Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

68K miles in two years on this car i just bought tonight ?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by R72K5, Aug 9, 2005.

  1. R72K5

    R72K5 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2001
    Posts:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    central IL
    [​IMG]

    uhh i was looking at title for this 84 impala i just picked up a bit ago and the title was issued on 7/17/86

    and the odometer reading at the time says it was 68870

    wtf ?

    how in the hell could 68870 miles have been put on the car since late 83 at the very earliest ??



    im confused ?

    the car is a 4.3L car, it runs great, i like it,

    must be one hell of a 4.3 engine,, damn,..


    it doesnt smoke or tap or nothin



    hum..

    maybe its just a typo and is actually supposed to have been typed out as 6870 ?


    what do you think ?

    thanks
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2005
  2. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    Very possible, especially if the PO was in sales. There are plenty of 2003 model year vehicles out there for sale that have more than 80k on them today...
     
  3. Can Can

    Can Can Pusher Man Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    15,552
    Likes Received:
    136
    Location:
    Cochrane, Alberta, Canada
    Kim and I drive at least 35K miles a year between her bi-weekly commute, my band stuff, and our trips to our rec property........
     
  4. R72K5

    R72K5 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2001
    Posts:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    central IL
    oh wait! the word sales! duh!

    duh for me

    /me smacks my brain

    i just remembered that i was told that a salesman owned it when it was new..

    der........!

    lol... :haha:

    damn.,. i tell ya,,.

    im gettin old..

    sheesh!





    another thing i just realized too, lol... this thing is a 3.8L Olds powered car

    i did not ever evne dream that GM ever put a 3.8L in the full size(B body) cars

    but they did......
    through 84.... as the base model V-6..


    a whopping 110 hp LOL

    would be excellent on gas though i would think.. heh

    i assumed it was 4.3L

    i had NO CLUE the old 3.8 Olds was ever put in these things,


    ill be damned.,.


    however the RWD 3.8L Olds engines did use the 90 degree bellhousing same as the straight six and 4.3L and v-8's

    so thats cool, but its olds buick pontiac pattern,,..


    but i could put a 307 or 301 or 403 or 425 or 455 or 500 in it hehe, if i got the right exhaust and mounts and radiator, heh, but the tranny may not live that long if i drove very hard, but thats ok cuz i have a longtail TH350-C with olds pattern housing from an 81 c-10 with 350 diesel,
    so that would work fine in the car and be tough to kill, :D

    thanks
     
  5. jac6695

    jac6695 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Christiansburg, VA
    One of my buddies had a mid 80's Cadilac Coupe DeVille with a carbed 3.8 in it. Didn't have much power, but got great mileage. We always wanted to drop in a turbo engine from a Grand National or T Type for something different.
     
  6. R72K5

    R72K5 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2001
    Posts:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    central IL
    was most likely an 84 at latest, but who knows :P

    hell a nice old rocket 350 or 455 would be great or a poncho 400, hehe

    sleeper from hell esepcialyl since these b body cars only weigh 3300 to 3400 fully dressed and are coil rear setup already

    im not sure why none are raced

    instead they are all stripepd and demo derbied

    what a waste

    of strong built lighter weight coil rear cars,,


    hum,,.

    oh well, cuz im saving them up now,



    :D
     
  7. R72K5

    R72K5 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2001
    Posts:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    central IL
    well i can tell you what.. i have learned a few interesting things since i aquired this car lol

    i learned that its a chevy 229 engine, not the 231 olds/buick engine iw as thinking would be in one of these- although they did put the 321 in some of the B body cars too, including this exact year make and model

    its freakin crazy

    so its a chevy engine, and i leasrned that there is also a 200 v-6 and that the 200 and the 229 and the 4.3 are all 90 degree block AND bellhousing pattern, same as the 4.3L and straight sixes and v-8s..
    thats just wild..

    the water pump was bad on this one, so i yanked it off this AM, and well its identical to a v-8 one

    thats funny

    putting remanufactured on one, well whenever it freakin stops raining

    i need to drive this car, this is all it needs, im halfway there right now dammit

    then i gotta get back on the 87 c-10 head swap

    so i can drive it, sell the 81 one,

    hum


    200 and 229 and 231 v6 engines

    who knew..

    damn

    there cant possibly be nay more oddballs out there i havent run across, besides the old 305 and 351 v-6 engines in the old gm trucks,


    hum
     
  8. cbbr

    cbbr 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    14,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High velocity, Low altitude
    Odd engines? I had a '79 Monte Carlo with, IIRC, a 267 V8. I thought it was a 305 until the cam had to be replaced.
     
  9. diesel4me

    diesel4me 1 ton status Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2003
    Posts:
    17,547
    Likes Received:
    937
    Location:
    Massachussetts
    I had one...(and a few other "wierdos"

    I had a 1980 El Camino that had a 267 V8!..it ran sweet,but it was gutless!--of course,the 2.56 Posi didnt help much!--but it got 20+ mpg,and went much better up hills than my 82 Cabalarro I had with a 229 V6 and probably the same rear end gears..They used the 267 from 79-82 if I remember correctly..

    I had a 262 V8 from a 75 Chevy Monza too!--but I sold it to someone else after I found out it was so small--I doubted it would have propelled a full size GM truck very well...

    The "302" Chevy motor was probably one of the weirdest ones too--many guys argued only ford made a 302--guess they never saw one in a 69 Camaro!.. :haha:

    I also had a 1959 "348" motor from a large oil delivery truck--looked identical to a 409!..I paid 150 bucks for it from a local wrecking yard--my brother stored it under his workbench for at least 5 years--we were hoping to find a 60-66 GM truck to put it in,but never found one worthy--a guy bought it from him for 400 bucks..kinda wish I kept it!..It wasn't Chevy's "best" motor,but I liked its looks--a 409 clone!--and rare nowadays!...

    I also had what I thought was a 250 Chevy six in an old truck--but I found out it was from a 64 Pontiac Lemans,and it was a 215 cubic inch!--it was identical to a chevy 194,230,or 250 externally--but had a smaller bore or stroke I guess??..

    I had a 153 cubic inch FOUR cylinder chevy motor from a 63 Nova too--looked just like a 250 six,with two cylinders sawed off!..I wish I had it now--it would probably be great for fuel mileage in a light GM car,and it would bolt to any normal chevy bell housing!...I think the 2.5 "Iron Duke" motor was derived from the 153 Nova motor...they look very similar--used in Monza's and Pontiac sunbirds...

    GM had some strange motors sometimes!.. :crazy:
     

Share This Page