Holley 1920 carburetor was shot when I purchased the car. Bought a new one for $118.
New fuel pump had to be installed.
Killed 2 batteries.
New plugs, wires, and rotor were installed as routine maintenance.
Now I have to install new fuel lines from the rear to the front of the car.
Interior was shot from the beginning.
Paint held up pretty well for its year.
Still needs right side ball joints.
Well, I purchased this as a project car, but ended up being my daily driver.. until it tried to kill me by stalling in traffic while making a left hand turn. When it runs and drives, it still hums like new, but like all old, neglected cars, it has its down days.
I love the seats and how they fold with the split bench.
The automatic transmission still shifts like new.
My car personally just had too many hands under the hood in its life.
Overall, not too shabby - style wise.
I would expect better gas mileage.
Buddy muscle cars are not supposed to get good gas mileage and if your car stalls for no reason you might want to put another hand under the hood.
A "muscle car" with a slant-6? Are you kidding?
Who are these guys commenting on the above post, first off, what do you mean when you say muscle car with a slant 6? The term "muscle" refers to the body and not to the engine size. You are the ignorant people who ruin classic car collection and I've known cars to stall when theres nothing wrong with them. Take it easy you country bumpkins.
I owned a 1975 Duster 225 Six loaded paid $3600 new had a factory wind type sunroof. It was white with a white interior the only one I have ever seen. However at no given time was it ever ever a "musclecar" with a slant six. It was continually in the shop with electronic issues. Anyway, the body type does not make a musclecar and even if the year I had had a V8 it was not a musclecar. None of the earlier slant sixes were a musclecar either... regardless of body type unless you ordered the 340 V8. An earlier 340 V8 Duster, Demon was a musclecar. 383.426,440's were musclecar engines, but a 440 Chrysler 4 door sedan like my dads Police Intercepter was still not a musclecar. I have owned a 1950 Plymouth Business Coupe and a 1964 Plymouth Savoy with the pushbutton automatic. As they were both sixes they too were not musclecars. If a 340 or larger engine was transplanted in one of them they could have been. But again body type means nothing. Chrysler made great engines and great looking cars. The most reliable Chrysler I ever had was the 1964 by the way.
I'm sorry, but where are you getting this stuff?
The term "muscle car" has everything to do with what is under the hood, and virtually nothing to do with the body of a car.
The Pontiac GTO is a classic muscle car. It was based on the rather benign Tempest mid-size car, but had a fire-breathing engine tucked under the hood.
If I had a 76 Caddy with a V-8. Would that make it a "Muscle Car"?? No...!
Your Cadillac is not a musclecar or a sports car. It is a luxury car. Since you drive a Cadillac I wonder why you are hanging out on a Mopar review. Having owned quite a few Mopars I felt my input might have value to others. As I stated earlier my dads 440 unmarked detective Intercepter 4 door sedan also was not a musclecar. However in all fairness during the 50's you could pull a Cadillac engine transplant it and make a pretty cool "Hot Rod" This was not uncommon. The Northstar in the newer Cadillacs is pretty respectable by the way! But again they are luxury cars not muscle.
I love Mopars, but I also have to vote NO on this being a muscle car. My '73 318 Charger is not a muscle car; my '71 340 Barracuda might be marginally considered a muscle car; my '67 383 Chrysler Newport 4-door was not a muscle car; my '64 Slant-6 Dodge 440 was not a muscle car. Most accepted definitions of a muscle car involve all of the following: 1) stock V-8 engine of either large displacement or high RPM that offers more than 350 horsepower; 2) 2-door coupe, sedan or convertible; 3) rear wheel drive; 4) late 60's to earliest 70's vintage; 5) possibly stripped down or utilitarian accoutrements for the sole purpose of offering performance at lower price (i.e. Roadrunner with rubber floor mats and bench seat). If your Duster had come with a 340, it might be considered a muscle car, although a '73 340 was not the fire-breather that the '71 340 was. Even so, a Slant-6 Duster is a neat little car, so enjoy it for what it is.
I currently own a 1975 Plymouth duster with the 3.7l slant6... while not being a muscle car, its still a fun car to drive, so who cares that you can't run with the 'stangs and 'cudas... you'll get noticed for a nice classic car and have fun doing it.