Here's the criteria:
Under $10K to start
Immediately usable for kicking around on weekends - in reasonable shape
Easily upgradable to handle better and be reliable enough for multi-day drives
I know what I'm thinking, but would like to hear the brain trust before wading in with my 2 cents.
I think the way 2002 prices have gone, the "under $10k to start" and usable might rule out the 2002. Other than that, I think the 02 chassis would be my choice. There should be plenty of aftermarket to address handling and reliability.
Don't know enough about Corvairs to comment. For the Volvos, I'd go 544 simply based on the looks (not to mention we had a bunch of 140s growing up, and I just wasn't that fond of them). Although I think the 140 series has more room for shenanigans under the hood.
Given that you are in the land of Corvairs, I would go with a second gen. Twin carb.
2002s for under 10k are difficult to find.
I love the 2002's but I agree with Boxhead; $10,000 is a low number for those. (Like the 240Z's now - the $10,000 ones are rough)
BMW 1600 , a little cheaper and the same car that you can put a later motor in ......
Slippery said:Given that you are in the land of Corvairs, I would go with a second gen. Twin carb.
2002s for under 10k are difficult to find.
Yeah, I don't really trust a sub-$10K 2002. Although I have good body skills, part of the idea here is that I don't want this car taking too much attention off my other projects.
Why twin carb versus 4 or turbo?
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Slippery said:Given that you are in the land of Corvairs, I would go with a second gen. Twin carb.
2002s for under 10k are difficult to find.Yeah, I don't really trust a sub-$10K 2002. Although I have good body skills, part of the idea here is that I don't want this car taking too much attention off my other projects.
Why twin carb versus 4 or turbo?
Not 100% sure but when I was looking into a second gen, the 110 (twin carb) engine was more reliable than the 140 (4 carb). The 140s liked to drop valves.
But at this point, I would go with the one in the best shape bodywise.
My dad has a 1st gen spyder with the Turbo engine. They are cool cars, but the 2nd gen is a much nicer design to me.
Slippery said:Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Slippery said:Given that you are in the land of Corvairs, I would go with a second gen. Twin carb.
2002s for under 10k are difficult to find.Yeah, I don't really trust a sub-$10K 2002. Although I have good body skills, part of the idea here is that I don't want this car taking too much attention off my other projects.
Why twin carb versus 4 or turbo?
Not 100% sure but when I was looking into a second gen, the 110 (twin carb) engine was more reliable than the 140 (4 carb). The 140s liked to drop valves.
But at this point, I would go with the one in the best shape bodywise.
My dad has a 1st gen spyder with the Turbo engine. They are cool cars, but the 2nd gen is a much nicer design to me.
If u find a 95 hp they will probe as fast as the 110 now due to the fact they run better on modern gas then the 110 and have more low end torque. They are also very strong engines.
Slippery said:Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Slippery said:Given that you are in the land of Corvairs, I would go with a second gen. Twin carb.
2002s for under 10k are difficult to find.Yeah, I don't really trust a sub-$10K 2002. Although I have good body skills, part of the idea here is that I don't want this car taking too much attention off my other projects.
Why twin carb versus 4 or turbo?
Not 100% sure but when I was looking into a second gen, the 110 (twin carb) engine was more reliable than the 140 (4 carb). The 140s liked to drop valves.
But at this point, I would go with the one in the best shape bodywise.
My dad has a 1st gen spyder with the Turbo engine. They are cool cars, but the 2nd gen is a much nicer design to me.
The 2nd gen looks better to me and is true IRS, not just restrained swing axle. Yes, I've heard about the valve seat dropping issues on the big valve heads. Honestly, the Corvair motors are pretty janky IMO. It just takes so much work to open up the breathing. Might be best to just take the most reliable option and live with the limitations.
Volvos are a bit...agricultural. The most durable choice of the three, but kind of like a Kawasaki KLR vs just about anything else.
The BMW platform is the most nimble, but also the most expensive. I also have to confess I was a little underwhelmed by the one I got to drive. It's such a hyped car that I guess I expected more. For me, it was on par with a good running Fiat 124 or Alfa 2000.
Corvairs are the easy button. Mail order anything from Clark's. Superb styling on the gen 2s. Pretty simple to work on. Yeah, the steering will be slow. Plenty in the world to choose from for not a lot of money.
I'd go with a late Corvair. They are durable cars, easy to work on, and parts are available is good. They ride nicely and handle well. And they're still cheap-ish.
In the sub $10k range the Corvair is the clear choice.
I'm generally on board with the pack here. It seems from my little corner of the car universe that prices are starting to creep down, because recently I've seen decent examples of all these cars as well as Porsche 914s in my price range. But I've already done the Volvo thing (Loved my 544), and and sub-$10K Bimmers are the most suspect on this list. Then there's that Porsche 915 tranny sitting in my garage waiting for a modern motor to bolt into an unsuspecting rear-engined car....
You should be able to get a pretty nice Corvair for under 10K. Definitely avoid the turbo's. They are going to be more expensive, are rather temperamental and are not that great of a driving experience (and horrible gas mileage). Now, a modified turbo... that's a different story (hard to say what you are going to get though).
I would not dismiss the early for the suspension (if you like the styling that is). A 64 (with the stock camber compensator) is a rather nice handling car. I prefer the early convertible myself (very stiff body, much stiffer then the late convertible)
Steering can be improved easily with arms. The remanufactured quick steer boxes appear to be no longer made unfortunately, but you might be able to find one, if you do, grab it, big improvement. (I have a quick box and quick arms on mine, 1.5 lock to lock!)
I would also tend to suggest looking for a car with a good engine (and maybe sacrificing the body a bit if needed). Corvair engines are rather expensive to rebuild compared to the value of the car, unless you plan on a custom build anyway (budget maybe $4000-$5000?). Metal and paint are readily available.
I am sure you are aware, they used to make Corvairs in Oakland, right? I think they stopped in 63 or something.
You'll need to log in to post.
