How much for a '79 Cordoba on BAT?

I dig it ... but 18 big feels a little "tall".

NOT saying its NOT worth it ... just that's a few grand too big for me.

she's a nice one though .. kudos to the caretaker(s)!
 
It’s definitely a thing with the younger set. My daughter loves the malaise era cars. All her friends do to. Prices will begin to reflect this trend.
 
Sold for $24,000

VIN: SS22K9R227469
Screenshot_20211223-183903~3.png
 
Its funny I think I am in the minority but I prefer these with the stacked headlights.

I think it was a very cool car in exceptional condition and worth what it brought.

I can't help to wonder what a similar optioned Magnum GT would bring in the same condition/mileage.

Dave
 
I dig it ... but 18 big feels a little "tall".

NOT saying its NOT worth it ... just that's a few grand too big for me.

she's a nice one though .. kudos to the caretaker(s)!
Sold for $24,000
Its funny I think I am in the minority but I prefer these with the stacked headlights.

Day-um!

Quality pieces always do well .. and this one was boffo.

But 24 big is an astonishing number, way outside what I would have willing to do (and my collector "weakness" is I WILL pay almost whatever it takes for what I gotta have). Bully for that seller! Buyer will be happy with it I am sure.

I am with Beep Beep Dave ... I also prefer the stacked rectangular headlights. Wouldn't sneeze at the single round lights though.
 
Last edited:
Its funny I think I am in the minority but I prefer these with the stacked headlights.

I think it was a very cool car in exceptional condition and worth what it brought.

I can't help to wonder what a similar optioned Magnum GT would bring in the same condition/mileage.

Dave

I have to agree, the 1979 Magnums were Killer! One of the best overall cars that Chrysler ever built IMO.
 
I can't feel that strongly as you do, Steve, because a great Cordoba deserves a big block.

I dunno Stan.................in the late 70s the 360-4 bbl engines performed flawlessly while the 400s/440s still had lean calibrations and associated poor drivability and performance. The 360-4s were back to richer stoichiometric fuel/air mixtures, not lean and vacuum advance was restored in the calibrations. I and my staff were the ones that were given the assignment to "fix" the 318 and 360 4-bbl engines at that time by the chief engineer, Dick Goodwillie - and that is how we did it for both the federal and California calibrations. The 360-4s actually felt stronger in acceleration than the 440s because they had richer air/fuel mixtures and higher stall torque converters and healthy spark advance whereas the 440s ran too lean with retarded timing that yielded weak output and low stall converters that felt doggy and just guzzled more gas.

I and my staff made the catalytic converters do the emission clean up, not some stupid lean calibration/retarded ignition timing crap. We were also able to increase just a little of the exhaust gas recirculation to help in reducing nitrogen oxide emissions since the rich air/fuel ratios covered up the small increase in exhaust gas recirculation in terms of drivability and performance.

Just an aside, it was the combination of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in the vehicle exhaust that reacted in the presence of sunlight, thus creating the dreaded "smog", that was especially strong in California.

Also Stan, the lighter weight of the LA engines helped the overall balance of the B bodies such that the handling, especially of the Magnum GT models, was improved over what use of a B/RB engine would yield.
 
Last edited:
I was the guy that was given the assignment to "fix" the 318 and 360 4-bbl engines at that time by the chief engineer, Dick Goodwillie ...

(Highjack) What's your experience with the 360-2 engine? It was introduced in 1971 and, on paper at least, marked its highest hp and torque ratings in 1974 and 1975. What kind of development was going on in those years and how did they keep the ratings steady in 1975, the first year of the catalytic converter?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top