A lot of the time, cash in hand at a used car lot CAN get you a better price than private party cars. Used car dealers get their cars at auction, and pay significantly less than private party prices. Even with some profit margin built in, they can still usually beat private party prices if you have cash in hand.
Cash in hand is KING. When you're selling something and there's cold hard cash in front of you it's hard to resist if the buyer is reasonable. I've taken 30% less from a buyer who had a handful of cash and have also talked someone down by half for a vehicle because I was handing over a packed envelope of greenbacks.
Ive heard of police auctions. How legit are they? Ive only heard stories, usually, from a guy that knew a guy. What are the odds of picking up something decent or being able to outbid dealers?
Police Auctions and Dealer Auctions are two completely separate worlds. Police auctions are held by police departments (or outside companies the departments contract with) to dispose of property that has been either seized, held as evidence and never claimed by the owner afterward, abandoned, etc. If they have any cars to auction, it's probably because they were seized during a drug case. When the police seize a car in a drug case, what do you think the first thing they do is? They tear everything apart looking for drugs. It's not unusual for police auction cars to have the entire dash disassembled/broken, all the interior carpet torn up, and the seats cut. The other cars they auction are retired police cars, and those things have been beat to SHIT. The reason police auction cars are so cheap, is because they're not desirable, and not worth any more. I'd say the majority of police auction cars are being bought up by salvage dealers to be torn apart, not by dealers looking to resell them.
Holy shit. I saw one of these beasts in a Du Pont registry magazine. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.icon4x4.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.icon4x4.com/</a> This is exactly what I need. I think the price is just insane. It is all hand-built and handmade so, I can understand. I just can't see paying someone to do something I'd like to do myself. Just go look at the site. The craftsmanship is incredible. A winch in the backseat area? Looks kinda dangerous but, I guess if you have to use it, everyone can get the fuck out the way. The hood and windshield frame have that bedliner spray on it, screw the bugs making a mess or chipping paint. I hope a company like this does really well. If anything, I've gotten some great ideas for what I want to do.
Looks pretty cool, but couldn't see a price mentioned anywhere on the site... probably not a good sign. And the winch looks like it's just temporarily mounted in the back seat, and then when needed, is attached to the front or rear bumpers.
I know some guys that are seriously into 4 wd'ing and all of them have their winches attached to the front of their trucks , permanently.
Mustangs. Tires and wheels. Ok so try to follow me here. The car that was totaled is a 2000 GT. I was given the stock wheels off of a 2003 Cobra SVT and put them on the 2000 with 275/40 17's about 6 months before the accident. The replacement car is a 1995 GT with stock wheels and 246/45 17's. 1. Will the SVT wheels work on the 1995? 2. I think this is a stupid question because the sizes differ so much but, is it even possible that the 246/45 17's would fit on the SVT wheels? Obviously, I want the SVT wheels off of the totaled 2000 on the 1995.
Ok, so according to Tirerack, the SVT wheels have a 5-114 bolt pattern, and so does the 95. The wheels will bolt up to the hub just fine. The question is, what is the width of the SVT wheels, and what's the width on the stock 95 wheels? I'm going to guess that the SVT wheels are probably 17x9s, and the 95 wheels are probably 17x8s. As long as there isn't anything weird going on with the offsets, the SVT wheels should fit just fine. Also, yes, you can put 245/45-17 tires on a 17x9 wheel. The first number is approximately the width of the tread in mm, and 245mm is around 9.6 inches. They'll fit, and should look fine. I don't know what kind of tires you have in each size, or their condition, but you basically have two options. From what I can fine, the 275/40s are going to be too wide to use on the front of your 95, so you can either run the 245/45s on all four wheels, or run the 245/45s up front, and 275/40s on the rear. Unless both sets of tires are the same brand/model and about the same wear levels, I would opt for running the 245/45s on all four. Mismatched sets of tires are usually a bad idea.
It may not work. I have a friend with a 95 GT with Cobra R wheels. For some reason, he has 17x8 on the front and 17x9s on the rear. I'll see if I can get in touch with him and ask why the hell he did this, see if he actually has a reason, I remember asking him once I just don't recall his answer. His car was lowered and leveled, so that may be it.
Haven't posted in awhile but could use some advice from knowledgeable people. I just bought a 2007 Audi A4 with a 2.0L turbo as a graduation present to myself and was wondering about fuel. The manual says it "recommends" premium fuel with an octane rating of 91 or higher but that the car can run on 87 at the detriment of performance. I don't intend on being so cheap as to only use regular, but I was wondering how important it is to use premium. Will the "plus" type (octane 89) be OK? Will I get better gas mileage out of the premium to compensate for the much higher cost per gallon? Any advice would be appreciated, thanks.
