How difficult/expensive would it be to get a classic 60's-

>How difficult
Not difficult at all
>expensive
Under $3k for a I6 4 door American car, more if you want something that's actually desirable
>working and reliable?
They are extremely simple and reliable
> Is replacing the engine with a modern one feasible/worth it?
No, it will make it less reliable and cost way more for little gain vs. building the engine that's already in the car

>>16735127
Very difficult and expensive. Finding one working is almost like trying to find a needle in a haystack. (if you looking for pic related).

File: 1471447544266.jpg (808KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 1920x1080px

My truck is pretty dang reliable. It costs me hardly anything. Don't replace the motor with a modern one, odds are you can slam a 302 or 350 in anything from that era if you need a replacement engine but unless it's a turd i6 like mine the engine in it will be fine

>>16735147
Objectively wrong.

File: 53fd7ea7121228e8efe69be5e88c520c.jpg (663KB, 1023x680px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 1023x680px

>>16735141
>Not difficult at all

>>16735147
>Very difficult and expensive

Which is it?

>>16735141
This is the answer

>>16735159
Depends on the car. An Alfa Romeo GTv with a fucked set of wires and clogged up carburetors and fuel system will be a much bigger pain in the ass than a c10 with a 327/350 combo.

>>16735147
You are a fucking lying nigger

>>16735159
It's not difficult to maintain an old car with stock parts.

It is difficult to plan and execute a modern engine swap.

You asked two different questions.

Price depends entirely on the overall desirability of the car. If you want a '69 Mustang you'll wind up dropping $4k on a rusted-out shell whereas $4k will get you a pretty damn decent example of an I6 AMC Rambler or slant 6 Dart some other "throwaway" car from that era.
I6 cars will always be cheaper than V8s, 4 doors cheaper than 2, and so on.
The overall cost of the car will be less if you spend more money up front, unless you plan on doing a LOT of work yourself, up to the point of metal fabrication.

File: 1976-porsche-911-carrera-3-0-coupe-930-5.jpg (289KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 800x550px

I know it will vary, but how much approximate time/money am I looking at putting in for an reliable 70's sports car, American or otherwise?

Here's a good example of a 2 door V8 car (what everyone actually wants) that you could grab for $5k and will be able to maintain for peanuts. 73-74 cars are always going to be a bit cheaper since they have ugly bumpers.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/scz/cto/5998415433.html

>>16735203
Depends on what you want and the budget. And what you define as reliable.

>>16735203
Way too vague of a question, the only way to answer it would be asking about a specific car (not make/model/year, a link to the actual car for sale) and what you actually wanted to accomplish with it.

File: a5ea90f7efbb65504f737018a1814e1a.jpg (33KB, 736x256px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 736x256px

>>16735214
>>16735222
Don't have anything super specific, just wondering what options there are. Mainly looking for a sportier classic car that would start and run every day. Is there anything like that with a budget of $10-15,000? I was considering something like a 60's mustang or 70's datsun.

>>16735141
LOL! I am building a fox mustang and I got my car for 1800 bucks, I've spent 6k and it still needs another 3-4k to be "done". This does not include engine upgrades, this only includes getting the car to where it was reliable and RELATIVELY comfortable to drive. My advice would be to stay away unless you like working on cars all the time on your free time (which I personally enjoy).

>>16735327
Both of those could be reasonably done in 15 grand but youll have to start with something thats mostly there and running, or near running.

Its missing engines or the engine isn't running or needs to rebuilt, or the frame/body needs work then you could well go over 15k

File: 14991949_1360549443956713_4629672232247836416_n.jpg (67KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 960x540px

>>16735141

I spent 6k getting the suspension redone with poly bushings, Tubular rear suspension, the interior redone, doing all the missing maintenance , replacing the hood for a fiberglass hood, replacing worn parts (all things from thermo, to pumps, to gaskets.), Wrapping the headers, Adding cats. Completely new brake system among many other things. Turns out I had frame damage from an accident too, but a buddy fixed it for me for 300 bucks. I am getting the car painted next month by my friend for 800 bucks. When you are restoring a car, you can't skip doing ANY of this stuff you might think you can but you really can't. If you plan on taking your car to a mechanic to fix everything it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to restore a car.


This is my experience, when I bought my car I thought I would "Fixe'r up" for 500 bucks and call it a day. How wrong I was, Thankfully I fell in love with working on cars and had the disposable income to do it so everything turned out great for me. I just want you to know my experience and think about what you're doing before you buy a classic car that is a restoration project.

Pic related: it's my car.

>>16735361
>>16735447
Nobody would classify a Fox body as a
>classic 60's- 70's vehicle
Clearly not what the OP was asking about. Introduction of emissions controls and primitive onboard computers in the late 70s made cars much shittier and harder to keep running if you want them to remain stock.

>>16735491
Yeah I drive a carbed 302 with no emissions equipment except cats, the cost for a 60-70's car would be similar.

File: b142184c-feb6-4458-82aa-e215bddafb0a.large.jpg (297KB, 1599x900px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1599x900px

>>16735327
I have about 7k into my datsun 240z, but I also know how to do my own work on the car.

