Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Barrett-Jackson

2

Comments

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    It's true. I've seen original unmolested Ford products from 1958-1968 and the GM cars are much better in every way.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    Speaking of color, if I ever decided I wanted to sell my '67 Catalina, would its pale, creamy yellow color be a detriment? Probably a moot point, since I couldn't see myself wanting to sell it.

    I always perceived it to be sort of a generic color. Not something that would make you all lusty, like a red, or a nice blue, but at the same time, not something that's vomit-inducing. If anything, I think the black interior and top make a nice contrast to it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    How would you say Chrysler products compared to the Fords and GM's? I've never owned a Ford product, but when comparing the GM and Mopar products I've had, I'd say the workmanship was better on the GM's. Tighter fit and finish, panel gaps, etc. Fewer squeaks and rattles. But the Mopars just had a solid feel about them, like the sheetmetal was twice as thick, and like they could slice through a GM car like a knife through hot butter.

    I think another thing that, in my mind, at least, might make the Mopars seem a bit more solid is that GM went a bit more modern on the interiors before Mopar did, with more plastics and such. For instance, the knobs and switches in my 60's Mopars were good old fashioned metal, just waiting to impale you in an accident. But on the GM cars, they were plastic, just waiting to get brittle with age. I don't think Chrysler learned how to chrome plastic as early on as GM did.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,915
    Andre, I think that yellow would help that car.

    It was popular at the time and most people liked it.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,915
    Just my opinion but I would rate Chryslers of that era somewhere between GM and Ford as far as quality and workmanship.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    I was looking over the write-up on that 1965 GTO convertible that sold for 81,000 (!!!) including auction commissions. Given that the 2005 restoration was already going off with various wear and tear indications, I think whoever bought this "base" engine car just threw $20,000 bucks out the window.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • 1stpik1stpik Posts: 495
    The other day, they sold a '69 Corvette with 600 miles on the odometer. All I could think was "what a waste." Almost 40 years of just sitting around.

    I don't remember the sales price, but it wasn't too much. I'm all for the idea of holding on to a car that you enjoy, then selling it decades later for a chunk of change. But no one enjoyed that Corvette, so what was the point?

    Meanwhile, I watch a lot of goats and hemis sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the odometers indicate that the owners DID enjoy them. That's more like it!

    Like many of you, I question how an old car could be worth that much to people. But then I watch "Leggende e Passione" and see old Ferraris sell for $2 and $3 million, and I quit asking questions.

    .
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    I guess everyone has a different attitude. If I spent millions on an old Ferrari I'd bang it around the race track, as God intended and if I had an old Corvette I'd burn rubber, slam gears and take it out on vintage rallyes.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,204
    Geeze, for $16K, I'd at least expect it to be one of those Park Lane convertibles with the funky wood panelling.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,915
    Oh, Gawd! I had forgotton about those!

    Talk about UGLY!
  • parmparm Posts: 723
    Careful! The '67 Colony Park station we had when I was kid had the fake wood paneling. So, I have a soft spot in my heart for that particular feature. ;) Hey, we were at the epitome of style . . . . . . . . . . . in 1967.

    BTW, today I saw a photo of '67 S-55 fastback coupe. Pretty cool car. The article I read on this car said that in '67, they quit making them about as soon as the production line started. The result? If you have one, it's a rather rare car.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    What I've noticed is that with GM cars, as you went up the totem pole in price and prestige, workmanship and build quality improved. Not so much with Fords (except for Lincolns) or Chrysler products. In the 1960s, anyway, there was still a visible difference between a Buick or an Oldsmobile and a Chevrolet.

    If anything, at Chrysler, the Valiant and Dart were probably the best products!

    It also seems as though Chevrolets after 1964 show a decline in build quality.

    As for how Chryslers compare to Fords - in the old Popular Mechanics "Owners' Reports," it seems as though a larger percentage of Mopar owners complained about sloppy workmanship and build quality than Ford owners did, especially after 1965.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,204
    ...looking at 1960s Pontiacs show there was a big leap in quality from Chevrolet. Too bad more recent Pontiacs don't exhibit this quality. Some Pontiac interiors look worse than those of Chevies. A Grand Am I rented two years ago exhibited abominable quality and made me wonder why one would prefer it over a Chevy.

    Per the 1965-66 Chevrolets, didn't they have some kind of problem with the motor mounts? I seem to recall my Uncle Charlie having some kind of front suspension problems with his 1965 Impala. Still, the 1965 full-size Chevrolets were beautiful cars. My favorite Chevrolet is the 1970 Impala/Caprice which uses the same platform as the 1965 model.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    Oh, you just brought up my FAVORITE factory defect!

