I had an 85 Caprice Estate (305 LG4) and it was the slowest car I've ever owned. The 94 Roadmaster on the other hand is the fastest. No comparison at all. My 66 Impala wagon was quick too and handled well, but not nearly as refined as the 94. Good luck with your choices. Since you seem to have to stay older than 86, I'd go with 60s or 70s. 80s wagon are unimpressive to me in all respects.
Sorry if i hijack this thread, but.... The LT1 that i have run across, working in the speedshop has been WONDERFUL!!!! Are they difficult to get hold of in the US? i can get decent freight from florida, but some say its like a lottery buying a florida car, due to rust in weird places.. Any input, anyone?
The GM LT1 powered wagons (94-96) are still plentiful. I think a Florida car would be in perfect condition since these cars don't rust much anyway. Mine has 272,000 miles on it all driven in the snowy salty northeast and it's not too rusty at all. The only places I know of rust forming are the lower rear quarter panels and the bottom of the B pillar where it meets the rocker panel. Most of these cars were owned by old people and most were kept in a garage so they're in good shape and well maintained, especially the Buicks. Check out ImpalaSS forum, they have a wagon section for tons of in depth wagon specific information. Hope you find what you're looking for these are fantastic cars !
How about a wagon from the 70's?? More creature comforts,reliable drivetrains that are cheap and easy to fix with many mechanical parts still available. By the mid-late 70's all had power disc brakes,and better handling suspensions compared to cars of the 60's
I love 60's wagons and I have a 64 Bel Air wagon that is close to a daily driver. No power steering, beat up interior, lots of rattles, can hear the engine through the floor, and no radio, but when I'm driving down the road I'm smiling. When I have to work on it I'm also smiling cause I'm not paying a fortune for someone else to do it. Go with a 60's but only if you can do the work yourself and have a place to work on it. You like 60's wagons so you'll be smiling too. Vance
I'm with Waygun on the 70's idea. My 79 Electra, has more power options than any car I've ever owned. They aren't too thirsty, getting around 20 mixed city/highway and they're reliable and not terrible to work on. A pre-77 GM downsize car would be even better.
Well....my 96 LT1 wagon gets in the high 20's for mileage and will crush you into the seat when punched.
Those LT1's are nice. I've been looking for one for the Caprice, or a 454. Whichever I come along first. But he's looking for an older rig. Otherwise I'd be with you that the bubble Roadies and Caprices with the LT1 would be by far the best way to go for a daily driver.
The LT1 will require a harness and electronics swap with the engine, CE. A lot more work....better engine in a lot of ways though. I love BB's but the 454 will get around 10-12 MPG and the LT1 will get around 24-28 MPG. Just for your edification...the 94 & 95 LT1's are OBDI and the 96 is OBDII.
I was certainly thinking about an SB, both for full economy and for parts. I will certainly convert it to LPG, but I am thinking about an LPG only setup. All the conversion kits don't really use the LPG efficiently and I have read that the aussies have liquid lpg injection systems for V8's that I would like to try. It should even give more power the gas...... If I build the block while driving with the 307/305, there is no hurry and I can sort out the system peacefully.
I am very partial to the LT1 myself, as I like the fuel mileage. The 454 mileage don't scare me too bad. I get 14 average with my pickup, and drive that daily. My Caprice, if I went with the 454 would be a couple time a year cruiser on nice days. The woman and I, as I have said, plan on wedding and starting a family, so a Roadie may be in my driveway soon, which would come with the LT1 with no fuss or muss to get it there
HOLD IT!!!! Please explain to me what the LPG conversion means? Is this something thats common in rest of europe? What about US?? I get very disturbed when i thik i missed something complicated, or exiting..
But seriously, a small summary then. In a lot of countries in Europe they have LPG. In Holland a lot, Germany, France, Italy, not in Switserland though. In most countries this is pretty cheap (in holland about 60c/liter). Driving an car on LPG will increase roadtax a lot, but as pre-86 cars are tax-free, lpg conversion is very common on these cars. CNG is deliverd by some car brands from factory (bi-fuel cars) but as far as I know LPG can be build in by the dealer, but not from factory. Two systems do exist. One for carburated, older cars (standard lpg) and for the newer injection cars (LPG G3). The old system consists a big tank that can be in the form of a wheel and take the place of the spare and a vapouriser. In this vapouriser the liquid LPG is vapourized (with the help of your warm engine cooling water) and just lead into the intake of your engine. A simple switch led you activate the system and close the fuel lines, so you can actually drive on both. As LPG has a lower caloric value, it will give less power, but the lower price is so attractive... Modern systems tie into your engine managment system. They are partly controlled by the ECM and inject liquid LPG into your engine. This causes a very high cooling of the surrounding air and your cilinder filling will be substantially higher. This will actually increase horsepower confronted to gas. In Australia LPG is very popular too, and because they also run big V8's, they have dedicated system to inject liquid LPG, increasing power. The increase in power is also caused as you can set your timing earlier as LPG is less sensitive to detonation. Of course these systems need a lot of ECM fiddling etc An intermdiate setup wiould be using a dedicated LPG carb, but then you loose the option of using gas, which means I can't drive to Sweden! I hope this makes sense.
This do make sense if LPG stands for Liquid Propane Gas. I think its out of the question in my case, cuz we hav so damn cold here, the thermometer already reads about 10degrees C below. Stockholm is about 60 miles from where i live so the time and money is propably not worth it anyways...