gt4373

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds...o/2317520.html

dmccain

iTrader: (2)

My dream car right there! If I had the $ that would be on my bucket list and probably my first to go after along with an 82 Pace Car+ 89 GTA. All stick cars ofcourse.

Saxondale

iTrader: (2)

Minty fresh.

KyleF

There was one with a 5-speed, fresh engine, 3.73 gears, fresh paint for sale on here for over a year. Sold for under $5K. Nobody wanted it.

Could have had all the fun at a fraction of the cost. 1984 L69

dmccain

iTrader: (2)

Thinking people weren't sure on the specs of that crate engine though and that's why that one sit. Anyways I would have probably bought that one i thought it was well worth it but ive been burned out and so sick of traveling to look at cars and they not be what I thought they would. Ive made up my mind to go no farther than 100mi to look at cars anymore. Its not like I need another anyhow I have two trucks, an SUV and a Firebird. I do think someone got a great deal on that particular car though I certainly do.

KyleF

Sure, because the actual L69 engine was such a screamer. I think it sat because it was not an IROC and most of what I see people looking for are 85-92 cars exclusively. I do not much care for the pre-86 cars myself. While the L69 gets attention, I think a lot of buyers want TPI. I also think T-Tops are an important selling point. If Lugnut's car was in the same shape, had an unknown crate under what a TPI in place of the LB9, T-Tops, and an IROC... it would have been an $8k-$10k car. I had the luxury of seeing it in person.

Nostalgia is important in car values and the general car guy (not the hardcore thirdgenner) remembers IROCs, T-Tops, and TPIs.

dmccain

iTrader: (2)

I totally agree with you.100% I guess I just happen to be a Dinosaur that loves the early Third gens with the simple L69. That dual snorkel air cleaner and the sound of the four barrel is exhilarating to me. Like u said for nostalgia reasons probably. T-tops are a must, TPI are gorgeous, and the big flashy Iroc stickers do sell these cars though.

KyleF

I see more of those guys with First/Second Gen cars. Nothing wrong with your preference, we all like what we like for individual reasons.That's another thing I think makes the Thirdgen special, all the different variants though it's model run.

1MeanZ

iTrader: (9)

The L69 is not a screamer by today's standards, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of an LG4, and that was the problem for me. The owner couldn't articulate what the engine was at all and seemed to make no attempt to clarify the compression ratio, cam profile or head casting numbers. So it could have been a decent performer, or it could have been a total turd sandwich, and his lack of engine info just left it all to question. And while I'm at it, since it's not the numbers matching engine anyway, he should have put a 350 in instead of a 305. Would have looked the same, cost the same, but would have virtually guaranteed some performance potential. It looked like a great car and it looked like he did quality work, I just couldn't understand why not a 350 and why no info on the 305. Then he got all bitter about it and told us all we missed out on a great deal. Great deal is in the eye of the beholder. I would have been pissed if I bought it and found out it only had 140hp....

KyleF

It amazes me at how some people get all hot and bothered about such silly things. I had no idea it would bother someone so much because:

LG4: 170hp
L69: 190hp

A whopping 20HP, but he still had the dual snorkel LOL.

From what I remember:
ALL F-body 305 heads used from 1982 - 1986 had the same part number
All Intake Valves were the same size
All Exhaust Valves were the same size
The Cam was different in the L69 and the pistons were a bit different IIRC. - For a Whopping 20hp, there has to be a Cam today better than a factory L69
Pistons were a bit different, providing a slightly different CR.
The Older LG4 rand 8.6:1 I think but later LG4s with Computer Controlled timing ran a 9,5:1 while the L69 ran a 9:5:1 So yes, I guess it could be a crap shoot over 1 pt or so, and even if it was an LG4 core, it still could have had the higher compression ratio.
A typical mildly modified 9:1 350 small-block Chevy would make about 360 lbs.-ft. of torque. Raising the compression to 12:1 would theoretically pump that up 387 lbs.-ft.
Going from 9:1 to 12:1 on a much stronger engine results in a 27ft-lb increase. WOW!!! Compression ratio helps, but it is less significant than you are making it out to be on a $5K car that was in no shape some kind of numbers matching anything. It may be 1 pt, one whole point.

Compared to what we have had on the road since 1993-ish timing. Seems a petty argument on a $5k car with no rust and is a factory 5-speed.

