1967 Mercury Cougar OM617 engine - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#16 03-30-2008, 04:16 PM

http://www.61thriftpower.com/vindecode.shtml
7F91A513488

Your 1967 Cougar was built in Dearborn,MI .
The Body Style is a 2-Dr. Hardtop.
It has a V-8, 289 CID Engine with a 4-barrel carburetor
It's sticker price was $2851
There were 123672 built in 1967
Your Cougar 2-Dr. Hardtop was the 13488 Mercury ordered in 1967

Hatterasguy · #17 03-30-2008, 04:58 PM

Thats a shame, the car promises power and burn outs with its looks, but under the hood it doesn't deliver.

35MPG NFW.

bustedbenz · #18 03-30-2008, 05:07 PM

I kind of like it...

lietuviai · #19 03-30-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevo

Yah, The second best thing about the MB of that vintage is the BODY, doesn't matter how "cherry" that Cougar body is, its still junk compared to the MB body.

I would argue that. The Ford's of that vintage used a heavier gauge steel than the MB. Accident survivability would be another story though.

Stevo · #20 03-30-2008, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lietuviai

I would argue that. The Ford's of that vintage used a heavier gauge steel than the MB. Accident survivability would be another story though.

Well, I will give you that they were better than they are now or in "resent' past years but heavier gauge steel doesn't bring them up to MB quality, I had quite a few of the early "60s" GM and Ford cars, OH what I would give to have my manual 53 "Rocket" Olds back

lietuviai · #21 03-30-2008, 07:33 PM

I think the quality of American cars of the 60's was as good if not better than the MB's of the late 70's and early 80's. There wasn't as much plastic in them either.

Roncallo · #22 03-30-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutzTD

7F91A is a 289 car. if it was a 428 car then that would really be crazy....a 428 body would be worth close to the asking price, but that was not available in 67.

No the 428 was not available in 67, but the 427 was, and thats a much hotter engine, especially the OHC version.

Personally I feel a perfomance engine is more appropriate for a Cougar. I wanted to put an M100 6.3 in my 69 Cougar. My brother wants the M120 in his 69 Mustang Mach 1.

John Roncallo

Hatterasguy · #23 03-30-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lietuviai

I think the quality of American cars of the 60's was as good if not better than the MB's of the late 70's and early 80's. There wasn't as much plastic in them either.

Engineering was worlds apart though. American cars still used live rear axles and drum brakes! They also were not fuel injected.

#24 03-30-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lietuviai

I think the quality of American cars of the 60's was as good if not better than the MB's of the late 70's and early 80's. There wasn't as much plastic in them either.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember owning and driving 60s vintage fords. These cars had a life expectancy of about 100K miles as a daily driver. Slam the doors and they sounded like a bucket of loose bolts. The handling, suspension, and braking was "primitive," to be kind. They also had an annoying habit of rusting away right in front of your eyes. How many do you still see on the road as daily drivers?

DeliveryValve · #25 03-30-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Engineering was worlds apart though. American cars still used live rear axles and drum brakes! They also were not fuel injected.

The Germans always had a long history of using the most up to date technology which has continued through today. They always pushed the envelope in the technological aspect. Although quality issues in some of their electronics and etc. have plague some of the Mercedes and Volkswagen recent decade of so.

Americans have traditionally done what was easy for them to produce at the time of manufacture.

Another note since I am talking about different manufacturers, the Japanese have traditionally used the tried and true electronics and mechanicals, hence their known reliability today. But we see that is changing a little bit with Toyota's quality slipping because of their non-tried and true offerings.

Hatterasguy · #26 03-30-2008, 09:44 PM

Hence the reason that my old 1993 Camry has similer switchgear to the 2008 Camry's.

If you never change anything it gets pretty well sorted.

lietuviai · #27 03-30-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember owning and driving 60s vintage fords. These cars had a life expectancy of about 100K miles as a daily driver. Slam the doors and they sounded like a bucket of loose bolts. The handling, suspension, and braking was "primitive," to be kind. They also had an annoying habit of rusting away right in front of your eyes. How many do you still see on the road as daily drivers?

I grew up driving such cars and older ones. I liked them for their simplicity. Sure they were supposed to last for 100K but could be rebuilt cheaply. The doors rattled but it happened if you slammed the doors with the windows open. They handled as well as they needed to for the roads and driving conditions that existed then. They rusted like any other car of the day but I bet took longer to rust away than foreign cars since having more heavier and thicker metal.
Foreign cars were left for those who had deep pockets. They were/are hard to work on and parts were hard to get or expensive.
You can still occasionally see them on the roads as DD's unless they've beome collectible ones. You must admit that there are more collectible American car models than any other cars in the world.
I'm sorry but I have a special warm place in my heart for old (pre '70's) Detroit iron.

Stevo · #28 03-30-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember owning and driving 60s vintage fords. These cars had a life expectancy of about 100K miles as a daily driver. Slam the doors and they sounded like a bucket of loose bolts. The handling, suspension, and braking was "primitive," to be kind. They also had an annoying habit of rusting away right in front of your eyes. How many do you still see on the road as daily drivers?

The key part of your statement is the "100K life expectancy", thats true and says it all. the styling was wonderful but a 57 Cheby was usually ready for the crusher at not much over 100K, sad but true.

mechmagcn · #29 03-30-2008, 10:29 PM

I like it. While no MB purist or even enthusiast will ever see it as a worthwhile project, I like the thought and effort that he went through to make it happen. He could have taken a little more time to make some things neater, like the wiring, but the conversion looks like it was done well. I am in the stage of finally putting my 617 powered 53 F100 on the road, but am reluctant to even mention it or post pics because of the negative attitudes that show in this post. Some people just like to be different, and I guess I fit into that minority.
I don't think the car can live up to the claim of 35 MPGs, but it certainly should get into the high 20s.

t walgamuth · #30 03-30-2008, 10:43 PM

Hey, more power to you! a diesel pickup makes more sense to me somehow. The sixties american iron was just so horrible to drive, but a truck can be used for work.

I am not at all horrified by the cougar benz. I wouldn't do it though, since the chassis of the benz is the best part in my mind!

The american cars of the fifties and sixties rusted pretty readily too....the benzes may have rusted worse, but their suspension was light years ahead of anything built here.

I'd say the first american car built to really handle was the 63 corvette and the second was the '65 corvair. That is if you don't count the step down hudsons of the early fifties.

Tom W