SAmadei

Not positive what you mean by "drive right". The Ford-era ones like mine are phenomenally light for their size. I have the mid-range 134" wheelbase cab/chassis and Ford's published weight for it is 3800 lbs. I don't believe center of gravity would be an issue either; the engine doesn't sit much higher than the axles than in a conventional car. The weigh is in the frame, wheels/brakes & rear; there is really nothing to the cab but sheet metal. There have been a lot of these on short WB pickup chassis (tho I've no first-hand info on drivability). Or were you referring to another aspect? I'm referring to a severely shortened version. I want would love to build something stubby to park in the city... something wider than the Smart... with a real engine... but within a foot of the Smart's length. However, there is a limit to stability when the vehicle is wider than long, for example.

Bring back the '86 Olds 98. ;-)

Hmmm... I wonder how short a chassis these COEs would fit on and still drive right.

I don't think it was just Buicks... it was all about keeping them adjusted right. I drove with front drums for years and my younger sister had no problem with the front drums on her '69 Firebird (once we found that the car was using the wrong pivot hole on the brake lever). They would stop good... but you couldn't expect to do 4~5 panic stops from speed without lots of fade. What was nice is that they didn't require the power boost disc do, because once engaged, the shoes tend to wedge into the drum. Only my '68 Catalina had a power booster. On the old cars, I'd be more concerned with converting the master cylinder from single circuit to dual than upgrade the drums.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. My '70 Tempest has drums... and I got front drum parts off of a '71 or '72 LeMans years ago. I also know that my parents ordered the OPTIONAL disc brakes for the '74 Nova... because they still were putting drums on the front of the X-bods. The F-bodies did have discs standard for all the 2nd gen cars.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that I have a hernia now - I've never weighed more than 160 lbs. Last time I saw 160 I was in Junior High.

Again, I agree with DF, replace the crank sensor. While a lot of sensors look difficult to get to, its because you are looking at the problem wrong. Many times, I can get to them more easily from underneath or from the sides, once you remove a tire and some of the plastic water shields. If I can contort my giant arms and ham hocks into position, you can. I would also locate the Schrader valve on the fuel system and test the fuel pressure. I couldn't locate a spec on Google, but I would imagine you want to see at least 50~55 psi. Finally, you have got to stop the mentality of wanting to dump the car as soon as something acts up... otherwise, just start burning all your money now.

When the engine quit, yes. When it restarted, no. It's my understanding that even if the CEL didn't come back on after restarting the engine, the OBD II system still could have stored something related to as to why the engine quit, if it was a cam or crankshaft sensor or whatever. Well, you might have a stored code. When the engine stops spinning, but the key is still on run, you have a CEL condition in that it is not able to see the crank spinning... but since this also happens when you put the ignition on 'Run' without starting the car, it is not stored. Other crank codes might have been stored when it stalled, but I would think you would have gotten a CEL when you felt the engine stumble a number of times. Checking for the code needs to be done, but be prepared to not get anything... that would still be in the realm of the expected. Hopefully, you have a code, or even a pending code, as it obviously makes diagnosis that much easier. This is where the ol' grandma-fresh $500 beater comes in. ;-)

You got a Check Engine light? If you didn't get the light, there may be no pending codes. I agree with DF, sounds like the crank or cam sensor... but you may not get a code until it fails completely. Most of these sensors can be replaced fairly quickly... but you have to do your research ahead of time, to figure out exactly WHAT needs to be moved out of the way. Since even brand new cars fail, the only suggestion I have to always having a running car is to have n+1. (n being the number of drivers you are responsible for). I recently fell back to n, and spent a day without a car for the first time in over a decade. I'm working hard to get back to n+1, as I REALLY didn't like that.

So I have an opportunity to buy a 1995 Chevy pickup from my aunt... but I'm not sure what a fair price would be. I'm pretty sure the pickup is a 1500, as it has the V6. Extended cab, long bed, manual. No A/C. AM/FM cassette. Aqua/Teal color. Pretty spartan, as that how my uncle bought things. The truck has only 32K miles on it... and was last driven 4 years ago. It has been parked in a lean-to during this time and is covered in dust... but I can see the truck is in really NICE shape. The only damage is that someone hit the left corner of the rear bumper... causing the bumper to kink and put a small dent in the bed. KBB is listing this at $3755... but I feel that is kinda low. Any thoughts? My mother wants it, and I am trying to see if a 2 truck deal can be swung (including a rusty '77 Chevy), but I want to find a fair price.

Yeah, but in your car, the seat is not towering off the floor, like modern cars. The old sit-virtually-on-the-floor seats where fine.

