<$5000

Probably your mother. Only thing is although she's huge, her interior is very tight.

>>16375823
Volvos, w123, ls400s, Lincoln lsc, clean mk4 vws and Passat 1.8t

File: 1479752792973.jpg (1MB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1360px

>>16375823
Pontiac Fiero.

>>16375832
>implying you cant fit 4-5 people in OP's mom at once

used?

yameme R6

>>16375823
A civic for 3k

File: 400e2.jpg (608KB, 3400x2276px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 3400x2276px

w124

>>16375823
99 corolla

>>16375823
Ford Focus MK1
BMW e36

Rcsb ford ranger with the 4.0, 5 speed and 4wd.

File: 3307400800_afea0846b7.jpg (103KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 500x333px

>>16375823
>saab 9-3 aero
turbah v6 desu

>>16375823

Dailyable? The 94-96 Caprice/Impala SS. They have a 350 v8 in the front, get okay gas mileage, are rear wheel drive, and have a ton of room. The Caprice also came as a station wagon should that be your thing. Should you want something a bit different looking the Buick Roadmaster is basically the same car but rebodied and with potentially more optional equiptment that the Caprice and Impala didn't get at all. The LT1 is lightly more repiability issue prone than a standard small block chevy though, so if one is really afraid they could try and get an earlier model (91-93) Caprice. The Impala was only 94-96 though. Bonus though if you get a 91 or 92 Caprice they had semi covered wheel wells and a different style of taillights that are more sleek.

For fun? Basically any f-body (Camaro and Firebird from about 82-02) is great. Obviously if you can score a later, 97-02 model it's the best one as it would have an LS1, but getting one of the early, boxy models is great for beginning wrench turners. The 93-97 models has the LT1 which while not much different from a standard small block gm motor it may pose a difficult time for the uninformed as it varies enough to cause confusion.

File: PORSCHE944-3027_1[1].jpg (209KB, 1024x766px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1024x766px

>>16375823
Alright, I'll be that one faggot.

>>16376129
Possible to put an LS1 into a 1984 Camaro?

>>16376269

It's definitely possible, however if you don't have much experience working on cars I wouldn't suggest undertaking such a project. If I recall correctly a standard ls series motor will basically bolt into the early camaros and firebirds so long as one sources or makes the proper motor mounts.

>>16376321
Was thinking about having a shop do it.

>>16376331
Are you prepared to pay 20 grand for it? Because that's how you end up paying 20 grand for it.

>>16376331

If you find a reputable shop yeah they should be able to do it. Be prepared though, as it likely won't be cheap. I'd expect it to be roughly 4 grand if you went with them doing all the labor and using a 5.3 motor or the likes. If you find someone doing it for really cheaply I wouldn't go with it. If it seems too good to be true it usually is, and considering it could have you ending up with a car in pieces across someone else's garage I'd go with the shop that may have done a LS swap before.

>>16376331
ONLY if you have done all the research and have ALL The parts to do the swap. Otherwise, you will pay out the ass.

You need mounts because the LS block has different mounting points, but you can get those aftermarket. you also need a wiring harness and ecu, but other companies sell those by the boatload.

With the LS engines, you're very spoiled for choice. iron block, aluminum block, and various displacements (4.8L, 5.3L, 5.7L, 6.0L, 6.2L, and 7.0L)

Personally, I recommend the smallest 4.8L. It's iron block only and it is literally THE cheapest LS engine you can find. Getting them for under $500 from a junkyard is commonplace. and it's been proven repeatedly there isn't much of a power difference between a 4.8 and a 5.3 Both start out around 300 HP, which alone is more than enough in an 80's Camaro, and should you want to modify, they can easily make 100 HP per liter naturally aspirated before you talk power adders like turbos and superchargers. And the iron block is less likely to break from abuse.
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/1306-4-8l-vs-5-3l-engine-tech-little-ls-slugfest/

File: c3.jpg (65KB, 585x360px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 585x360px

been gettin hard to these lately

>>16376129
Oh and fuck the lt1 optispark for the record

>>16376386
My issue with these that I can find locally is that they've been rode the shit out of and not taken care of. I mean full project frame up.

>>16376404

It isn't bad. They just take longer to change and cost more than a normal distributor.

>>16376737
My issue with them was that in my 94 z28 I had to go through literally 11 from advance to get one that wasn't a dud. Inb4 must have been another problem. Nope. When I got a good one it was perfect and no problems after. Frustrating as shit.

>>16376102
>common
>under 5k
Pick neither

File: IMG_2966.jpg (102KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x768px

>>16375823
yes that camaro
and
foxbody

>>16376742

In my experience with them it's better to just get a used unit from the junkyard or to pony up for the Delco one. I currently have two impalas and have had a few caprices before, worse luck I had was paying ten bucks for a broken one from the junkyard.

>>16376737
The optispark system is bad and you should feel bad
Convert to a DIS system the second you can. It's WAY more reliable.
See the optispark system is glorious in concept. Use a laser pointed at the crankshaft to accurately time the spark pulses of the distributor. Except the Opti-spark is located right below the water pump, and in a precarious position. Go through a puddle the wrong way and you can disable the entire car.

>>16376138
944 turbo yes. the NA? na

>>16376759

Converting to that is much more work than you think, and isn't worth it. Especially considering I can change an optispark out in about a half hour and it shouldn't really have to be done often at that. Of my current Impalas one hasn't been changed in the 4 years I've owned it and the other had one changed back in february.

>>16376754
Yep definitely advice I'd love to have gotten 6 years ago kek

C4 Corvette

>>16376773
I know it's incredibly involved, but it beats having a car flummoxed by a puddle.

>>16376753
But foxbody is worstbody. 1971-74 Mach 1 is the only good looking mustang.

>>16376819

The puddle splash thing is actually quite overblown. Unless the optispark is dying already and you hit a deep puddle it will be fine. Protip, you can make a skidplate/shroud and have it run from the front lip spoiler to the crossmember and no water can get in from the underside of the car, at least on the caprices, impalas, and roadmasters. I did this on my daily impala I have right now and the beater caprice wagon I had a while ago and they didn't have any issues with rain, except the wagon which had a failing optispark anyways and would have starting issues if it sat outside in the rain overnight.

File: Chevrolet-Caprice-Classic-1993–1996-2.jpg (168KB, 1024x538px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1024x538px

>>16375823
Caprice Classic

>>16376819
Unless your driving into a river and leaving it there overnight, water isn't a big deal. The vacuum system implemented after 94 did a great job of fixing moisture issues. Everyone that has an opti failure is either replacing a 20+ year old opti, bought a cheap Chinese aftermarket opti, or didn't replace vacuum hoses when changing the opti.