Honestly this stuff drives me nuts. If paying for premium fuel was a concern, why on earth would you buy a turbocharged "performance vehicle" that's engine is designed to run on a certain grade of fuel? Audi isn't in cahoots with Mobil to get you to spend more on gas. They simply built a vehicle that uses a high compression engine to generate more horsepower from a smaller power plant. It's more fuel efficient but it requires better fuel. Luckily for you the Audi has knock control. Knock/pinging in an engine is the fuel mixture burning unevenly or pre-igniting. This causes not only a loss of power but can damage the engine over time. Lower octane fuel combusts more easily especially under higher pressures therefore your car will have to adjust the timing of the spark to keep the engine from damaging itself. However... there's only so much the engine can do to prevent this. If you're using lower octane fuel don't drive the vehicle super aggressively. Heavy loads, high temps, and "driving it like you stole it" can overwhelm the knock protection safeguards. Also you'll get shittier fuel economy, probably 3-5 MPG difference.
I'm actively looking for an older muscle car and I keep running into the word "Replica." Is this a car that was built today, but they somehow built it with original part's from the year the car claims to be a replica from? Example a 1969 Mustang Mach 1 "replica" is a car that while all the parts are from 1969 it was built today? that seems rather difficult to do. I had thought a replica was taking a 1969 Pontiac Le-Mans and turning it into a GTO. The car I'm looking for is a GTO and I really don't care about numbers matching, but I feel weird buying a Le-Mans with GTO decals all over it, (even if it has a sweet 350 in it) I'm pretty sure I know what a resto-mod is, it's "replica" that has me a little confused.
Chevy vs. Ford I had another quick question. I'm going to a car show and every time I'm there I see some douche with a shirt that has Calvin peeing on a chevy/ford symbol. Is this rivalry that real in the automotive world? Not to sound naive but if I won the lottery, I would have a Mustang Fastback, Mach1, 69 Camaro, and the 69 454 LS6 Chevelle, and hell I would even buy the new Dodge Challenger I think it's sweet. My point is how do you not appreciate all those cars?? People wouldn't buy them because they were "chevy" or "ford", I don't mean how the two company's compete either, if a guy worked for Ford I suppose I could accept it, but for the mulleted guy at the car show, I don't get it. Speaking of which if you live in the philly suburbs there will be a car show at the kimberton fairgrounds on sunday.
H As far as I know, you're thinking correctly. I've always heard "replica" used to refer to a car that started its life as a different model type, but during restoration was converted to duplicate a rarer or higher performance variation. "Clone" is also used for that situation. Even if it was built recently, it wouldn't be using parts from 1969, it's insanely hard to find true "new old stock" parts for most of those cars, especially the rare models. If anything, they would be using modern reproductions. The only car company I know of that can build an older car exclusively from original factory parts is the company in Texas that bought all the old inventory from the DeLorean factory when they closed.
Replica can mean a modern car/chassis that's been outfitted to look like something classic. Some of the higher end Shelby Cobra "kit" cars sell themselves as replicas. It's not the real thing but it looks like it. However in your case I think replica is simply a matter of making a true to year car look like something it wasn't originally built as. Like taking a 1969 Chevelle that came with a 350 and putting all the "SS" badges and decals on it. Maybe even going a step further and putting in the 396 motor, interior parts, etc in it but it'll really truly be an original SS so the seller has to sell it as a replica. Financially replica cars are worth a bunch less than true originals so if you're buying something for the enjoyment of driving it rather than as a financial investment then a replica would be just fine.
A really popular replica or clone is the 1970 Chevelle SS. There are still a few regular Chevelles floating around but not as many SS's, so people take a regular Chevelle and put the SS grille on it and paint it red with black stripes. It looks better than a plain-jane car, but it doesn't cost as much as a real SS. One thing to note - if you see a '69 SS 454 it's a fake. The 454 wasn't introduced until 1970. The '69 SS came with a 396.
Sounds like your thoughts on it are pretty much like mine. I've currently got a Dodge Challenger and a Buick Riviera, but have been through Mazda rx7's, a Chevelle, an MGB and a Jaguar. When it comes to bikes I've had Japanese and Italian sportbikes, as well as a harley. Bike guys tend to be the same way when it comes to sportbikes and cruisers. They were all unique and appealing in their own ways. That said, the two guys that helped me restore the challenger are hardcore mopar guys and pretty much think everything else is complete garbage and they won't go near it. It's a pretty prevalent way of thinking too that can become amazingly obnoxious very quickly. It's almost like a version of car racism or something. I've actually had guys walk up to me at gas stations, tell me the car is nice, and then say, "Camaro's are better" or, "It's ok, but I'm pretty sure my mustang would kick it's ass. Looks better too." The idiot statements you get are just astounding but after a little while you just get used to it. So, when you get that mustang, just get ready to hear how everyone "used to have" some other model, and it was probably faster than your car.
I just saw this car (ad in French) <a class="postlink" href="http://autocatch.com/used-cars/2000~bmw~3_series_323~350062.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://autocatch.com/used-cars/2000~bmw ... 350062.htm</a> 2000 BMW 323 for ~6000$ CDN Almost fully loaded - Leather seats, Xenon headlamps, 2 sets of tires. 250,000 km Should I get it and change the timing belt? Anything I should look out for? Any telltale signs of racing/abuse?