pinchvalve wrote: 1) Volvo - They're Boxy but Good. 2) 80s Chryslers - Fine Corinthian Leather. 3) Yugos - Built with Pride in Yugoslavia 4) 80s Chryslers - Kahn!!!!!!
Kahn and his commercials were in the 70s. In the 80s we had Lee Iacocca saying that if you can find a better car, buy it.
Anyhow, I can see the Volvo thing. The Chrysler thing is 100% because of the 2.2 turbo, which was the SBC of the 80s.
I can't speak for the others, but I will say that there's a reason why Volvo's are widely popular in rallycross- They take well to modding, and they can handle 'holy E36 M3 this should not be legal' levels of vehicular abuse on a routine basis without needing hours of attention between events.
Plus... REAR FACING JUMPSEAT! Bluej and I used to rock the crap out of that back seat as snotty 6 year olds. Flipping off traffic, making faces, getting insanely carsick...
Man, those were the days!
My old bone stock 240 GL left an impression every time you got in or out- the doors closed with a more solid sound than any car I've ever been in. Including Mercedes.
I realize that doesn't seem like much, but it sends this subconscious message every single time you close the door- ("Well built car, well built car"). I've never had another car that did that.
gearheadmb wrote: There are some cars out there that I see some of you guys showering with praise that I just don't get it. I'm not saying that you shouldn't, I'm saying I want help understanding the appeal. Here is the short list 1) Volvo, I have almost no first hand experience with these. Whats the big deal? 2) 80s chryslers, I do have first hand experience with these and I've never seen a bigger bucket of suck. 3) Yugos, these were the joke of the car world, why do I hear their praises on here? 4) 80s chryslers, worth mentioning a second time. So what am I missing?
I bought my 1990 Volvo 740 turbo wagon for $500. To say it was severely neglected would be an understatement. Due to said neglect it needed some things. (Turbo, headgasket, cleaning, more cleaning.) The seats showed about as much foam and padding as there was leather left, but they were somehow still really comfortable. It was unsurprisingly at home in the snow. So much fun in winter.
In reply to Huckleberry:
Where else can you get aluminum suspension, overhead cams, and a Watts link, in a running car, for less than 4 figures buy in? And not just that one time on Craigslist on the other side of the country, but in every Craigslist, ever.
pointofdeparture wrote: In reply to Knurled: Must be something up with the NedCars then. My 740 and 960 were incredible despite their miles of use by heavy-set previous owners, and the few S60s I've driven were just sublime.
It is, in fact, a nedcar thing. I think they used plywood backing for the leather. Wholly unsupportive. And the seat cushion is too damn high.
It took me about 10-15k of seat belt overtightening to crush the foam so the seat is comfy. Of course, now the stitching's tearing because the leather is so stiff. Recovering the seats would be about $600 each, Recaros are about $300 each.
golfduke wrote: I can't speak for the others, but I will say that there's a reason why Volvo's are widely popular in rallycross
They are? I'd think any Volvo would be way too big of a car to rallycross. Even my little S40 got comments like "how can you thread that huge thing through the course" when I first brought it out to events.
If you mean European rallycross, that's easy. They have like fifteen different classes for Volvos, and a huge amount of aftermarket support there. You race what there's classes for and what is supported.
So people love 80s chryslers because they could be made fast. But if you say on here that you want a foxbody people are jumping out of the rafters to tell you how they are so terrible. I've been in a K car. 1,000 hp wouldn't make it not a POS.
Actually, i feel like the Fox mustang and the K-cars have similar build quality and general crappiness, with the Fox being a little worse. But it had a v8 and RWD, and since most people are mainstream (definitionally..) when it comes to even their old crapbox car tastes, v8 and rwd totally obscures the fact that they were otherwise a E36 M3box absolutely no better than a k-car.
What's funny is that once Chrysler brought the turbo in 1984, i dont think there was a single year that you couldn't buy a FWD Chrysler faster (from a roll, not from a stop) than the fastest Fox mustang right up to the 1993 Cobra. But people don't just buy cars for one trait only, so that fact hasn't exactly held sway over the millions of Fox body fans out there. Nor has the lack of V8 and RWD stopped people from enjoying K-cars.
I'm an all of the above kind of person, though. I have k-cars. I wouldn't mind several Fox chassis cars i can think of. I think I own cars from 10 brands and 3 countries in FWD, RWD, and 4WD. The only stereotype that fits cleanly over my car ownership habits is 'GRMer'.
Appleseed wrote: In reply to Huckleberry: Where else can you get aluminum suspension, overhead cams, and a Watts link, in a running car, for less than 4 figures buy in? And not just that one time on Craigslist on the other side of the country, but in every Craigslist, ever.