    Yes, the Chevy V-8 motor mount defect was DIABOLICAL.

    If the mount broke "just right", the engine would fall slightly to the right, yanking out out the power brake vacuum hose, resulting in the feeling of a very hard pedal and hardly any brakes; THEN (wait, it gets better!) if the engine fell further, it would lay on the steering arm, resulting in locked steering.

    THEN (yeah, it gets better than that!) as the engine was falling to bind the steering arm, it would PULL THE THROTTLE OPEN....

    So you had no brakes, no steering and a floored gas pedal.

    Is that sweet or what? You couldn't PLAN to kill anyone better than that. :P

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    You could still throw the thing into neutral and turn off the ignition, right? Small consolation if you're headed towards a brick wall, I guess. It'd be REALLY scary though, if it took all that out, too! I remember some bad Fox made for tv movie awhile back, called "Runaway Car" or something like that, where that happened to a girl in a Ford Maverick. It was so bad it was funny! There was also an episode of "CHiPs", where some guys in a '64 Olds or something like that got an attitude because a nerd in a little Japanese car blew past them and shouted "Get a skateboard, you'll go faster!" They went after him and, conveniently, the throttle stuck, the brakes went out, the gearshift locked in drive, etc, and they went on a path of carnage that took out a whole slew of then-worthless 60's cars.

    would the engine mount on the '65 Chevy tend to fail catastrophically right away, taking out the steering, brakes, and throttle at the same time, or would it be a gradual thing? So perhaps, if you knew what to look for, you could catch it before it got scary?

    My '68 Dart crushed the engine mount on the passenger side twice. The first time, the engine dropped far enough that it interfered with the steering, and one of the grease nozzles actually ripped the exhaust pipe off. It fell down onto the steering, and made it bind up a bit. It's been ages now so my memory's a bit fuzzy, but I think I was still able to turn left normally, but it really hindered my ability to make a sharp right turn.

    The second time it did it, I caught it before it got too bad. It was just starting to scrape.

    **Edit: turns out that Olds 88 was a '63. I guess you really can find everything on the internet!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    I think the mount failure was pretty much all at once, but it didn't always result in all three component failures, no. Sometimes the throttle would just feel funny and that was your tip off, or sometimes the engine would just jump up and smash the hood.

    The "fix" was a clamp over the mount, so that WHEN it broke, the engine couldn't move too far.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,915
    It wasn't often that all three of those things happened at the same time but it was certainly a bad design. the "fix" was a cable that strapped the engine into the engine bay. 1965 wasn't the best year for Chevrolet. Besides broken motor mounts, they handled like crap, wore out ball joints and rusted under the vinyl tops that were so popular at the time.

    Even in California, they would rust out by the rear windows.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    IIRC, 1965 ended up being a record sales year for the auto industry as a whole, so no doubt quality was slipping as they rushed the cars out the factory door as quickly as they could. Ironically, quality was the marketing buzzword of the day in 1965, with manufacturers touting "we're going all out to win you over this year. All out", et. al. Consumer Reports, in their 1965 auto issue, took each brand to task with their slogans, by printing them and then listing all the sample defects that CR found in their test cars. As I recall, Pontiac came up one of the worst with regards to defects.

    It seems like GM tended to roll their sheetmetal thinner with each redesign back in those days, so perhaps that made the '65's more rust-prone than the earlier models? I guess '65 was also a rough year in general for quality, since there was so much out there that was all-new. With the exception of Imperial and perhaps Lincoln, all the Big Three standard sized cars were all-new. Plus, there was the Mustang, Gen II Corvair, and a heavily revised line of Mopar intermediates. It must have been really exciting at the time, seeing that much all-new stuff appear at once. I don't think there's ever been as much of an "All New" year since then.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    Well the Mustang and the GTO were exciting, the Riviera was still getting some buzz...I don't think Mopar was yet in its prime---that would be a few years down the road. The focus was definitely on the intermediates and sporty coupes that's for sure. Lincolns were the same odd-balls then as they are now and Cadillac was just putting along in a bit of a rut.

    The gen II Corvair was a lovely car, but it was already doomed.

    Then of course there was the fabulous E-Type Jaguar, which was THE car to own, and which was really top dog in the eyeball department in 1965.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    Yeah, but in 1965, big cars were where it was at. That was the bread and butter of the market, and anything else was a niche product in comparison. Heck, Chevy probably sold more Impalas that year than anybody else save Ford division sold in their entire car lineup! And that's JUST Impalas. There was the Caprice, Bel Air, and Biscayne on top of that.