>>16735327
You can get a decent a code mustang notch back for like 6-8k. Small things might go on it, but with classic cars you need to rethink your definition of reliable

>>16735499
I've literally spent less than 1500 over the last two years of my truck, and I got it going after sitting under a tree for a decade.

Git gud

>>16735127
If I was being a prick about it, I'd say if you have to ask it's too difficult and it'll be rather expensive. After the initial investment you can limit most of the ridiculous cost by knowing what the hell you're doing or knowing where to put money. You can avoid getting nickel and dimed to death by knowing shit like all GM A-body rear window trim is the same so you don't pay a premium on say, Chevelle/Malibu shit.

Hey bud, have you ever thought of a sleeper? Late 70's Caprice or Impale. 2dr or 4dr, your choice. Go to jegs auto on-line and pick up a Mr. Goodwrench 260 horse 350 for about $1600 bucks. You can build those things nice. They got the 4 bolt main that can handle good hp.

>>16735361
>bought fox for 2900
>did 2500 mile road trip with lots of idling in traffic with zero problems, only maintenance was new tires and oil changes

What the fuck are you doing bruh?

File: coupe_1.jpg (64KB, 950x426px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 950x426px

build a factory five Shelby Daytona coupe. you can build the whole thing for 20,000 and you have alot of engine options available to you including modern engines.

>>16735127
>Under $3k for a I6 4 door American car, more if you want something that's actually desirable

Where does this hatred of 4-door cars come from? I mean yeah, 2-door looks good on things like Mustangs, Chargers, Firebirds, etc.

But on landbarges and things like Darts, Valiants, and Falcons, it just looks weird to me.

>>16735751
I am doing a full restoration, everything has to be like new, I could have kept the car the way it is forever, but I wasn't happy with it.

>>16735751
The pic you see is when I first bought the car.

>>16736064
So you're missing the point of OP's question and doing far more work than necessary to make it "reliable" even though it was probably fine before you spent a shitton on it. Your car is better than it was, sure, but as long as the ball joints aren't about to fall apart, the brakes work, the engine runs, and fluids are fresh they'll be reliable. You don't have to rework the whole of the damn suspension.

File: 002.jpg (31KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x375px

>>16735964
Throws off the proportions of cars not designed specifically as a 4 door. The extra doors will look tacked on, the longer wheelbase generally looks awkward when the car was largely marketed as small or light on its feet. Can also throw off the roofline a lot of times (compare a 280z 2+2 to a regular 280z for a particularly egregious example).

>>16735964
2 doors normally look better. Especially for cars designed with 2 doors in mind which is most American cars pre 80s

>>16735127
Really depends on what you are working on and the condition.

>>16735327
I daily a 280z, i bought when i was 17 and im now 19, so far im having a blast, and have spent very little on maintenance, but i do have a brother and a friend who are quite knowledgeable on cars and have helped me out, so unless you're good on the technical side or have so people thatll help you, you're going to spend a bit more on a mechanic.

if you've got a budget of 10-15k, you can get a great z for that price, 240z's are objectively cooler and a little bit more powerful, but 280's are easier to work on and more modern due to the EFI. Whatever you do, dont get a 260, it's the least powerful and most difficult to find parts for.

one thing you need to look for is rust, they're pretty notorius for rusting, so you need to look all over the car for rust areas, theres some buying guides out there thatll give you more specific area to look for, but the floor pan rust is the most important area IMO. body rust bubbles arent good but they wont do anything harmful except be and eyesore, but its obviously more expensive to fix. but with your budget, you should be getting a nearly completely rust free example.

>>16736146
>240z's are a little more powerful

What the fuck am I reading?

>>16736146
Also floor pan rust is only slightly more worrying than body panel rust- The real shit to watch out for is forward frame rail rust and other structural shit, namely shock towers or around k frame mounting points.

>>16736156
The 250's are the most powerful of the series because of the regulations that limited the 260 and 280. Theyre also much lighter because od the lack of fuckhuge bumpers on the later models

>>16736184
240's* my b

>>16736184
Only more powerful than the 260s from the factory and even then only in some regions.

>>16736200
you're right, i misread the 150 crank hp as being the wheel hp. in any case, itll still probably beat any stock 280 because of the added 500 pounds from all that safety shit

>>16736230
Literally who leaves the crash bumpers on, though?

>>16736239
i always thought they looked cool to be honest, and the crash bumpers only account for like half that weight, maybe less.

>>16735127
I've always wanted to get some ancient luxobarge, freshen it up and shove a modern engine in it for fun
unfortunately I don't even have the room for a second car, let alone a nice space to work on it, so it's gonna stay a dream for now
hopefully there will still be options around when I can afford a house

>>16735153
is this outside local AA meetings?

>>16736230
They're not measured in wheel HP, no car is. The 240 was rated at 150 gross HP (engine with no driven components) whereas the 260 and 280 were rated in net HP (engine plus all belt-driven components). If you measured the L24 in net HP, it'd be around 130-140 HP.

File: 20161211_161317.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>16735127
Not too hard. The buy-in is high though because fast and lout faggots love them so much.

Don't bother with modern engine swaps. The old stuff can be perfectly reliable and perform pretty well and for much less money/work.

just gete an MSDI ignition system and electronic fuel injection