What is the oldest car you would comfortably take on a freeway?
>>28208155Early to mid 50s are generally when cars started to become comfortably highway-capable. 40s is pushing it, but some cars can do it. There are highway capable 20s and 30s cars, but only the big luxo barges that still aren't cheap.
1907 Model T with a bodykit
>>28208155I daily'd a 62 Dart and a 65 Valiant, only the Valiant had seatbelts, both 170 slant six autos. Did it for years. It wasn't much worse than dailying any other shitbox, but I ended up burning out the transmission in the 65 from keeping up with traffic at 90mph on toll roads for about 6 months.My suggestion is maintain it as you would anything else, but if you do a lot of highway miles pick something else or swap overdrive into it along with at least front disk brakes.
>>28208155I've never owned a car newer than one built in 1968.
anything under 120hp is scary on the interstate if you need to be on there regularly, also having no overdrive and insane final drive ratios would make it a nuisance for long distance but these would be the only things I would worry about.I would dd a fuckin lawn mower with overdrive pulleys if my commute was only 10 miles.
Take on a freeway? 1980s if it has airbags. Wouldn’t want to daily a 1980s car though.
>>28208304This thread is for men
We drove pic rel 70-odd miles on the Motorway/Freeway and it was fine, though we didn't do more than 65mph. It's basically a reskinned Ford Model 62, so I guess the answer to your question is something from the 30's? Assuming it has reasonable gearing.
A very high spec 30s sports car in terms of performance, but probably too pricey for insurance/maintenance.A mid-late 50s car is probably affordable enough to do it.
Honestly any around the city at least
Anything that can reach 60
>>28208346'Not wanting to die is for sissies' is such a pseudomasculine cope.
>>282083041980s cars are peak because they're the lightest which means they're the cheapest way to go fast.
>>28208404As long as you're wearing a 3-point and not driving a fucking beetle you're already mostly safe Classics are also hard to miss, thus drivers give you more attention and are less likely to hit you, at least if they aren't tiktok-ing
>>28208404go drive your CUV pussy
>>28208404Fag>>28208155Basically anything with a three speed transmission and a final ratio of 3.50 or higher will be fine, so mid 50's for most US domestic stuff. As the government has raised limits, manufacturers have responded in kind. Stuff that was built for 55 is going to be busy at 75.>>28208515No, they get fucking distracted and then do stupid shit to try and catch up to see what it is.
>>28208155I built a motor for a 1915 Locomobile that could pretty easily cruise at 70 on the highway. I would daily the hell out of it if it was mine. I did actually daily drive a '31 V12 Peirce Arrow for a month in the summer time during covid, and it was pretty doable. You could daily a high-end 30s car, but the reasonable age cutoff is probably the early 50s. Anything that was produced after the highway system became a thing.
>>28208155I'd say my cut off is 66, that's the year they mandated collapsing steering columns and other basic safety features. I'd feel more comfortable if the car isn't going to actively kill me in an accident
>>28208719Prewar cars are reliable as fuck but other than Ford you really cant get parts. If you dont need the interstate, a 1908 model T would be doable but it would suck. A model A can keep up with interstate speed but the V8 would be ideal
>>28208259i've got a 67 fury with the 383. wouldn't mind overdrive but apparently with a 2.94 diff it wont be too awful on the highway. too early to say but ive thought about manual swapping it if i own it for a really long time.>>2820830480s cars are fine, wat
>>2820873880s cars are soviet tier shitty malaise era shitboxes. Unless its a high end luxury car like mercedes, lincoln, cadillac, rolls royce, etc stick to 1969 and earlier or 1997 and later. Pre 97 fuel injection systems are weird and dont have the obdii standard so its harder to diagnose faults ontop of parts potentially being scarce. You also get mandatory airbags after 96 whereas with 80s and early 90s cars they were optional so youre rolling the dice.
>>28208730You'd want a post '12 T with the electric starter, crank starting sucks. Yeah, for non-common pre-war parts you're either making your own or befriending the residential autistic boomer hoarder of your specific car's parts.
>>282081551911 Rolls Royce Silver Ghost.7.4 liter v12, 4 speed transmission, and a 3300 lb. curb weight with a fire breathing 58hp. Imagine driving a car older than when the Titanic sunk.It'll do 80 mph. Eventually.
>>28208754>Unless its a high end luxury car like mercedes.....Specifically avoid fuel injected 70s and 80s German vehicles. Early Bosch fuel systems sucked ass when they broke.
>>28208776>sucked ass when they brokeWhich would be a problem if Bosch K-Jetronic ever broke, but it doesn't.
