[alligator]

I'm currently restoring a 1924 Ford Model T Tudor. I'm almost done. Since this car has a top speed of 40 mph, I'd like to restore something a little more powerful for my next car. You know, for variety.

I'm only 31, so cars from the early 1970's don't hold a lot of memories for me. Is there something from the 1980's or 1990's that would have enough power to get a guy's heart beating, yet have the good looks to turn heads?

Any suggestions?

[iMOTOR]

A 5.0 V8 Mustang has the power, but nothing from the 80s turns heads, in a good way

[Cubeoid]

1984 Honda Accord.

[stevesnj]

60's lincoln with the suicide doors

[Cubeoid]

That is a tight ride.

[Fyre4ce]

A 5.0 Mustang will give a lot of bang for your buck.

From the other side of the pacific, I hear the Nissan 240SX is a good platform to go for turbo power.

I didn't grow up with muscle cars either, but nonetheless I love the Corvettes of the late 60's. Check out these pics:

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...te-grey-sy.jpg

http://www.acclassiccars.com/images/vehicles/1561.jpg

[Bandit240]

Ive got a 1989 Nissan 240SX in need of a better owner. Freshly(about 30k ago) rebuild motor, mosty needs body work done.

[Cubeoid]

I never understood why people spend all this time on cars. If you ask me a car is used from getting from point a to going to point b and weekends point c. That is all.

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

I never understood why people spend all this time on cars. If you ask me a car is used from getting from point a to going to point b and weekends point c. That is all.

It is one of those things called hobbies.

[Cubeoid]

My hobby is posting messages in the MacNN Lounge so you can all read them. (mostly it's my life, there isn't much else besides sleeping and eating)

[OldManMac]

Then maybe you should develop other hobbies.

[Cubeoid]

Develop one for me Karl.

[OldManMac]

How about photography? You could develop your own film.

[Cubeoid]

Can't you suggest something with Chinese girls?

[OldManMac]

Take pictures of them!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

A 5.0 Mustang will give a lot of bang for your buck.

2nded.

Also, a '85 Monte Carlo is a nice ride as well.

[Cubeoid]

Chinese girls are hot.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

Chinese girls are hot.

Give it a break please. These little one-liners are NOT funny and are simply childish.

[Doofy]

Build a new one?

http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/usa/index.html

Other than that, what about a Porsche 911 mark 1?

[baw]

1969 Dodge Charger

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by baw

1969 Dodge Charger

You must have not read the original poster's entire first post

Is there something from the 1980's or 1990's that would ...

[Goldfinger]

The Aston Martin V8 Vantage Series 2 built from 1978 untill 1986. I'm sure you can find some wreck to restore. That's the car I'll be restoring once I'm a bit older and have the money to restore a car.

[sknapp351]

If your thinking about a 5.0, which will certainly give you bang for the buck, lookk for a mid 80's Mercury Capri. I love Mustangs, but love it more to see people restore cars that are out of the norm. Also you could look for a Sunbeam Tiger, but I can't remember when those were made....
SAm

[mojo2]

I had a 72 Mustang and it remains my favorite car to this day (I also had a 65 Mustang!).

Why? Power and looks.

I'm thinking of getting a 72 or 73 convertible, hmmmmm doggies!

They STILL look GREAT (i.e. CLASSIC styling) and have become a collectable. But, they haven't become crazy expensive yet. Once you sit in the driver's seat you feel like you're in a big powerful fighter cockpit from WWII or something. Well, maybe it's my imagination. But it IS a unique sensation. The car drinks gas, for sure. But, the power is there with the right engine.

Here's a great source for info you'd need to make the decision re: whether to restore or not.

http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/71-73/72/

I'm voting for a 1972 or 1973 Mustang grande or Convertible. (MANY folks LOVE the Mach I...i don't...aesthetics and visibility is limited with the fastback.)

