable from my experiences. Haven't driven an old one in ages so I can't really compare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
I rented a tacoma for a day, it doesn't work if you have long legs and have to wear steel toe boots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Never driven a Tacoma new or old, and have only driven the first gen tundras so thats the best I can compare. I've mostly just heard that "everyone says" the Tacomas have lovely seat positions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
I guess it all comes down to your personal dimensions? I'm a fairly small guy so I guess I fit the truck better. I don't have numbers but it felt like it was the same size as my '95 F-150. I am curious what the new Rangers are like. Do we have a genera; catch all truck thred or does AI hate trucks these days?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
90's Rangers and S-10's have terrible ergonomics, but they're not that bad to drive
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:90's Rangers and S-10's have terrible ergonomics, but they're not that bad to drive 90's Rangers are the best small trucks ever but finding one that isn't a pile of rolling poo poo is impossible these days. It's why we're looking at 2010+ Tacomas instead of buying another 20 year old beater.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
My brother has a Silverado for a daily, I don't how he does it that thing is awful to drive and a pain in the rear end to park anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
This thing has been listed for a long fuckin time https://www.kijiji.ca/v-classic-cars/medicine-hat/hello-is-there-anybody-out-there/1438074967?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true   You can pretty much guarantee it has no floors left. WHY WON'T ANYBODY PAY ME RUNNING CONDITION CAR MONEY FOR MY RUSTY SHITBOX WITH A BLOWN ENGINE NO LOWBALLERS I KNOW WHAT I GOT
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
I've got somebody coming to buy my car tomorrow so it *did* work, but Facebook's marketplace is pretty loving obnoxious with how it encourages people to just blast "Is this available?" messages... so I reply, and then they loving never answer again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
https://www.kijiji.ca/v-classic-cars/penticton/amc-eagle-1983/1426438231?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true  Tempting. Eight hours away from me, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Powershift posted:This thing has been listed for a long fuckin time God I hate that bullshit. "ORIGINAL" and "SURVIVOR" mean dogshit when the car in question is a rusty shitpile that doesn't run. No one cares about your original engine if it's a boat anchor, or that it's unrestored if you have to drive it around like Fred loving Flintstone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
boxen posted:God I hate that bullshit. "ORIGINAL" and "SURVIVOR" mean dogshit when the car in question is a rusty shitpile that doesn't run. No one cares about your original engine if it's a boat anchor, or that it's unrestored if you have to drive it around like Fred loving Flintstone. NO TIRE KICKERS OR TEST PILOTS, ORIGINAL NUMBERS MATCHING MOPAR WITH THE HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER 170HP 318 I'LL LET IT ROT INTO THE GROUND BEFORE I LET SOMEONE TOUCH IT FOR LESS THAN DOUBLE IT'S VALUE
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
Powershift posted:NO TIRE KICKERS OR TEST PILOTS, ORIGINAL NUMBERS MATCHING MOPAR WITH THE HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER 170HP 318 My favorite (almost certainly a joke):  A real one, I like the look of the truck, but who is he selling it to? Are there people that believe and care that this is the only one like it to exist? No V8, 2wd, looks like something like twice the price it should be. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
boxen posted:My favorite (almost certainly a joke): I found a real one of those a while back. Powershift posted:
And again on that subject, i posted this december 23, 2014: Powershift posted:
Well, i just recognized our old friend. https://www.kijiji.ca/v-classic-cars/edmonton/1970-mercury-cougar-eliminator-351c-4spd/1430073121?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true  No. low. ballers. i. know. what i. got. 5 years older, 5 years more loving rotten from sitting in the dirt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
Powershift posted:5 years older, 5 years more loving rotten from sitting in the dirt. Seems like he's implying that someone could take the parts (and maybe vin) from the lovely one, and put them on the good-but-not-as-valuable one, and have a 'valuable' nice car. Still an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Powershift posted:This thing has been listed for a long fuckin time There's nobody there because that is not a desirable Mopar. Once you start going past 1972 the Road Runners are just not a car that people want, the 73 looks bland in comparison to a 72 or earlier models. They will never really be worth anything much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Around here's there's a 70s Cadillac parked on a stretch of road near some businesses. It's been for sale for 15 years now. Sometimes I see the guy go and wash it and spritz some oil in through the spark plug holes but I've never seen it running.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:There's nobody there because that is not a desirable Mopar. Once you start going past 1972 the Road Runners are just not a car that people want, the 73 looks bland in comparison to a 72 or earlier models. They will never really be worth anything much. Yeah, once you cross from 72 to 73 basically everything is falling off a cliff due to emissions, styling, insurance, oil crisis yada yada for all the big three. Weird how they all converged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 16:02
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:There's nobody there because that is not a desirable Mopar. Once you start going past 1972 the Road Runners are just not a car that people want, the 73 looks bland in comparison to a 72 or earlier models. They will never really be worth anything much. It's too bad to because mid 70s cars are nice, they just don't have the cache of the earlier cars. That said, I blame Barrett-Jackson for running up the prices on the old cars. Everyone thinks their 75 LeMans is worth $7k. In that vein, here is an auction in Iowa. Guy is selling is 110 car collection, but the looks of it are that he just warehoused cars in a machine shed and didn't do much to maintain them. A lot of potential, but a lot of money too. http://www.vanderbrinkauctions.com/auction/muscle-car-heaven-the-coyote-johnson-collection-auction/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDNdIRoBiX0
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
Hikaki posted:I've had my eye out for one of those it's really rare to see a clean one with manual+LSD, even with that many miles. I would seriously consider it. Turns out it was an old friend that owned it, I was going to go pick it up this weekend if it made it until then because that kind of helps the spontaneous car purchase thing. Anyway, it sold in a day
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Powershift posted:This thing has been listed for a long fuckin time Also because it's a '73. Pretty much the beginning of the decline of musclecars. That's pretty much a trim package. e: f,b, a couple of times. boxen posted:My favorite (almost certainly a joke): "Rare" does not equal "desirable".