It really doesn't matter if you have those things if they are bolted together into a colossal piece of E36 M3 though does it? What joy does an overhead cam and watts link bring me if the tires don't touch the ground for 45 seconds after each bump and I'm sliding around on a barf-proof bench seat that is 8 feet wide?
According to recent posts we have just learned a 1994 Previa could be a mid-engined, AWD, supercharged, 5 speed manual with IRS but it's still a suppository looking mini-van full of DO NOT WANT. Even at zero dollars.
In the 90's, either Hot Rod or Car Craft ran an article on a 2.2 Turbo Omni/Charger called 13 seconds over Palmdale or something.
I remember them using fish tank plumbing to get the car into the 13's for ~free.
Edit: it was 1987 and it was a Shelby Charger in Car Craft
In reply to Huckleberry:
Got it. Huckleberry does not like P71's. Did anyone miss that announcement?
I think you missed the part where the OP was asking what people DO like about a few cars. He didn't actually ask what we don't like.
SVreX wrote: In reply to Huckleberry: Got it. Huckleberry does not like P71's. Did anyone miss that announcement? I think you missed the part where the OP was asking what people DO like about a few cars. He didn't actually ask what we don't like.
Would you please go around to all the other posts that have gone off track and correct everyone so as to keep everything prim? That would be an excellent use of your time. Also, the P71 sucks.
I enjoyed my mostly stock turbo dodge but i have zero love for it, it was just a cheap car. My love for the foxbody chassis stems from drag racing being the only motorsport ive participated in. There widely popular there because that suspension works great for stock suspension and small tire racing. My first fox pretty much hooked me on them.
Huckleberry wrote: Also, the P71 sucks.
Well...that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Appleseed wrote:Huckleberry wrote: Also, the P71 sucks.Well...that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Which, in my own head is just like a fact! 
In reply to Huckleberry:
The P71.
Large sedan, reasonably good handling, and decent HP. Add in ridiculously cheap and reliable as gravity, and there's your answer.
The one you drove must have needed a lot of maintenance or been hacked by the owner. Mine drives as good or better than the 635 it replaced. The rear isn't as planted as the BMW, but I've been driving solid axle cars my entire life. I know their habits and drive them accordingly.
Btw, the post 2003 suspension change improved the feel of these things greatly.
In reply to Appleseed:
Mine's a 06. Maybe that's why I don't get Huckleberry's extreme dislike. It's honestly a pretty good car. Especially for $1300.
Appleseed wrote:Huckleberry wrote: Also, the P71 sucks.Well...that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I don't like 'em neither nohow, but a true P71, on the correct tires and with the correct shocks and stuff, is a COMPLETELY different animal from a Crown Vic.
It's more than an oil cooler and pee-proof seating.
They handle remarkably taut for something that big. Make 'em about 20% smaller in all directions and I might like 'em.
In addition to the praise and merit already bestowed upon the Volvo 240, there's two other aspects to consider
1) a Dana 30 in the rear. So if you want to swap in a locker, slipped slip or spool there are lots of options available at a reasonable price. Also gearing options. There are no fewer than 8 options from a 3.73 to an 5.84 available for between $2-300
2) mountain of suspension travel
By modern car standards they aren't heavy, sedans are a hair above 2800lb add in OE 16V swaps and bolt on turbo bits and for less then $3k you can put together something quick that will have enough traction to move itself in the dirt with enough travel that you don't have to lift for a 4" rut and still allows for sideways fun, because rwd.
If you lived in the right part of the world Turbo Dodges were everywhere for very little money in the late 90's and early 2000's. There was a very mature online community early and the SDAC had a newsletter with parts trading even before that. They were really the first national niche car community I was aware of and participated in. Like a lot of cars, their appeal transcended the crappiness of the cars themselves.
I always hated Volvos until I test drove an 850 sedan in the mid-90's. It was a 5-speed car, and while it was no ball of fire, it had a feeling of extreme precision and solidity about it. I came away impressed. I would later buy a well-used 940 Turbo wagon and DD it for a couple years. That car was a blast. Comfort, awesome wagon utility, and way faster than it should have been.
So that's what's good about Volvos. Yugos and 80's Chryslers? That stuff is worthless crap! 
I enjoyed my mostly stock turbo dodge but i have zero love for it, it was just a cheap car. My love for the foxbody chassis stems from drag racing being the only motorsport ive participated in. There widely popular there because that suspension works great for stock suspension and small tire racing.
I'm not trying to disagree with anything about your statement, but i'd like to ADD that the only suspension-ish thing a k-car 'needs' to drag race all the way down into the 10s is the right pair of front tires. Other than that there's nothing you really HAVE to do other than making sure all the bushings that hold things in alignment are actually still present, etc.
You'll need to log in to post.
