What's new
  • Forums will go offline Wednesday Dec 4th at 10AM CST for updates. It's a big update, so the site may be offline for a few hours.

Interesting Craigslist finds


Bought an 86 camry almost that clean(had 1 small dent and some scratches on the console) for $350 about 10 years ago. Was even the same color scheme.

AC even worked. Was a killer car, got the shit beat out of it and just kept going.

My favorite memory was driving to the woods to go shooting and hitting a deep puddle fast enough to make water spray out like a fire hose frome between the hood and fenders :lmao:

Also was just bombing around in about 6" of mud that my buddies stock 4x4 Tahoe got stuck in :laughing:
 
that thing is way sweet and I'd be all over it for like $2k
same with a very clean 1st gen caravan
3spd auto in those old compacts knocks you down to ~30mpg vs the 40+ those kind of cars get with the manual. Between that and the useless body style (seriously, the fuck is the point of owning a sedan smaller than a crown vic, just get a hatch) I wouldn't buy one for more than a grand.

2k for a "clean enough to command that price" Caravan or something else that can actually, you know, do shit I can see. I almost bought a 4WD Tercel wagon for 2k but other than attract the wrong crowd there's literally nothing that car does that my Subarus don't do better and I don't need another project.

Methanol is like 3 bux a gallon...
That's equivalent to $6/gal when it comes to BTUs. Methanol is almost exactly half the BTU/gal of gas.

The reason people run methanol is that it's stochiometric ratio is less than half that of gas so you a given cylinder charge of air and fuel will have more BTUs because while you need double the fuel (reducing space for air) you wind up with an overall greater number of BTUs because you need so much less air. Methanol also has better detonation/knock characteristics so you can run fucktons more compression and run it a tad less rich (relative to stochiometric, the nominal ratio is still rich as fuck compared to gas).

That said, I'm sure if I had a reliable supply of $3 methanol I'd find a way to put it to use.

Bought an 86 camry almost that clean(had 1 small dent and some scratches on the console) for $350 about 10 years ago. Was even the same color scheme.

AC even worked. Was a killer car, got the shit beat out of it and just kept going.
Hint: all cars "just keep going" when you're starting from a position of low-ish miles and decent shape.
 
I like my Free 5 spd Cam-Ry (must be pronounced in baby talk) mo better.
20220622_062934.jpg
 
3spd auto in those old compacts knocks you down to ~30mpg vs the 40+ those kind of cars get with the manual. Between that and the useless body style (seriously, the fuck is the point of owning a sedan smaller than a crown vic, just get a hatch) I wouldn't buy one for more than a grand.

2k for a "clean enough to command that price" Caravan or something else that can actually, you know, do shit I can see. I almost bought a 4WD Tercel wagon for 2k but other than attract the wrong crowd there's literally nothing that car does that my Subarus don't do better and I don't need another project.


That's equivalent to $6/gal when it comes to BTUs. Methanol is almost exactly half the BTU/gal of gas.

The reason people run methanol is that it's stochiometric ratio is less than half that of gas so you a given cylinder charge of air and fuel will have more BTUs because while you need double the fuel (reducing space for air) you wind up with an overall greater number of BTUs because you need so much less air. Methanol also has better detonation/knock characteristics so you can run fucktons more compression and run it a tad less rich (relative to stochiometric, the nominal ratio is still rich as fuck compared to gas).

That said, I'm sure if I had a reliable supply of $3 methanol I'd find a way to put it to use.


Hint: all cars "just keep going" when you're starting from a position of low-ish miles and decent shape.

No they don't. We had a pinto, and some 80s Buick not last more than 1 day of beat down :laughing: it didn't have low miles anyway, was like 250k or something when I got it.

All those compact 80s cars were pretty damn good though. Except the k cars :laughing:

The other nice thing about the camry was that when it did need a part. It was pennies on the dollar. Timing belt was like $8. :laughing:
 
No they don't. We had a pinto, and some 80s Buick not last more than 1 day of beat down :laughing: it didn't have low miles anyway, was like 250k or something when I got it.

All those compact 80s cars were pretty damn good though. Except the k cars :laughing:

The other nice thing about the camry was that when it did need a part. It was pennies on the dollar. Timing belt was like $8. :laughing:
I'd put a Datsun B210 up against any 80's, 90's or even the 00's for reliability. The damn things would rust away before dying.
 
Cant imagine an extra 225lbs of engine makes that thing handle well.
 
Ad says it has "camel heads".... You know its probably a bone stock 305 from the late 70s that makes all of 195hp at best. :laughing:

Would have been less ghey if it had an all aluminum LS in it with EFI.
Would handle better too with only 90-100 extra lbs hanging behind the seats.
 
Top Back Refresh