20hp is really nothing. A driver Mod would overcome 20hp.
The Cam and compression ratio will be small potatoes if you plan on modifying it anyway.

1MeanZ

iTrader: (9)

I hate to say this now after you spent so much time typing a post to correct me, but the '84 LG4 was rated at 140-150hp depending on where you look. That's a 40-50hp difference. The 170hp you quote was for the roller cam version which the car in question was not. My issue was that we didn't even know if was built to knock sensor equipped LG4 spec, it could have 8.5:1 compression to go with it's peanut cam, which would yield even less power. It could also be built to L69 spec and run great, we simply don't know, and that was the problem for some buyers.

No worries though, I bought this instead.....

dmccain

iTrader: (2)

Whatever HP ratings they gave out I can tell you in real life they are light years apart.Mid 14 sec 1/4 vs 17sec 1/4. I think the L69 was a bit underrated if anything. I have to agree with Jeremy on the point that this could have been a 140 HP turd we just don't know. Was it a nice car..Yes I loved it but had it been a 350 or even an up to spec L69 it would have brought much more coin no doubt.

scottmoyer

Don't forget the L69 also had the 3.73 gears in 1984. That along with the 40hp made the car feel very strong compared to the LG4.

Nice Mustang! I miss my '17 GT.

KyleF

Certainly still had the 3.73s.
20hp
40hp
305 Underrated
The car at the top of this thread is a $19K

The car advertised was at $5500 originally.

It wasn't about proving you wrong, the point was it seemed awfully hairsplitting over an insignificant amount of HP when it is a ripe car for a much bigger motor being a hard top and all. Especially from people who hadn't driven it. Possibly because I had and seen it in person, my perception is just different.

In relation between the two, maybe but ...My opinion hasn't been swayed. Neither car is a stellar performer today, either would be a turd to a new Eco Boost Mustang, Let alone the 5.0 like yours. Either car would be a turd to any currently marketed Challenger/Camaro/Mustang coming from the dealer.

Still think it was a bargain and a good enough shape body/interior to have been worth the asking price. I am out of room to have another vehicle or I would have bought it and used it to do a 5-speed swap over to my IROC and put the 700R4 back in to that car. / Then sold it on.

ktthecarguy

Hi there,
There seems to be 2 points you are missing:
1. 170hp to 190hp is 11% difference. That is something you would feel in the seat-of-the-pants meter. Not insignificant.
2. Not knowing what kind of power output that engine had is a significant risk. I thought about that car myself, but I concluded (like others) that if it had the low-output engine, it would take me considerable time and effort to make changes to get the output I wanted. Risk/reward ratio was too high for me. That's why I passed.

1MeanZ

iTrader: (9)

We are in agreement. What stuck in my craw was the seller of the white car getting grumpy about lack of interest and having to lower his price, while at the same time being resistant to post anything about the engine in the car or why he chose it.

Note to sellers on this website: This is a community full of the hardcore enthusiasts, and as such this can be the place with the toughest critics or most discerning buyers, however you want to define it. Boys and girls see an old Camaro at the gas station and it's a cool car, boys and girls here see an old Camaro and we know better....

...and yes I LOVE LOVE LOVE my 2016 GT PP M6 car. Incredible level of performance for the money.

Longer02

There was an 84 Z28 L69 with 65k miles on it for sale locally. It was an auto car and they eventually lowered the price to $3400. It was for sale forever it seemed like. I honestly should have bought that instead of my 91 Z28, but I am one of the guys who really likes the 91-92 cars.

sonjaab

My mom went crazy in the 80s as she always went crazy for my roomates 76 455 stick T/A!
She carried on about having one with t-tops!
Meanwhile my dad brought home a new 84Bonneville! She hated it!
I told her lets go to the local Pontiac dealer and pick out the one you want!
She did and it was a 85 Dark maroon, silver checkeboard stripes, t-tops, loaded
had the dealer put the bird on the hood! It was a p-nut 305 auto. and did have limited slip.

No idea what gears were in it as the stickers were gone when I came up from Fla.
That car did move out real good! I think its as fast as my 84 HO with 175 miles!
It did a healthy burn out and squeeked em in 2nd!

Sure not as healthy as a Rustang GT of the day but HEY its a Pontiac!

chazman

iTrader: (4)

I guess the white car never sold, it's still available.

gt4373

Looks Like It Sold.

chazman

iTrader: (4)

I know, but I just saw it on FB and he said it never sold.