>>28208769It would be fine until something breaks then your nice big prewar luxobarge will be down for months if it breaks so thats only an option if you swap a modern drivetrain in. Problem is they have a meme tax on them because of boomers. Postwar british cars have that same build quality and aesthetic so ill stick with those until boomers croak. A bristol 410 will last 600k miles guaranteed from the factory>>2820877680s emissions choked carburetors are the reason people think carbureted engines arent reliable. But yeah, avoid pre 97 efi unless you really do your homework especially the early experimental stuff.
>>28208772Not a V12, those were L6's. Rolls didn't get V12s until the mid 30s. But yeah, they're beasts. I've driven and worked on one pretty extensively. The owner did a 1400 mile road trip in it up the east coast without a problem. It was one of the few brass cars at the event that didn't break down. They have exhaust cutouts from the factory and a 7L and open header straight 6 sounds killer. They're slow, but not terribly so. As long as you nail your shifts (unsyncroed box), you can keep up with traffic. It'll top out around 70 with the stock gearing.
>>28208789Whats the best looking 30s luxobarge you can find for under $40k?
>>28208769>>28208719Ayyy haven't seen you post in ages. At least not in /ccg/. Did you finally finish building that supercharged V16 for that one obscure car brand I can't remember?
1985 is the oldest I'd drive >t. 2002 zoomer
>>28208789Damn. Learned something new today.A 7L straight six. Do like.
>>28208754my experience was only with a late 80s efi toyota so that might not be a good representation of 80s cars in general. ot never gave me any problems, just werked.i think airbags are overrated in earlier cars desu. iirc seatbelt + airbags versus seatbelts alone is just a few percent increase in chance of survival, depending on whom you ask it's either not worth it, or every bit counts
>>28208781K-Jet sucks because its delicate. If it was maintained perfectly and never messed with, it was fine. I've had a few 944s and never had an issue with it. But getting it dialed back in after it's been sitting and full of varnish is a nightmare.Its not as bad as D-Jet though, which is what that set of 4 points in the image was from. That was on a 70s Merc V8 and troubleshooting it was a pita.>>28208792There's a lot of decent 30s cars you can get for under 40k, but they're usually (for the time) commuter NPC spec with smaller I6's. All 30s cars look more or less the same imo, and the ones that have definitive, nice styling are usually outside the 40k budget. The nicest driving and decent looking 30s car you can get a good example of for under $40k would probably be a Packard 120. Then you also get their excellent I8. Best bang for your buck is always a Model A. >>28208818Hey m8. I haven't posted in /ccg/ for a bit because I didn't really have much interesting stuff to post. I moved away from that resto shop because the pay wasn't really cutting it anymore. Since then, I've been doing resto-mod work for an F100 builder and can't really post pics because they're all magazine builds. Unfortunately, the V16 Miller is tied up in financial trouble, as far as I know. The last time I stopped in to take a look at it, they had it sitting on a run stand and were doing the final inspections, but I don't think they ever got the kinks ironed out and now it's sitting in project purgatory. >>28208829Yeah, the engines were super cool, pic related. Sound from that car here: >>>/wsg/5785094
>>28208866>I haven't posted in /ccg/ for a bit because I didn't really have much interesting stuff to post.I don't believe you, kek>I moved away from that resto shop because the pay wasn't really cutting it anymore. Always understandable. Seeing your work, you're definitely worth it.>Since then, I've been doing resto-mod work for an F100 builder and can't really post pics because they're all magazine builds. o shid, you got any spare '53 grilles lying around by chance?>Unfortunately, the V16 Miller is tied up in financial trouble, as far as I know. The last time I stopped in to take a look at it, they had it sitting on a run stand and were doing the final inspections, but I don't think they ever got the kinks ironed out and now it's sitting in project purgatory. A shame, but oildowndrain.jpg
>>28208876Kek, the kind words are much appreciated, mate. No '53s unfortunately, last couple trucks I did were both '70's that I resuscitated. I can post pic related because its already back with the customer, but this is one of the few I've ship-of-theseused back into a usable vehicle.On the thread topic, if you're looking for a classic vehicle that is as comfortably daily-able as possible, these old trucks with an IFS swap, aftermarket A/C, and a collapsible steering column are about as cheap and easy to put together as it gets, and are dead reliable while being reasonably comfortable. >A shameIt is a shame. I was excited to get that motor together too. I don't doubt it will run some day, especially since they already have the parts to build 2 more, but they have to get things ironed out with the customer first. Shop mismanagement is always unfortunate.
>>28208916I recall a term that stated "What's old is new again".People won't realize what was lost if they don't get to experience what we once had.Keep those classics rolling.
>>28208916-bumpsideso nice. I'm about to get my '69 from some brake work from the shop back tomorrow. Not as nice as the stuff you built, but it's going to be my 'dicking around' trugg. Post some more stuff in /ccg/ when you get a chance, especially when you pick up something cool for yourself.