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
I once (ages ago, like 2005ish) saw a Chevrolet Astro with a 4 speed listed for $3500. It’s uncommon sure, but does anybody care?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:Also because it's a '73. Pretty much the beginning of the decline of musclecars. That's pretty much a trim package. I always find this line of argument to be silly. Almost any car you will be restoring will need the engine rebuilt and the difference in price between rebuilding it to 69 performance specs vs 73 smogger specs is negligible unless you you are dealing with something exotic. The car itself will be more comfortable than a 69 and has the advantage of a few more years of engineering behind it. It's basically gatekeeping for the old guys at the car show who don't want anyone younger than them bringing in the "wrong" kind of car, then they turn around and wonder why attendance is dropping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:It's too bad to because mid 70s cars are nice, they just don't have the cache of the earlier cars. That said, I blame Barrett-Jackson for running up the prices on the old cars. Everyone thinks their 75 LeMans is worth $7k. I really hope he didn't store those this entire time with the loving windows open. He could have tried to keep them clean and maintained/running but that probably would have been a full time job. SimonCat posted:I always find this line of argument to be silly. Almost any car you will be restoring will need the engine rebuilt and the difference in price between rebuilding it to 69 performance specs vs 73 smogger specs is negligible unless you you are dealing with something exotic. The car itself will be more comfortable than a 69 and has the advantage of a few more years of engineering behind it. The smog issue isn't a big deal really, it's more that the styling started to get really generic after that to me. 73 started to go downhill, and after 75 forget it, the cars just got really loving bland. Applebees Appetizer fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jun 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Applebees Appetizer posted:I really hope he didn't store those this entire time with the loving windows open. Yeah, much later than 1973 and you start getting into Malaise era (maybe already into it, I don't remember), and more importantly I think most of the cars are just ugly. My personal cutoff year is 1974, as around where I live that's the cutoff for cars don't have to be smogged every two years. It's just a sniffer test, but after dealing with that poo poo in my 80's beater, it'd be nice to have something old that I don't have to deal with it. I'm lucky in that I like the look of that 73 Plymouth that Powershift posted; if for some reason I ever have the desire and money to put like an 800 horsepower big block into an old musclecar, it might be in something like that, because I like the looks and they're inexpensive relative to cars just two or three years older.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
It's also because 73 was the year 5 mph front bumpers became mandatory, rear in 74. And a lot of cars got butchered to accommodate them. While I like the 73 Road Runner, I can see it being a disappointment in the moment compared to the 71/72 with it's combination grille/bumper in the front that was pretty cool for the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
GM seemed to deal with the bumper issue in 73 better than the other makes, though they got chunkier as time went on. I will go with 75 being a good cutoff because the styles really start leaning into the "personal luxury" idea as opposed to the cleaner lines of the late 60s. I'm grumpy because my 73 falls into a deadzone as far as reproduction parts go, everything is 64-72 and 78-87 for the GM A-bodies, though it has been getting better lately since the prices of the 72 and earlier cars is forcing more people to look at the 70s cars instead. That said, $5k for a rusty, non-running 73 Road Runner is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
SimonCat posted:I always find this line of argument to be silly. Almost any car you will be restoring will need the engine rebuilt and the difference in price between rebuilding it to 69 performance specs vs 73 smogger specs is negligible unless you you are dealing with something exotic. The car itself will be more comfortable than a 69 and has the advantage of a few more years of engineering behind it. With muscle car value, originality is the key. It really only matters what it came with. If you modify it, it’s now a “street machine”, hot-rod, whatever. Personally, I’ll modify the gently caress out of stuff, but the value of that Roadrunner is based on what it *is*, not what it can or will be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 19:04
|
|