What's my classic worth?

puzur

convertible, red, 283, auto, frame-off restoration 3 years ago, probably #2 condition?

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, Corvettes are tough.

First of all, the numbers have to match for some weird reason. Ferrari owners don't care but Corvette owners do. Go figure. So a 'Non-matching' car is going to take a big hit.

Also, there will be a smaller hit for the automatic.

So the price of this car can vary a lot depending.

But as a rough ballpark, maybe $30K-35K if it's really nice and #s are okay. If it were still show quality all around, maybe a bit higher.

But with some wear and tear and bad #s and the automatic, it might be hard to sell for $30K.

speedshift

I'd imagine the type of 283 makes a huge difference--if it's a correct fuelie (and I think you could get Powerglide even behind the Duntov version) or a 2x4v.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, trying to authenticate and price old Corvettes is a rat's nest of complexities, doubts and often, sad to say, occasionally at least some very questionable practices on the part of the restorer/seller.

I don't know who came up with the idea that matching #s and the color of the brake master cylinder were so important, but now that's what everybody fights over, for better or worse. I think such picayune details should be reserved for cars that there are only 2 or 3 of, or hand-made autos, not regular production cars.

But oh well, people seem to really enjoy getting into these details. Goes with the hobby I guess.

im_brentwood

You think thats bad...

There's a website dedicated to correct engine and tranny numbers on Porsche 356s!

Bill

Mr_Shiftright

I think (I hope) that the emphasis on matching #s for the 356 is waning a bit. I don't object to checking chassis #s on a 356, and even the "hidden" body numbers, because 356s are notorious for having been "pieced together" from 2-3 different cars, but really, as long as the engine is the right type for the car, who cares if its the exact one they put in at the factory?

You can't really match engine to chassis on a 356 (not all the many cars have the engine number hidden in the chassis number) anyway, but you can trace the factory's original "Kardex" that has both the original chassis and engine number on one document. So you can know the number of the engine the factory installed.

im_brentwood

Yup.

I think its crazy. I mean, my 57 Coupe has a 1600N in it from a 58 I think. Correct motor, same basic motor as the original 57..

I'm personally more worried about it being the "correct" engine. I.E. I wouldnt want to buy a SC with a Super 90 engine..

Bill

Mr_Shiftright

Well, even that doesn't matter so much IF...IF...the car is going to be a driver. Lots of people who like 356s and drive them simply don't care what engine is in them, because they are paying a driver price for a driver car.

Probably to restore a 356 to pristine show condition with the wrong engine would not be too smart, but any nice clean 356 doesn't have to have the right engine in it. Of course, I hope it's not a VW engine, that would be rather gross.

(PS: In most cases, though, a VW engine could easily be beefed up to outperform the stock Porsche 356 engine. It would blow up, but it would go like hell for a good while).

isellhondas

I worked with a guy who spent two years looking for the perfect 1965 SC Porsche.

At long last, he found it...it was REALLY nice.

A month later, it caught fire on the 405 freeway and burned into a pile of garbage.

Every time I see a 356, I think of that.

A shame. It was a daily driver that looked like it had just been built.

Mr_Shiftright

You gotta be on top of these old cars. Many of them were built with very hazardous relationships between the fuel lines and the ignition system.

carnut4

I carry a fire extinguisher within reach in every car I own. Maybe can make the difference between a little carb fire and a catastrophe. Also keep one close to the kitchen stove.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh, man VW and Porsches go up so fast you don't even have time to extinguish the blaze half the time. You can't even get the engine lid up it's so hot.

speedshift

Bring cooking gloves.

im_brentwood

I used to own a 2000GS Coupe.

Absolutely wonderful car. Unlike the early 1500/1600GSs these you could actually use.

I can remember, after I bought it, I did my usual "stuff to go through" list. Now, this car had just had a proper engine rebuild. And those are VERY uncheap. Meanwhile, the fuel lines were old, the fuel petcock had been half-wit rebuilt (They arent really rebuildable.. just not safe to do so), the carbs needed gaskets and were seeping fuel... etc...

I was flat-out scared! But that's what the stoddard catalog is for...

Would be a real shame to turn a Carrera 2 into a flaming ball! But damn I miss that car... And good point on actually driving the things. That perfect C2 Cabriolet inthe current issue of Excellence that's too perfect to ever drive makes me sick. I mean, why even bother? If you're gonna get a 356 to make perfectand never drive it, might as well get an early 4-cammer. Those arent even practical to drive anyways unless you commute to work on the Nurburgring.

Bill

Mr_Shiftright

The GS engine is a real bear to rebuild. I threw up my hands in defeat and told a friend to farm it out. There are so many traps in that engine!