>>28208929Thanks anon, will probably be caretaking old shitboxes until I croak. Honestly, a slightly resto modded classic truck is a legitimately more usable, better vehicle than the rolling plastic shitheap trucks you can buy now, while being a fraction of the price and actually repairable. I suspect people are going to start realizing that and the demand will go way up. There's already been a huge uptick in customers since I started working on these, we can't get them out the door fast enough. >>28208932Based, have you posted that truck? Every man has to have a dicking around truck.I have a dentside myself that I've been working on for a bit, but honestly I sold off most of my classic fleet and don't plan on picking anything else up soon. I used to have 2 '59 Edsels, the V12 Peirce, the '77 F250, and a few other 80s shitboxes. I'm down to a shitty Lotus 7 replica, a Grand Marquis, and that '77 truck now.
>>28208948>Based, have you posted that truck?I think so. Here's the most recent I got.>and don't plan on picking anything else up soon.famous last words, kek. I forgot you had the Edsels. Red Bermuda wagon, right?
>>28208963whoops
>>28208963>>28208964Sweet man, that thing looks good. Does it have the 300 in it?>famous last words, kek. No, I definitely have to keep the fleet down, kek. I'm dumping a bunch of money and time into a Shovelhead project and that Locost 7 right now. Also, I might be moving soon and don't want to move 8 cars lol. >Red Bermuda wagon, right?I had a red Ranger and a blue Villager wagon. The Villager wagon caught fire and burned to the ground, I sold the Ranger last summer. On thread topic, I did daily pic related, rain or shine for a couple months. It was a lot of fun and wasn't bad on the highways.
>>2820873880s cars don’t even have cruise control.
>>28209007mine did. it was an 89 though, so i guess it's a technicality
>>28208990That is a beautiful 59, I'd love to find an Edsel of my own one day.
>>28209007Mine from 1987 has one
>>28208738>but apparently with a 2.94 diff it wont be too awful on the highwayPrepare to be disappoint.
>>28209477Even if rocking 30" tires?
>>28209007There's plenty of 70's cars with itI know 60's caddies have it roo
>>28209483The problem is the ratios of the 727 with the B/RB pattern. The 30" tire will let you hit the speed, but the rpm is going to be screaming unless your running ported big valve 906 heads, a team G, headers, and 484+ cam. 383s can hit 6500 rpm e-z but you'll probably be cruising at 3000 to stay at 75mph. NASCAR Mopars used a 1.77:1 axel and ran to 7500 rpm to hit 150 with a B/RB big block. An A833 4 speed from an 80s slant six Dodge pickup will be a 3 spd with OD, 16:1 1st and .75:1 4th and is probably the only transmission I would daily on the highway if I ever got an old mopar again, would need 30"+ tires and 2.70 gears and it would still kind of suck.
>>28209007My 83 ZK Fairlane had cruise
>>28209007only boring cars need cruise control.
>>28209477>>28210528damn, you sure? only asking because i was perusing some of the mopar forums and saw a guy that had a 68 newport with a 383 and 2.94 gearing, 28 inch tall tyres, 70 mph was about 2500 rpm which is not too shabby at all. guy claimed about 15.5 mpg on the highway when not being cheeky with it, which is pretty decent for the kind of car it is
Had one of these. I would not say it is really worthy of modern day use but you could do it.
>>28210620>only asking because i was perusing some of the mopar forums and saw a guy that had a 68 newport with a 383 and 2.94 gearing, 28 inch tall tyres, 70 mph was about 2500 rpm which is not too shabby at all.He's 100% full of shit.
>>28208155Ford Model T
>>28210891at the same time i posted that i punched it into an rpm calculator...it seems to check out? >70 mph>28" tire diameter>rear gear ratio 2.94>trans gear ratio 1.00>rpm = 2469.6am i missing something? if i set it to 30" tires it drops to 2304.96
>>282081552024anything else cant be trusted to not fail
>>28208155I daily drove this until fairly recently, 70s 200ci Falcon 6 and a 2-speed Fordomatic gets along quite well on Aussie highways. Family friend swaps between a '59 Fairlane, an '61 Starliner and an FB Holden on an 80 mile round commute and has done for more than 30 years.
>>28210969>am i missing something?You're halfway or more into the torque curve of a big block. 2500 rpm is screaming when 5000 rpm is peak hp. There is a reason someone invented Gear Vendors OD.You want to cruise at 75mph at 1500 rpm or less.
>>28211353oooh very good point
oldest i would likely do is early 60s for sure. oldest ive done was my 84 300zx i had. although that was considered more "high tech" in its day.>>28208304>airbagsfaggot lol.
'80s>disc brakes>efi for retards>lightweight >modern suspension setups become more common>Still has Lego tier modularityI refuse to drive anything made after 2009 or before 1980>>28208304>1980sbased>if it has airbags. cringe
>>28208155My oldest car I ever dailyed was a 1988 mustang lx convertible 4 cylinder…looked just like picrel
