The term “project car” scares off a lot of people, but it shouldn’t. Really, any car that isn’t your primary mode of transportation should be considered a project, especially ones that are fifty years old like the cars we’re going to look at today. Something is always going to need fixing. And the little repair jobs are often more satisfying than the big ones. So today, I’m going to show you two cars that don’t really need anything big, just little details. They cost a bit more than more involved projects, but they’re a lot more approachable.
Not that yesterday’s choices were basket cases or anything. You could drive either one of them home, and putter around improving stuff while still enjoying them. The Jeep won this one easily, as I expected it to. A Dodge Daytona is only of interest to enthusiasts of a certain mindset. The Jeep has a lot broader appeal.
Personally, I like them both, but I would hesitate to take on a four-cylinder Jeep Wrangler, especially one with oversized tires like that. Also, I don’t think I’d have much use for it. The Daytona is much more my style, though like many of you, I wish it were a stickshift.
It’s funny how two cars aimed at opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum can end up $50 apart in price after fifty years. Depreciation hits fancy cars so much harder than the everyday models. When they were new, or new-ish, one of these cars would have been owned by somebody with a pool. The other would have been owned by somebody who cleans pools. But today, you can have your pick, and the fancy one actually costs you less. Let’s check them out.
1975 Plymouth Duster – $5,000
Engine/drivetrain: 225 cubic inch OHV inline-6, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Toluca Lake, CA
Odometer reading: 100,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Once upon a time, automakers who wanted to increase sales among young buyers would take a humdrum economy model, wrap it in cool swoopy sheetmetal, maybe give it a slight performance bump, and watch the sales figures roll in. Ford did it with the Mustang, which was based on the Falcon, and fourteen days earlier, Plymouth did it with the Valiant-based Barracuda. When the Barracuda turned into a more serious muscle car for the 1970 model year, Plymouth filled the gap in its lineup with this car, the Duster. It’s a Valiant from the firewall forward, but the new roofline and rear end give it a look all its own. (Well, almost all its own; Dodge also offered a version of this car called the Demon, later renamed the Dart Sport after some religious groups complained about the name Demon.)
Because it is essentially a Valiant, this car has the same sturdy torsion-bar front suspension and leaf-sprung solid axle, along with the stalwart Slant Six engine/Torqueflite transmission combination. The Slant Six was available with either a one- or a two-barrel carburetor, but the seller doesn’t say which one this has. It’s only a difference of a few horsepower, so it doesn’t matter much. The seller says it “starts right up” and is currently registered, so it should be ready to roll.
I think it’s a gearhead rite of passage to own a vehicle with a bench seat covered by a striped wool blanket. If you’ve never had one, here’s your chance. Based on the condition of the rest of the interior, I get the feeling that the blanket is there for a reason. You’ll probably want to leave it on there until you get around to reupholstering the seat. It’ll need carpet too. And a radio. And maybe a new dash pad, depending on what’s under that cover. Personally, I’d replace that hideous steering wheel too; the mid-’70s was not a good time for steering wheel design. Okay, so you’ll spend your winter working on the interior, it looks like.
It looks a lot better outside. The paint is shiny, and thanks to California’s mild climate, there’s no rust. It has a few bumps and bruises, but nothing to worry about. Some photos show it with the original hubcaps installed, and some just show plain black steel wheels. I don’t know whether it comes with the hubcaps or not. It doesn’t look bad with the steelies, but having the original wheel covers on a car this old is kind of cool.
1976 Cadillac Eldorado – $4,950
Engine/drivetrain: 500 cubic inch OHV V8, three-speed automatic, FWD
Location: Lincoln, CA
Odometer reading: 80,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
But maybe a Slant Six Duster with a scruffy interior just doesn’t do it for you. Maybe you want the finer things in life, even if it means fuel economy in the single digits. Don’t worry; I’ve got you covered. What do you say to a true icon of 1970s Detroit, the Cadillac Eldorado coupe? The seller has this car listed as a “Fleetwood broom,” by which I think they mean Fleetwood Brougham, but it’s clearly an Eldorado. Maybe even the fancy Biarritz model, but don’t quote me on that.
Conspicuous consumption is the Eldorado’s raison d’être, and consume it does. Under that massive hood is a V8 engine displacing no fewer than 8.2 liters, or a nice round 500 cubic inches, if you prefer. Combine that with this car’s nearly 5,000-pound curb weight, and you’re looking at probably eight or nine miles per gallon. It’s front-wheel-drive, of course, like all Eldorados were starting in 1967. This example runs “excellent,” the seller says, and it has only 80,000 miles on it.
The interior of this car is its real selling point. Open either one of those massive, heavy doors, and you find yourself in a world of white leather, burgundy carpet, and power features galore. Of course, it’s still a General Motors car from the ’70s, so things like that crooked glovebox door are to be expected. And I’d be willing to bet that at least some of the power features don’t work. It’s all right; it gives you something to tinker with.
The outside of this one looks pretty good, too. The paint is in good shape, except for maybe on the bumper filler panels. But at least the panels are there; so many old Cadillacs have them missing or cracked. It has all four original wheel covers, and brand new Vogue tires – whitewalls, of course. A couple of the emblems are damaged, but finding replacements could be an interesting scavenger hunt.