I don't know what people are thinking, making 356s into trailer queens. What a waste of a great practical and fun driving car. My friend Ivan uses his 356C as an everyday driver, as does a woman who has a studio in my building. They just paint 'em and use 'em up and bang out the dents and do it again, summer or winter, rain or sun. This is the way a Porsche should be treated. It's so nice to see them parked around the place.

evilz

So, I've got a '68 Firebird 350HO Conv w/ Powerglide Tranny.
Stright body, repainted (although not original color) and pretty decent interior.

Any thoughts?

jrosasmc

I was going to post my "article" from Classic? Collectible? in this post board here, but I felt that I needed to restart that other board and that it would be more appropriate to do so there. I encourage people to take a look.

milt721

I was just wondering if anyone out there knows the approximate value of a 1967 MB 250 SL. There was some mentions about MB early in this thread, but they cut off at '68. Was there a big difference between the '67 and '68? This particular model is all original, red in color, has a little surface rust on the hood, 63,000 miles and has been sitting in a garage for 4 1/2 years. What is the price I should offer to get the vehicle? It will probably need a bunch of work just to get it started, let along driving. Is there a good website I can go to to get this type of info? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Mr_Shiftright

They are the rarest of the little "pagoda" SLs but not the most valuable. That title goes to the 280SL, which has a bigger engine and nicer trim.

Since you can buy a very very nice 250SL for around $18,000, you 'd deduct accordingly for paint work and mechanicals/cosmetics. Sounds like maybe a $10,000 car at the very best, and if the top is no good or there is rust, considerably less than that. This is a very expensive car to restore, so be forewarned. Sometimes it's better to just save up and buy a nice one, or look for a 280SL which has much better investment value and is a nicer car all around.

ghulet

......is it an automatic or 4-speed? This may affect value somewhat (depending on the buyer, naturally).

milt721

Unfortunately I'm not sure if its an auto or not, I was under the impression that nearly all Benzes were autos until recent models. I'll see how much they want for it. If they say $5,000, that makes the decision easier. Thanks again.

Mr_Shiftright

4-speed can bring you a bit more money, maybe $1,500 extra.

milt721

I really, really dislike automatics.

jrosasmc

And I heard that many SLs of the '70s have restoration costs that can exceed those of its lesser Mercedes brethren.

Mr_Shiftright

Well, I don't know about that. There are aluminum panels on the SL, and an expensive canvas top, but other than that there's no reason it should be any more expensive than a 4-door sedan.

jsylvester

I compared the estimated values in the "American Standard Price Guide" (maybe the name is wrong) at Barnes & Noble, as they had both 2001 and 2002 guides side by side.

According the the guide, the value for a 67 Galaxie 500 XL convertible in #3 condition increased from $5,600 to $7,200. That is over 28% in one year.

Are full size mid 60 convertibles increasing that rapidly?

Mr_Shiftright

You have to be careful with price guides in making judgments about appreciation. I'd say a 28% increase is unlikely, as this type of car would be one to keep up with the market, not run ahead of it by 28%.

However, $7K is not unreasonable for a TRUE # 3 car (which is a nice looking car by the way), so I'd say perhaps the guide was too low last year and tried to make their mistake.

I'd say mid-60s full size convertibles appreciate according to their maker, their equipment and their condition, not just automatically year by year regardless of those other factors.

puzur

sunroof coupe. Euro, tangerine paint (originally polo red), non-original seats and door panels, very minor rust for its age (or so the owner says)?

rea98d

" very minor rust for its age (or so the owner says)? "

Run far far far away from that car! "For it's age" and "so the owner says" are two major red flags (other than the "R" word). It sounds like he's buttering up a rustbucket to me. Don't let the Porsche name lure you. Find a 911 that doesn't have cancer. You'll save more money in the long run.

Mr_Shiftright

One thing you have to remember about 911s.---

if the rear torsion tube is rusted, you can just throw that car away, because that's the entire body/frame structure right there. Just throw it away, it's junk.

Presuming the rust is not structural, but still intrusive, you have to devalue the car considerably, as rust repair on an old Porsche is difficult and expensive. Furthermore, an S model, being a car more valuable than a normal 911, has to be pristine to retain a high value. Rust and even rust repair is a "stigma" to a collectible and requires a substantial price penalty.

The really valuable S models are 1969-1971 with the 2.2 engine and can bring $20K for a #2 car. The 1967 is a 2.0, and is also a Euro car, and is also rusty. Being worth maybe $16K-17K as a #2, you can imagine deducting accordingly for rust, Euro specs, etc. This car would have to be bought cheap. I'd also make damn sure it really is an S in all respects.

puzur

Thanks, Shifty.

What's your sense of the marketability of the 2.4L cars? From my completely unscientific surveillance of the classifieds, they seem to be flying off the shelves, perhaps even more quickly than the 2.2s.