1971 - 1973 Ford Mustang
Now based on the mid-sized Ford Fairlane/Mercury Comet instead of the compact Falcon, the Mustang grew larger and heavier with each passing year, culminating with the 1971-73 models designed under the supervision of Ford's new product design manager, Seamon "Bunkie" Knudsen, originally of General Motors. Knudsen's turn at the helm would see the last high-performance big-block Mustang, 1971's 375 horsepower (280 kW) 429 Super Cobra Jet. Ironically, that very same body style that was designed for the sole purpose of big-block installation versions were limited to a maximum of 351 in³ (5.8 L) in 1972 and 1973, due almost entirely to extremely strict US emission control regulations. Two more high-performance engines were introduced in 1972, the 351 "HO" and 351 Cobra Jet. Both cars were excellent performers, but at nowhere near the level of the Boss cars and original Cobra Jet. Car companies switched from "gross" horsepower ratings to "net" horsepower and torque ratings in 1972, this makes it difficult to compare horsepower and torque ratings. This was more radically different a car than anyone could have imagined in 1964, and Ford was deluged with mail from fans of the original car who demanded that the Mustang be returned to the way it was.

[von Wrangell]

Volvo Amazon: http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/photopos...lvo_Amazon.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Amazon

[effgee]

A soon-to-be classic from the 80"s with a bit more power? Easy as pie. How about a Jag XJS Coupe/Convertible (personally, I prefer the Coupe)? Up to V12, 6.0l, 300hp - that should do it, no?






Then there's alwys the mega-classic, the E-Type - late 60's/early 70"s

[crazyjohnson]

Yeah, I always had a think for 80's g-body cars. I used to lust over 87/88 Monte Carlo SSs. I would aslo check out an Olds 442 or even a Caprice Classic. Out here in the ghetto the dudes love their Caprice Classics and I think I am sarting to like them .

The Monte Carlo has a 305 but I dont know how much power you were looking for.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Also, a '85 Monte Carlo is a nice ride as well.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Volvo Amazon: http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/photopos...lvo_Amazon.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Amazon

Mmmmm.........Melikey

[baw]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You must have not read the original poster's entire first post

Yeah, actually I did. So I guess that then stops me from putting my 2 cents in then, eh?

[Super Mario]

Clasic Volkswagon Beetle.

[himself]

A Pinto. That, or a Gremlin. Pimp it out!

[baw]

'87 Chevy Spectrum

[angelmb]

Always liked the 80's Volvos, I fear you are going to have a hard time looking for a 480 in the States.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I had a 72 Mustang and it remains my favorite car to this day (I also had a 65 Mustang!).

Why? Power

EHHHHH no. 72 was the year that EVERY marque's power output started dropping like a rock. 71 was the last year for real performance.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by alligator

I'm currently restoring a 1924 Ford Model T Tudor. I'm almost done. Since this car has a top speed of 40 mph, I'd like to restore something a little more powerful for my next car. You know, for variety.

I'm only 31, so cars from the early 1970's don't hold a lot of memories for me. Is there something from the 1980's or 1990's that would have enough power to get a guy's heart beating, yet have the good looks to turn heads?

Any suggestions?

TSi Conquest
Shelby Daytona or Dodge Omni GLHS.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by bad_quote

EHHHHH no. 72 was the year that EVERY marque's power output started dropping like a rock. 71 was the last year for real performance.

Car companies switched from "gross" horsepower ratings to "net" horsepower and torque ratings in 1972, this makes it difficult to compare horsepower and torque ratings.

Did you miss this part of my post?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by bad_quote

TSi Conquest
Shelby Daytona or Dodge Omni GLHS.

Hahahahaha!!!!!! It is SOOOO funny to me that you'd mention ALL THREE of those in one post.

I've driven them all. They ALL are very fast.

If I'm not mistaken, they are all turbos.

The traditional problem with a turbo is that the turbo bearing gets so hot.

That's the nature of a turbo, it uses exhaust gasses to jam pack more air into the combustion chamber or combustion cycle.

And because there's more air in that closed space, it will support a greater amount of fuel.

And when you have more air and more fuel in the combustion process you get more power and greater amounts of heat.

Heat is what breaks down the lubricating quality of oil. So, when the heat gets high enough, like in your frying pan, it burns and oil stops being oil.

