eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (12/31/85)
I'm planning on buying a used car in the $1500 range. I'd like to get
something with a little power (i.e. 0-60 in under 10 seconds) that handles
half decently. People have suggested late '60's and early '70's muscle
cars to me. Unfortunately, there are quite a few models to look at. Also,
there is quite a wide range of engine sizes to look at. I don't think I
need a 429 Cobra Jet engine. I was thinking something in the 300-350 cu in
range. Right now, I've got my eye on the '71 to '73 mustangs, but I'm not
too picky as long as the car isn't too ugly and doesn't handle too poorly.
If anyone out there has any suggestions for cars that may fit my bill,
I'd appreciate hearing about them. I'm actually planning on spending $2000
on the car, but I'm reserving $500 for repairs & modifications (carb,
headers, etc.). Thanks.
- Eli Liang
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eli Liang ---
University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526
ARPA: eli@cvl, eli@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep
CSNET: eli@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!elifritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (01/02/86)
> > I'm planning on buying a used car in the $1500 range. I'd like to get > something with a little power (i.e. 0-60 in under 10 seconds) that handles > half decently. People have suggested late '60's and early '70's muscle > cars to me. > - Eli Liang If you want something that handles half decently, I would avoid muscle cars like the plague. They usually tend to have the biggest (read very HEAVY) engine that can be stuffed into a small or mid-sized car body. The result of this is a car that is very fast in a straight line, but one that under- steers very badly, meaning that driving around corners just isn't a whole heck of a lot of fun. Breaking systems also tend to be rather dubious, since these cars are heavy, with break technology from the sixties. All in all, they are cars that I would avoid unless you live in an area where there are no curves and no need to stop :-). As far as positive suggestions about a car for about $2000, I'm afraid that I really don't have any. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any reasonably fast cars that handle well and are that cheap. Every couple of years, Motor Trend puts out a used car issue-you might go to a library and check the most recent one. BTW, these are my opinions only. If anyone has any flames, please send them elsewhere, rather than tying up the net. -- Dave Fritzinger, Public Health Research Institute, NY,NY {allegra!phri!fritz} "I think. I think I am. Therefore, I am,...I think." Moody Blues
bellas@ttidcb.UUCP (Pete Bellas) (01/03/86)
Distribution: Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc. (CitiCorp), Santa Monica In article <1079@cvl.UUCP> eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) writes: > > I'm planning on buying a used car in the $1500 range. I'd like to get >something with a little power (i.e. 0-60 in under 10 seconds) that handles >half decently. People have suggested late '60's and early '70's muscle >cars to me. There is certainly a lot to choose from here. My friends and I owned many late 60s early 70s muscle cars. I had a 67 Chevelle that would turn the 1/4 mile in 11 flat (in street trim) but wouldn't turn a corner at more that .33 g (I think?). If you want to keep the price down stay away from collectables, BOSS and Shelby Mustangs, Z28 Cameros, etc. Here are my personal favorites from that bygone era (totally subjective). 69,70 Mustang fastback (351) 68,69 Camero (327, 350) 66-69 Chevelle (396) 71-73 Challenger (340, 360) 69-71 Road Runner (383) Of course I have a lot of expensive favorites too, Dodge Daytona (Super Bee), BOSS 429, etc. but these aren't cheep, if you can even find one. Good Luck, and let us know what you end up with. -Pete-
bellas@ttidcb.UUCP (Pete Bellas) (01/03/86)
Distribution: Organization: Transaction Technology, Inc. (CitiCorp), Santa Monica In article <2101@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >> >> I'm planning on buying a used car in the $1500 range. I'd like to get >> something with a little power (i.e. 0-60 in under 10 seconds) that handles >> half decently. People have suggested late '60's and early '70's muscle >> cars to me. >> - Eli Liang > >If you want something that handles half decently, I would avoid muscle cars >like the plague. They usually tend to have the biggest (read very HEAVY) >engine that can be stuffed into a small or mid-sized car body. The result >of this is a car that is very fast in a straight line, but one that under- >steers very badly, meaning that driving around corners just isn't a whole >heck of a lot of fun. Breaking systems also tend to be rather dubious, since >these cars are heavy, with break technology from the sixties. All in all, >they are cars that I would avoid unless you live in an area where there are >no curves and no need to stop :-). While there were a lot of muscle cars that did not handle well, there were also a lot that did handle decently. Small block Mustangs and Camaros are fast and handle quite well (the early Shelbys are still used in autocross, and slalom racing, that takes handling). I still have my 70 Mustang, with a small block, and it will not only out accelerate 75% of what people call sports cars these days, it will out handle them too! >BTW, these are my opinions only. If anyone has any flames, please send them >elsewhere, rather than tying up the net. Do not interpret this as a flame (note: no capitalized words :-), I just wanted to set the record straight. -Pete-