I know just how you feel. I haven't gone since NYIAS 2008, as little really gets me interested. Before 2009, I used to stop in at GM dealerships all the time to see what deals and models where actually on the floor. Since them I've only been to a dealership (not counting parts runs) once to check out the Camaros... and was so unimpressed that I haven't been back since. Of course, even after I told the salesman that I wasn't interested in it, he still insisted on working a trade... in which he offered me $250 for my '99 Bonneville, which I didn't really want to trade. Like that's going to get me signing up for a $30K car I can only drive while reclined.

Interesting. I'll have to double check mine... I didn't think the wheels were the where the bulk of the wobble was... I was focusing on the adjuster-to-body part, which seemed to be where my wobble was worst. In fact, my original "solution" involved putting a length of threaded rod between the adjusters (over the body), but this was not a workable solution long term. Perhaps if I can eliminate wobble here and there, it would be good enough.

Hey, DF, I see that a lot of the lawnmowers have those adjustable, flimsy front wheel mountings... have you had any luck keeping them from getting wobbily? The Craftsman I use drives me nuts as the wheels are constantly toed out with the tops leaning in. The looseness is not from one spot, its just overall flimsiness. Have you found a solution? Or a source for the part that's flimsy? I'm on the verge of replacing the fronts with a nonadjustable straight axle, as the Morty Feldman front wheels make it hard to push and get caught on everything.

IMHO, I think a minivan is cooler than a CUV... but I'd never buy one as long as a real van or wagon was around.

Uh, that's not Cold Fusion. Cold Fusion is nuclear fusion at room temperatures, or within +/- a few hundred degrees F of it... specifically its the fusing of Hydrogen nuclei into Helium nuclei... Breaking H2O is a chemical reaction called decomposition.

Yep, just like extra seats taking up the area in the back of the Transit Connect Cargo Van... They ship 'em over here full of seats as a "Passenger Vehicle" and remove the seats and interior behind the B pillar and send the seats back to Europe. If that is cost effective for the Transit Connect, it could work for the Holden Ute. Wow, it would be SOOOO hard to put some sealant on some plastic plugs once the seats are removed. Geez.

Caught this tonight at the local Advanced Auto. Apparently 8 years in the building, its just starting to get driven about. I normally don't like 4 door hot rods, but I really like the stance and work done on this. I'm not even sure what year Chevrolet it is (besides mid-40s)... guy took off before I could ask him. My only complaint (besides the awful quality of my camera) is that it has fake chrome discs behind the Torque Thrust Ds... covering the drums. I'd rather see the drums... the chrome discs take away from the wheels, IMHO. Some nice detail work, like the little flame on the trunk lid and the scoops for the blower. ...and my '04 GP GTP Comp G parked next to it.

Agreed about Classic Chevy. Great dealership... family history of dropping in for 40 years... its where I played with the '10 Camaro... they had a great selection. I don't find them to be that tiny, compared to tiny cars of the past. I find them to be too tall, slab-sided and broad featureless plastic with little doors and gigantic lights... and tiny inside.

So, GM is not as clever as Ford or Subaru, both of which have skirted the chicken tax without trouble. Bolt seats in the bed and get it over with.

Can you post the source of this info? I was totally unable to find a source coming close to this. I'm wondering if Germany is outsourcing the location of its solar power. As it was not long ago, I saw stats showing that it would require covering the entire US with solar cells to provide even a quarter of our needs. It might be, but right now, the people who put in roof-loads of PVs are losing their shirts, as the SRECs are not covering the cost of the improvements. Not only that, I have been investigating putting PVs on my roof for 10 years now, and the end user pricing has not come down at all. Granted, I have not repriced in the last year, but last I checked, Harbor Freight's kit had the best watts per dollar.

Well, its not like most humans can afford products made with sugar anymore... just HFCS... but seriously, ethanol from sugar has not happened here for one reason... it would make Cuba a major player in the US ethanol business. Unless Cuba's government changes radically, the US government will not play ball.

I get you Dwight. This all reminds me of the This is Spinal Tap discussion between Nigel Tufnel and Marty DiBergi about Marshall Amps... the OHC guys are just going to continue saying "But these go up to 11".

Same story in NJ. Inch of salt on roads for a storm that never comes... or driving in an unsalted 18" blizzard that comes out of nowhere with nothing but all season tires.

I agree with you... except if you're parking in NYC (or another VERY tight metro), the dumb Smart seats a big guy better than a Cruze or Malibu and parks anywhere at a fraction of the hassle... and suddenly makes sense.