Oil becomes a sludge of crud. In an engine that crud acts as an abrasive.

So you have 'grit' circulating around moving engine parts that are designed to have smooth, slippery oil.

The only way to really prevent the damage of loss of oil viscosity is to let the turbo engine cool down a few minutes after you've run it hard and before you turn it off.

The other part you must remember is to use a high enough viscosity oil and change it regularly, every 2-3K miles.

The Conquest had an air cooled Mitsubishi 2.6 L turbo. The Daytona had a 2.2 l WATER cooled turbo and was backed by Chrysler's 5yr/50,000 warranty.

Like I said, I can't recall if the Omni GLHS was a turbo or not. I kinda think it was.

And that period of cars - those being PRIME examples - were inspired BY, if not actually modified with the advice of Carrol Shelby. Yep, THAT same Shelby guy!

Back to the water cooled turbo. Water cools better than air and though you could buy a Conquest TSi Chrysler Turbo and a Daytona Turbo at the same dealership, they each had COMPLETELY different engines and the TSi was only 3/36 but the Daytona was 5/50.

Putting a warranty like that on a turbo was risky but the corporation did it and they are still in business, so it must have been a good gamble. Not really sure what history has said about the experiment other than to note they don't do that FWD/Turbo/5-50 thing today, do they? LoL

Another interesting thing to note is that until Iacocca and Chrysler did it, there had been no mass produced (if any at all!) FRONT WHEEL DRIVE turbos.

The whole use of turbos was so that Chrysler could use 4 cylinder cars and still compete in the American marketplace against Ford and GM, who were still mass producing rwd cars with V-8's.

Each of the three has it's own particular reason to love it.

FWD, American sporty car with a water cooled turbo? The Daytona was really innovative.

Putting a turbo into a turtle looking form factor FWD econobox (VERY roomy inside!) is a fun thing to behold and drive as NO ONE expects the little car has THAT kind of power! Hahaha! Fun car! (In California, if I recall correctly, the GLHS (GLH informally stood for "Goes Like Hell!" ) was available ONLY in a stick shift.

The Mitsubishi Conquest TSi was a sleek, sexy looking car that still looks pleasing to the eye, today, but a bit long in the tooth. But THAT'S what you like about old cars, they have that retro look.

All things being equal, if I could do the engine and mechanical work myself or have it done by a garage I could trust and have it done to factory specs and REALLY cherry it out from top to bottom, inside and out?

I'd go with the Conquest.

WoW, bad_quote, that was a great stroll down memory lane!

Thanks for the reminder!

[mojo2]

Oh, and I just remembered that there was a tiny little economy car, the Colt which had a turbo variation, Sigh! It makes me smile just thinking about how radical it was! It had so much torque (FWD) that it literally skipped the front wheels and tried to pull to the right when you gunned it off the line.

Man, oh man was it a scary-hot-fun drive!!!

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

I never understood why people spend all this time on cars. If you ask me a car is used from getting from point a to going to point b and weekends point c. That is all.

I never understood why people spend all this money on computers. If you ask me, a computer Is used for getting from term paper a to web site b and mp3 song c.

I would have to go with the people that are recommending the classic British motor, however the real fun is with the 60's and 70's Triumphs, Jags, and MG's, and none are really known forheart-stopping power. I think if you're going 80's and 90's try an RX-7. My personal favorite is the 300ZX TT with its insane top speed, but that might be a little too late in the 90's for your tastes. Nothing terribly unique, but hey.. my 2¢.

I'm not sure what an 80's Lotus looks like, but that sounds like it could be fun, too.

[Sage]

We have an ’86 Subaru BRAT that needs a little TLC. Sure it’s not exactly a pavement-burner, but how can you resist three headlights, dual moonroofs, and an 11-speed gearbox?

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by noreturn

I never understood why people spend all this money on computers. If you ask me, a computer Is used for getting from term paper a to web site b and mp3 song c.

To get less beach balls, naturally. They are much too frequent in Panther and Tiger.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by effgee

A soon-to-be classic from the 80"s with a bit more power? Easy as pie. How about a Jag XJS Coupe/Convertible (personally, I prefer the Coupe)? Up to V12, 6.0l, 300hp - that should do it, no?