Mr_Shiftright

Well the 2.4s are popular because they combine some of the better features along with the displacement boost. The 1973 & 1/2 cars with the CIS injection are the sweetest of the sweet. Then you hit the 2.7s and lots of potential trouble, and then in 1978 comes the great SCs through '83.

The SCs are really the bargains right now since for just a bit more than an old 2.4 you get a much more modern car. And most SCs had sunroofs so you don't have to pay a premium for them.

puzur

Ah, but the SC is so . . . decadent. Less horsepower than the 2.4 S, heavy like a pig with glandular problems, laden with gewgaws ranging from headlight washers to electric windows. Almost as if Porsche had decided that yuppies instead of enthusiasts should butter its bread -- and that the 911 should be pushed back to second chair in favor of the 928.

But the early cars with their peaky engines, go-kart handling, and animal oversteer . . . . *Slobber*.

I suppose I should take my pontificating to the "Porsche Advice" board.

Mr_Shiftright

Well you have your point and it is well taken. However, I consider the SC the *minimum* acceptable civilized standard FOR ME...I need decadent things like fresh air, a heater that works, a defroster that actually gives you more than a nostril size hole to look through...things like that.

Also, sunroofs are common in the SC and a sunroof really helps with the 911s inherent claustrophobia.

But for a mild climate, an older 911S would be sweet.

im_brentwood

Buy a REAL Porsche!





Bill

jrosasmc

A real Porsche? Like what, an '86 944? I should add that after that year, the 944s could be considered world-class cars (I think).

rea98d

I want that Jag XJ6 parked next to it!

Mr_Shiftright

Oh, the 356 is a charming little thing, but really, that bathtub look is getting long in the tooth, and you can't do much with that 4 cylinder engine. I like a Porsche whose bite is as good as its bark.

You don't really want an XJ6 for more than 3 months.

ghulet

.....jrosasmc, I think there are lots of people here who would argue against 944s being 'real' Porsches (many purists will assert that the only 'real' ones are rear-engined).

Anywho, my mom has had an '87 944 5-speed since new, it now has about 175k miles on it (now my stepdad's daily driver). It's a fun car to drive, though it isn't too powerful (147hp sounded a lot better in 1986 than it does now, eh?). Also, it's expensive to repair and not worth much used (theirs, with a nice interior, good options, original owner w/records, the right color, and nice body, is *maybe* worth $5-6k with those miles).

Mr_Shiftright

944 Turbo way 'mo betta.

ghulet

....but I am still glad to this day that mom came home with a 944 and not the 924S she went to the Porsche dealer to buy (after one test drive, there was no comparison apparently).

jrosasmc

I bet the 924S, even when new, was a nasty car. Porsche people have told me to stay away from them, since they're basically worth nothing these days.

One more thing: Why did the 924S come with only a 5-digit odometer instead of the usual 6-digit version in the late 80s? Was it because of cost-cutting? It would be really hard to tell if one had over 100k miles on it if you were going to buy one today. Just about every single German car in the late 80s had a 6-digit odometer, with the exception of this monstrosity.

rea98d

They just didn't expect them to last long enough to need 6 digits....

ghulet

Do you mean the 'original' 924/924S of 1977-82 had the five-digit odometer, or the 'reincarnation' of 1987-88? Just wonderin'.

The 'original' 924 was pretty slow and not terribly well-equipped in base form. The 924S of '87 was somewhat better because it had the 944 engine, but still had the old 924's interior, with bad driving position, outdated gauges. I also think the 924's suspension is different than the 944, but I'm not certain.

Mr_Shiftright

You want to avoid the 924 like the plague, also any early model 928, and rusty Porsche and all tired 912s. Just say NO. These cars are hopeless. Porsche forgot them, so should you.

im_brentwood

Guess I shouldnt mention that its' an 87 VDP (Last year, best model) with 87K 1-owner FL miles and has a perfect interior and no rust, huh? ))

hee hee

As far as 356s go, they were quick for what they were. And they can be made to go very very fast. Ask my Mechanic.. Sid Collins.. his 1960 Roadster has been winning races in SCCA for years. It tops 140MPH and has beaten MANY 911s.

Bill

Mr_Shiftright

I really think it's a waste of time and money trying to make a 356 go fast. You could build a VW engine to do better than 140 HP for 1/4 as much money.

If your friend beats 911s it's because he's a really good driver, not because he has the better car IMO.

mminerbi

At the risk of being blasphemous, the best all around performer, particularly when total cost of ownership is factored into the evaluation, may be the white Park Avenue

im_brentwood

Closer to 200Hp... 140mph...

Sure, you can make a 911 go faster than a 356... but where's the challenge?

That Buick? You mean the piece of trash trade-in that turns out to have burned Valves?

Bill

isellhondas

The color on that Jag? Why...?