If I’m being honest, these days, I’d actually be a lot more interested in “projects” of this magnitude than something requiring more serious work. I’d rather tinker with something here and there than tear a whole car apart and spend months or years putting it back together. I have a feeling many of you would prefer that too. So what do you think: would you rather fix up the interior of the honest, working-class Duster, or fill the tank of the comfortable but ravenous Eldorado?
I like them both, but I already own a competitor to the Duster in my ’74 Buick Apollo, which has not only a much better interior, but more importantly a V8.
I’ll have the Eldorado.
Friend of mine owns a 74′ Eldorado which looks exactly the same as the one here so I assume not much of a difference. It is an impractically huge car for what it is. Its close to 18 feet long with two enormous long, heavy doors. It just drinks the gas too. Its not really my thing but seems like a deal for someone.
The cost of the fuel in the tank of the Caddy could significantly raise/lower the sale price.
The Dodge today, I don’t have the connections to have a tanker of fuel delivered from overseas daily.
The Caddy is comparable in size to a Chevy Suburban with less utility and worse mileage. Never been a Caddy fan but I can appreciate the various facets of the brand. This one though… As bad as the interior is on the Duster, I would rather have that.
If they were both in the same condition, I’d take the slant six any day, but the Eldorado is just in vastly better shape for the money
Always wanted a slant 6 Dart but this is close enough.
But I’d like to see the girls turn the color of an avocado when I drive down their street in that Eldorado.
Tough choice today
That’s the ugliest generation of Eldorado. It’s so baroque, it would almost blend in with an Excalibur or a Clenet. But the miles are in its favor here.
I daily a 2017 vehicle with 120K and don’t give it a second thought, but for a mid-’70s mainstream American car, 100K is near the end of its service life. Reluctantly, I’d take the Eldo.
They’re both (relatively) decent cars, but I just can’t see paying $5,000 for that plain jane boring old Duster.
Gimme the big ass Eldo. That at least feels like it’s worth the money they want for it.
That Caddy is a hard deal to ignore.
Plus if I ever need to escape I can hide in one of the cylinders.
Ugly old Plymouth with a thrashed baby-shit brown interior vs. a nice Eldorado with red dash and white intact seats? Is this even a question?
The fuel use is horrific but it’ll take 85 octane and I wouldn’t trust either of these as primary transport upon which to load on heavy mileage so it would see 5000 miles per year at most. I’ll swallow that fuel cost for the far nicer car.
I picked the Caddy just because it’s something I could (occasionally) drive in comfort.
Now, if my project plans were to do a full-on project with body work, an engine swap, and suspension upgrades, etc, the Duster is the one I’d pick.
But I know me. Caddy it is.
Half a century later, we see Plymouths hold their value much better.
I did not expect to choose a Caddy, on ANY day. But that looks pretty clean & well maintained. MPG be damned, I’ll probably only drive it on Sundays like the previous owner probably did.
And I don’t want to have to worry about someone stealing my Duster, like he is apparently.
Both of these require emission testing where I live. That is a hard no for me.
Although the Cadillac might at least have its emission equipment. No license plate to tell use if the registration is current.
“What kinda emissions on this Caddy?”
“All of em. Trust me. The Fogger don’t take no prisoners.”
I picked the Duster, but you can’t go wrong with either one today.
I don’t know why all the girls wanna ride in Max’s Cadillac….
You wanna know why, it’s cause my Cad Ill Lac got that Bass Bass Bass…
I could be a warlock, looking for my witch, to go for a ride on my vroom broom! I hope I don’t have to look too far though, at 9 mpg…
With 27 gallons of fuel aboard, you’ll be about 165 pounds heavier and 95 bucks lighter. Choose your route carefully because before 250 miles of searching are up, you’re going to have to gas up again.
Seriously, road trips in this thing make flying almost economical. At thirty-eight cents per mile for fuel cost alone, driving to visit my kids would cost $338; flying costs $374.
Granted, it gets way cheaper when Sweetie rides along for the same fuel, but we’ll have to stop overnight somewhere and buy a few meals along the way – there’s some calculus involved. It’s really, really close. Owning one of these things is not for the faint of wallet. Not on the day you buy – the seller isn’t asking for much probably to get the white elephant out of his carport. But every day after that…
So this gets worse milage than my ’89 RV. But I’m looking at that trunk and realizing it would make a larger bed than my RV has! hmmm….
Condor to base. Condor to base. The subject just revealed that they are in Georgia, or some adjacent state. Confirm. Over.
Oh, MAN. Pick any two iconic engines and put them head to head.
The unkillable Leaning Tower of (modest) Power or the No Replacement for (ALL THE) Displacement 500? Which will it be?
I’m going Cadillac today. Any other month I’m all over the commuter but damn it, the colossal 8.2 liters of unbothered torque really grabs me by its huge drive chain.
He got a custom Continental
He got a Eldorado too
He got a thirty-two gun
In his pocket for fun
He got a razor in his shoe.
Eldorado.
definitely more the duster sort of person here than a 500ci behemoth. and this one isn’t even a rustbucket! does need a good vacuuming out though.