Jag parts are dirt cheap and easy to find. Wait. No they aren't.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Did you miss this part of my post?

Nope. But it's a fact that 72 and onward= slower. Emissions also changed. The 71 was the last year for the hemi and a lot of big blocks.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Oh, and I just remembered that there was a tiny little economy car, the Colt which had a turbo variation, Sigh! It makes me smile just thinking about how radical it was! It had so much torque (FWD) that it literally skipped the front wheels and tried to pull to the right when you gunned it off the line.

Man, oh man was it a scary-hot-fun drive!!!

Nope. You're thinking about the Suzuki swift, pontiac firefly, and chevy sprint turbo cars. They were turbocharged, and they had THREE cylinder engines. They had a factory bodykit, aggressive front inlets on the hood, and I hear they are a total blast to drive since they're so tiny. They're smaller than geo metros, and because of which, they're very lightweight. I saw a modified one here in milwaukee with a huge FMIC and slicks. It looked like it went like stink.

80s turbo cars are where it's at. They're rare, they can be had for cheap, and they are pretty sweet to drive.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by Sage

We have an ’86 Subaru BRAT that needs a little TLC. Sure it’s not exactly a pavement-burner, but how can you resist three headlights, dual moonroofs, and an 11-speed gearbox?

If he wanted an 80s subie I'd suggest an XT. Turbo power, AWD, a tilt steering wheel that also tilted the entire dash, and adjustable air suspension. Neat cars.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Hahahahaha!!!!!! It is SOOOO funny to me that you'd mention ALL THREE of those in one post.

I've driven them all. They ALL are very fast.

If I'm not mistaken, they are all turbos.

Yep. I missed one though. The Dodge Spirit R/T. Basically a normal grandma spirit with a turbocharger like the GLHS and shelby daytona.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Jag parts are dirt cheap and easy to find. Wait. No they aren't.

Yeah, because he said the parts need to be cheap. ... Wait, no he didn't.

[MaxPower]

Well, if you are a fan of 80s movies I have a 71 riviera in need of restoration for sale. It's what Fletch referred to as the Oldsmobuick.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by baw

Yeah, actually I did.

Sorry, it just looked like you didn't read his whole request.

So I guess that then stops me from putting my 2 cents in then, eh?
:rollis:

You can certainly offer your advice, but it probably is no help to him as it was not within the parameters of his request.

Kind of like: Should I wear a wear a tux or a suit to the prom? Your answer: Go NEKKID!!!

See, not much help.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by bad_quote

Nope. You're thinking about the Suzuki swift, pontiac firefly, and chevy sprint turbo cars. They were turbocharged, and they had THREE cylinder engines. They had a factory bodykit, aggressive front inlets on the hood, and I hear they are a total blast to drive since they're so tiny. They're smaller than geo metros, and because of which, they're very lightweight. I saw a modified one here in milwaukee with a huge FMIC and slicks. It looked like it went like stink.

80s turbo cars are where it's at. They're rare, they can be had for cheap, and they are pretty sweet to drive.

http://www.autobrochures.nl/pictures...age/p_colt.jpg

http://www.coltmania.de/racing/race_r3b.htm

http://pineapple.binrock.net/index.php?rid=254

1989 Dodge COLT GT Turbo

COLT GT Turbo Dodge 1989
***** CAR HAS BEEN SOLD ***** Factory turbo ** RARE car ** only a few imported in the US in Turbo trim. Made by Mitsubishi. 16V - 135HP engine. Aftermarket rims plus original rims w/snow tires. Great running condition. Very fast car!! Same model as Mitsubishi Mirage. *** CAR IS SOLD
Vehicle Details
Sold by Private
Make Dodge
Model COLT GT Turbo
Year 1989
Mileage 114000
Price $ 2000
Exterior Color Black
Interior Color Grey/Black
Ad Details
Ad id 762748
City Pok - close to NYC
State New York
Zip 12601
Ad views 1757
Ad Date November 16, 2003
http://www.carsearch.com/762748.htm