    1965 was also the year that Mopar got serious about offering big cars again, and they definitely benefitted from it. Chrysler finally got off that small 122" wheelbase which was where a Dodge really belonged, while Plymouth offered its first full-sized car since 1961, while Dodge greatly expanded their full-sized lineup.

    About the closest thing we'd get these days to another 1965 would probably be if the Big 2.5 all redesigned their full-sized trucks and a new Camry and Accord all got released in the same year.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    Perhaps but if there was great variety, it was the variety of mediocrity. Once you took away the a) horsepower and b) the chrome from an American car in 1965, all you had was basically a 1935 car that was bigger and went faster.

    Very few cars of that time were technically interesting. Just the same old ladder frames, pushrods, under-braked and over-steered.

    This is why muscle cars were so appealing. It was all about the engines. Those big blocks brought some excitement to domestic cars.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,138
    Perhaps but if there was great variety, it was the variety of mediocrity. Once you took away the a) horsepower and b) the chrome from an American car in 1965, all you had was basically a 1935 car that was bigger and went faster.

    Well, you're trying to look at it from a modern day technical/engineering perspective, rather than a mass-market, mindset of the typical person ready to buy a car perspective of the time. If you tried to tell someone in the market for a new car in 1965 that there was really nothing new there, they'd look at you like you done lost yer mind!

    Name one domestic car, other than Imperial, that still used a ladder frame in 1965. Okay, maybe Studebaker as well. Weren't the Larks and Daytonas basically just 1953-vintage Studes underneath those boxier bodies? Just about everything else by that time was either unit-bodied or perimeter-framed. Ladder frames just weren't well suited to the more low-slung cars that the public demanded in the 60's. Oddly though, with the fattening and aging of the driving population, ladder-framed vehicles would be more suitable these days! As upright as most modern cars are, you could slip a ladder frame up under there and probably nobody would even notice!

    How many 1935-era cars had automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, etc? Hell, how many of them even had oil filters!

    As for the chrome, again, you're looking back through modern eyes. To the eyes of the typical 1965 car buyer, those new cars WERE chrome free compared to what came before!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    yes but "mass market appeal" is not what collectibles and classics are all about.

    The Model T had a planetary transmission, just about one torque converter away from being an automatic transmission---VERY close in design. Power steering was on trucks in the 1930s (late) and A/C in 1941.

    This is not new stuff.

    I think it is the very simplicity of American iron that makes it so appealing today in the collector car market.

    Not only can you overpay at Barrett-Jackson, but you have the consolation of being able to fix it yourself once you get it home and notice all the things you failed to notice on the auction block.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • merckxmerckx Posts: 565
    One sold for about $27,000...usually,i have zero interest in cloned cars...But this little "Porsche" looked perfect...really pretty silver paint. The commentators went on about vw versus porsche power.....Would a vw engine give it a much more "putt-putt' nature? Even the porsche would be pretty low power.....Would engive choice matter that much(other than value,of course)?

    Has anyone driven one of these cloned Speedsters?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    They are okay---you can build up a VW engine to be much more powerful than a Porsche 4 cylinder---but it doesn't have the durability. VW engines are very cheaply made and when you stress them, they hand-grenade.

    The cloned Speedsters drive fine and are pleasant but they feel and sound nothing like the original IMO....for one thing, the interiors feel all wrong and look all wrong--but they do come with lots of amenities.

    Certainly fun for the money, but don't ever expect them to appreciate and you can plan on 60,000 mile engine rebuilds.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,915
    " They are ok"

    That's how I feel about them. Nothing like the real thing but they do look nice and are, no doubt more sensible to own.

    The worst ones are the Model A Shay Mickey Mouse cars with the Pinto engines. I guess they have their fans too.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    Sure, there's a fan for every car. At least VW and Porsche have a shared history and, way back when, even a shared parts bin, so a replica using VW power makes a certain amount of sense. But make a front-engined American flathead automobile into a rear-engine VW is pretty strange. You lose configuration, history, sound, power, behavior--the entire concept is violated. It makes no sense to me. It's almost like putting a cardboard cutout in front of your car.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • gussguss Posts: 1,181
    A Porsche Speedster will still look good a hundred years from now. Even a replica can still be a handsome car if done right.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,941
    True but so few are done right, and those are always the most expensive. Replicas seem to be like car models. The less you pay, the less accuracy you get. Also it seems the more noble the car they try to replicate, the more awful the result.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • Some bonehead just paid 98 k for a '57 Vette. Add 10% and transport to it. These guys buy high then need money and sell at a loss. B-J is a total ripoff and who is the Steve "Mr. Cool" with the sunglasses? Is he blind?
2
This discussion has been closed.