I've been looking for a car big enough for 5 RWD (and manual but I'll compromise for 70's style).
I made the semi-fatal mistake of setting Craigslist with an upper limit of $3,000 and hitting the search button for random goodness.
I found more than my share of the big three' s most hugest cars: Lincoln's, Caprice's, Mercury's, Cadillacs and Fury's etc.
Will you guys give me permission and/or advice, persuasion/dissuasion on the subject of DD-ing one of these?
Giant thirst for fuel, generally pretty reliable, super simple to work on.
Gas
Oh, let's forget about gas mileage for the time being. Thanks everyone! I have a 90's Ford 4x4 so mileage is a given.
I wonder if swapping in an LSX would make them better on gas and more powerful?
Friend of mine had a 73 impala with the 2bolt main 350. For a car that had all of 120hp... it was surprisingly thirsty
In reply to mad_machine: Undoubtedly!
Swapping an LSX and OD trans would likely put you well into the low 20s on the highway if you kept the super deep rear differential typically found in malaise era cars with 3 speed automatics.
Mileage aside, figure 6-16 mpg, I see no reason not to drive a malaise era full size car, should be reliable as a hammer if well maintained(not much to maintain), and parts are cheap and plentiful.
Problem with a lot of big 70s iron is that it's very popular with the "donk" crowd, and so they get stupid pricey for what they are.
My real concern for one of these would be safety. Not only is handling, braking and acceleration appalling, but there are virtually no safety features whatsoever. If you were going for a car of this nature, I'd consider a W116 or W126 Mercedes.
^^^^ W126 is a decent idea.
Mmadness wrote: My real concern for one of these would be safety. Not only is handling, braking and acceleration appalling, but there are virtually no safety features whatsoever. If you were going for a car of this nature, I'd consider a W116 or W126 Mercedes.
Personal opinion but I would much rather have something from the big three from that time period than a Merc.
I drove a '71 Catalina for many years, and it was a great car. Acceleration and braking were good, handling wasn't bad (considering the era.) I could get close to 18mpg on the highway, in town it was worse but to be honest I didn't pay a lot of attention to that. I'd probably still be driving it if it hadn't rusted away.
edit: GM downsized all their big cars in 1977. For a given model, they were mostly the same from 1971 through 1976; the main changes were bigger bumpers starting in 1973 and catalytic converters starting in 1975.
1977 and newer big GM cars had more modern suspensions, in fact a lot of parts from a 1990s Impala SS can be used on them.
If I didnt have a 70 mile (each way) commute I'd be DDing my 78 Mercury wagon. I love driving that thing.
77-79 deville or fleetwood with 425 can get 20-22 highway because they run a 2.29 rear gear.
it's like driving on a cloud sitting on a leather couch.
I wouldn't worry too much saftey wise unless it was a very rusty example. Add modern tires, brake pads/shoes, and shocks. Big sway bars are cheap and won't wreck the ride quality. Remember you've got a 2000lb 'advantage' over many other cars.
Find one of the last Delta 88's with the Olds 307, a 4 barrel and a 200r4. Reliable as a brick, 29 mpg (Imperial) on the highway.
Mmadness wrote: My real concern for one of these would be safety. Not only is handling, braking and acceleration appalling, but there are virtually no safety features whatsoever. If you were going for a car of this nature, I'd consider a W116 or W126 Mercedes.
Actually, by the late 60s most everything had dual circuit brakes, collapsible steering columns, 3 point front seat belts, front disc brakes, etc. While they didn't really have crumple zones, there is a lot of hood to crush on a 70s car. Most of those full size cars will win in a wreck with something modern on mass alone.
I miss either of my two '70 Pontiac Bonneville's. It was like driving a couch at 75. Potholes were for the little people. Both of mine had been in the south, so no rust. I also had a 77 Merc Cougar, which we called the Klingon Battle Cruiser, again the ride was great. The turning radius blew chunks, but it was stupidly easy to work on. You could have fit your two favorite LSx engines in either of the three. 
patgizz wrote: 77-79 deville or fleetwood with 425 can get 20-22 highway because they run a 2.29 rear gear. it's like driving on a cloud sitting on a leather couch.
A good friend if mine once had a '77 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham with a 440. We called it the magic carpet. It was a terrific road tripping car. It also could get 20 +mpg on the highway.
my 74 Monte Carlo got 20mpg before i swapped in an overdrive trans.. it got 19mpg afterwards...
the 78 LTD2 i had would average 22mpg after i swapped the used Holley 1850 carb and used Offenhouser intake on it in place of the stock Motorcrap 2 barrel that averaged 18mpg..
i've had a few 77-79 Caprice 2 doors with 305's, and they hit mpg numbers somewhere in the high teens..
my first car was a 78 Chrysler Cordoba with the 4 barrel 360- i think you could rate that one in gallons per mile, but i was 16 and was more concerned with making the right rear tire tirn to a white cloud and rubber chunks than i was with getting good gas mileage..
so the lesson from my personal experience is to expect around 20mpg if the engine is in a good state of tune, 15 or less if it isn't..
Like I said, there were quite a few of these cars on Craigslist under $3,000. I am very tempted.
The biggest drawback for me is the lack of intermittent wipers. To expand on that, I will never go back to DD'ing a vehicle that has a dashboard mounted wiper switch that is not easily reached like a stalk mounted switch.
Here is the dash of a typical '77 Malibu like I had years ago. The round knob is the pull out for the headlights. The rectangle next to it is the wiper switch which slides sideways. Not particularly easy to operate and certainly not easy to reach. It is as far away as the tuning knob of the radio.
One of the drawbacks I have encountered (besides rust) with an '80's "barge" is the lack of shoulder belts for the rear passengers.
The lap only belts ratchet so they're fine while the kids fit into harness type child seats but once they've outgrown them I'll have to retrofit some shoulder belts or...something.
DusterBD13 did it with his Duster.
Other than that, pay cash, keep up on maintenance and repairs (which is cheap and easy) and smile at people who look down their nose at you for driving an old car one moment then whinge about their payments and dealer service fees the next.
What ever you do, do NOT check out ProTouring.com!
The_Jed wrote: What ever you do, do NOT check out ProTouring.com!
Already a member... I wish I could go back in time and not click on the link!
Kenny_McCormic wrote:Mmadness wrote: My real concern for one of these would be safety. Not only is handling, braking and acceleration appalling, but there are virtually no safety features whatsoever. If you were going for a car of this nature, I'd consider a W116 or W126 Mercedes.Actually, by the late 60s most everything had dual circuit brakes, collapsible steering columns, 3 point front seat belts, front disc brakes, etc. While they didn't really have crumple zones, there is a lot of hood to crush on a 70s car. Most of those full size cars will win in a wreck with something modern on mass alone.
I wandered across a YouTube video a while back demonstrating an IIHS frontal impact test with a '59 Bel Air hitting a 2009 Impala or Malibu. I know that a '70s Luxo-Barge isn't really the same thing, but the difference is pretty wild.
But, hey, if you want to be sure that you're safe, stay in your basement and clothe yourself in bubble wrap. I say go for it, but depending on where you're DDing to, be prepared for parking challenges. I DD my E-150 and today's parking spaces/garages/lots are not meant for things bigger than a Camry.
You'll need to log in to post.
