balthazar

Talked to a VW-head buddy of mine- he says there've been 2 T motors, the 1.8L & 2.0L, and supposedly he's seen many drag racers pull their 2.0L in favor of the stouter-blocked 1.8L. From talking about the physicalities of my motor, it seems to be the 1.8L. Now... to crowbar some benjamins out of this hunk of aluminum.....

Would love to see a pic of what he's dealing with, if possible. Don't be such a stranger, gpg.

What was the original sticker on these?

Sent- thanks.

I have a bunch of Olds' print ads from the '38-39 era - no mention of MPG claims. 1 ad mentions a 'Econo-Master' engine but gives no numeric claim. I didn't read the specifics RE the Gilmore-Yosemite test, but I can tell you the Mobilgas runs squeezed the best MPG out of the cars in it, ever. I guarantee you the '40 MPG' thing did NOT originate @ GM... ESP with the actual being so far from 40.

And my chassis manual is too old ('59). Special/Skylark will have a separate manual- I have the '60s Pontiac manuals - full-size w/ no Tempest. My '35-61 MOTOR manual doesn't delve into rear suspension specifics.

Picked up a loose turbo VW motor. Missing some pieces, would like to hawk what's marketable and scrap the rest. Or sell the whole thing as is. Anyplace I can find out how to ID it, find out if anything on it is in demand?

This may FINALLY get an acura off my front bumper- slowest make in operation, period. Oh, and Jeers.

'The Gov't is looking out for the taxpayers' - what a laff riot!

What SAmadei said. That said, I would also consult a chassis manual just in case.

In '50, the new OHV Olds 88 returned 20.19 MPG in the Mobilgas Economy run (average speed 41 MPH). And there the cars were 'blueprinted' for max mileage for bragging/advertising rites. Prior to Mobilgas, the economy runs were called 'Gilmore-Yosemite'. Here's a link to the 1936 winners by class, with all their MPGs. Olds 6 was 23, Olds 8 was 19. Only car over 30 was the Willys 4. 40 out of a full-sized Olds in this era is fantasy.

Between 15-20. Looked at a '35 Chevy 6 drivereport for verification; owner reported just over 17 combined on that one. Unless something pre-'55 was a lightweight with OD, breaking 20 was uncommon. Then again, gas then was around .30/gal.

No way ; 40 is too optimistic.

Cheers. Plus you get the added bonus of a built-in bottle topper - read a story where the lower grille louvers on the F37 were (unintentionally) well-spaced to be able to pop a bottle cap off.

34% is pretty dismal overall tho. Lux buyers seem to be a lot more fickle than one would suppose. Jag was at like 16% IIRC- Jag is DRIVING them away.

I just saw a new report that mercedees repeat buyership was merely 34%. If that's correct, the whole 'trade up thru the line' is an urban myth. Such a low retention rate would explain the flurry of niche & downmarket models; necessary to 'pump up the volume (mercedees' primary goal). I'll have to find the source where I read that... The for-to entered an empty segment, the a-class is entering a jam-packed segment; they are absolutely going to compete with the other players here. It is inevitable. To profess otherwise is being obtuse.

^ Bumper's been smacked at the lower center. Jeers, tho I too like the P-67s.

Wow, so we have an admittance that mercedees is actively seeking to compete with acura, volvo, VW, hyundai, nissan & toyota! Whoo-hoo! This 'experiement' into volume grab is only going to erode the reputation of M-B down to a nub. Going to be interesting to watch...

Drove Mom's Cruze LS yesterday, about a 5-hour round-trip. Car is not broken in yet, it appeared in my driveway with 237 miles on it. 1.8L/6-spd auto. In a direct comparison my my wife's '09 Malibu (now with about 41K on the clock), the ride is stiffer yet better dampened. There's no slop in the handling or steering at all. Steering wheel wasn't overly thick, either, which was nice. Seats were quite firm but still quite comfortable over the length of the trip. I felt the trans was slightly hesitant between shifts, perhaps fluid level was off or it just wasn't attuned to my lead foot. I know these have 'learning capabilities' that adjust towards the predominate driver's tendencies... If this were mine I'd be hammering on it daily to get it tightened up. The largest distraction, IMO. 1.8L is fine for most folks' general commuting I would say, but it was not brimming with power. I would definitely have liked more underfoot, and it seemed somewhat 'out of synch' with the handling ability. Interior was well assembled, and I liked piloting it in that respect. Some of the controls took a check of the manual (the DIC for example), but once learned, were easy. Some of the cost-saving engineering (the 1-button central locking) did not come off as cheapness IMO. Back seat passengers reported good comfort, even tho leg room was not there in excess (obviously). Over those initial 237 miles, it had logged 25.3 MPG.The trip was about 60% highway and 40% residential/ low speed/ stop-n-go; but in north Jersey & southern NY, which is very hilly to outright mountainous (the Shawangunks). MPG rose to 26.6 with 4 adults/ no cargo aboard by the end of the trip, I forget the finish miles but it was around 375. LS had no cruise control, I would've thought on the highway that might have boosted MPG (but I note occupant's comments RE this), and I also note Olds's mention of MPG vs. MPH; I traveled about 80 MPH. I would expect getting broken in, with 1 or 2 aboard instead of 4, keeping highway speeds closer to 70 than 80, plus perhaps either a service check or a learning period WRT the trans' shifts, and that would climb notably. Overall, thumbs up for a commuter/ MPG-focused little sedan.

'73-74 'cuda, magenta-esque color, grille out, standing deck spoiler on, registered, in driveway. circa '65 Ford Econoline 'flat-front' pickup, spanky orange & black (tasteful) 2-tone, mild hot rod, parked.

Yea- it's much nicer than the design disaster the previous gen was, but this is still an anonymous, mass-market generic appliance with a MB grille and monstrous FWD overhang. If this sells well, it's case closed on whether MB sells because of product or badge (I already know the answer, but some profess not to)...

No. There was a dedicated Tri-Power emblem in '58-59... but I'm not finding one for '60. I should know if there was one or not.... What you posted is the Bonneville emblem for '60. This '60 Bonne is wearing the Tri-P emblem, but it may be a retro-fit.

By George, I believe this is not clever chopping, but rather a (pointless?) restoration: Gallery inside & out.

I certainly prefer a split grille on my Pontiacs, but there's nothing wrong with the lines of a P-60, either. In fact, I prefer them to the P-61. This is all academic; as much as I hate to do so, this is a parts car, not a restoration project (so no title is no issue- but I've gone thru that process more than once). I can't hold on to it for 10-20 years until someone 'has' to have a P-60 Bonne flattop. I'm curious about the trans- I assume they have a THM200 rigged in there, no way could there be an adapter to hook a 265 to a SHM. Anyway, there's enough decent parts here to tear it down. I would prefer it be inside on concrete than outside on stone tho. I have an empty bay but by 'empty' I mean there's no car in there. Still thinking on this one...

Mom picked up a Cruze (LS? 1LT?) last month, going to be driving it about 4 hrs Sunday, will add my impressions afterward...