Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Convertible vs. Hardtop Coupe - which is better for a collector car?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I guess a good rule of thumb would be to imagine someone patting Car X on the fender and saying "Yessir, this here is the last of the breed", and then seeing if anyone laughs or genuflects in respect.
Bill
True, the 1996 model year run was shorter. However, the Impala SS was gaining in popularity even if the regular B-bodies (Caprice, Roadmaster, Fleetwood) were falling from favor. I'd have to dig out my old car book to verify, but I think they built something like 45,000 Impala SSes for 1996. I believe it was actually the most popular B-body nameplate that year! They only built about 100,000 total, so that leaves 55K spread across the Roadmaster, Caprice, and Fleetwood.
Didn't they also expand the color choices for 1996? IIRC, the 94-95 was only available in black, but they added a greenish-mica and a deep burgundy color later on.
As for whether the final year means anything or not, I think it depends on whether the car originally went out with a bang or with a whimper. GM cut down the B-body simply because SUVs were much more profitable and they wanted to devote production to 4-door Yukons and Tahoes. Another problem was the EPA and CAFE. The B-body, even with the LT-1 350, was rated at a respectable 17/26. Commendable for a car of that size and performance. But it was still just enough to drag down GM's CAFE averages and risk getting them fined. As a result, I think GM purposely under-produced the B-body in those past few year, and then cut it the moment something more profitable came along. A Yukon/Tahoe was probably rated around 16/21 with a 350, so while it was actually more of a guzzler, trucks were rated differently, so it didn't really drag down their CAFE numbers.
So in this case, the buyers wanted the SS, but GM didn't. The Caprice was generally considered a better police car and taxi than the Crown Vic, so after GM pulled the plug, these things became really in-demand. Police departments would often rebuild an old Caprice before they'd buy a new Crown Vic, and taxi drivers loved them.
Another possible issue with the 1996 B-body was that new side impact protection standards were enacted for 1997. It's possible that the B-body, with its low beltline, huge windows, and body that hung out well beyond the frame rails, would not have passed the standard. And it would have been cheaper to just drop them than redesign them. A similar fate befell the A-body, which was still hanging on in 1996 as the Cutlass Ciera and Century. It was still selling well enough that, IIRC, the Ciera was the most popular Olds and the Century was #2 for Buick, right behind the LeSabre. But it dated back to 1982, was really getting long in the tooth, and wouldn't pass those standards. So for 1997 the Century was moved to the W-body platform, becoming a downscale version of the Regal, while Olds badge-engineered a Malibu and called it simply "Cutlass".
Another good example of going out with a bang is the Buick Regal Grand National and GNX. The Grand National got better and better each year, with the turbo putting out more hp, suspension tweaks, etc. And the 1987 GNX was the icing on the cake. Again, an example where the people wanted the car, but GM just wanted to axe it and move onto newer, more economical vehicles.
Now some other "final" vehicle, like, say, the 1983 Malibu, 1981 LeMans, 1993 Imperial, 1981 Newport, 1981 Catalina, etc, aren't worth anything, simply because they had run their course, the market was changing, and people just weren't buying them anymore. Or, like the "final" 1974 GTO, the car had been reduced to a mere caricature of itself.
In this case, though, we're dealing with the chronic GM "get it right, then kill it" syndrome, where the vehicle is steadily improved during the model run so the last one is the most desirable of all: Impala SS, V6 Fiero, Grand National, etc.
But the Impala SS and Grand National were pretty much cars in the top of their league and desireable from their get-go. They were decent cars to begin with, and only got better. BTW, the GNX was a one-year only model that they only made 546 copies of, with a 276 hp version of the 3.8 turbo. When it comes to regular Grand Nationals, would the 1987 be worth more than, say, a 1984? IIRC, it was 1985 that they really got a boost in power, and 1986-87 that they started scaring Corvettes. The 1985 and earlier models are much more rare, even when they were new. They only built a few thousand per year, but I think jumped to around 10-15K for 1986 and around 24K for 1987. I think most Grand Nationals have been modified by now, anyway, regardless of model year, so that may close the gap with value.
Not always, but it's good to remember that cars need a good 25-30 years to start acting like true collectibles. It's possible the Impala SS will slump in value. It seems like the 94s and 05s are slipping already.
My "theory" is that first of all a car has to depreciate fully as a used car. That is, it has to hit a bottom price and stay there. Then, once its collectible status is secured, it starts to climb back up.
So time will tell if the Impala SS will slide down like a used car, stay stagnant (like say the "minor" collectibles like Avanti or Delorean) or start to climb like the potentially strong collectibles.
Quick update. This car just recently sold. The sale price? $25,000. Looks like Shifty and I were both off.
The BIG question always is: well, can you turn around tomorrow and sell it AGAIN for that price?
How do you know it sold at $25,000?
I exchanged a few emails with the seller and he told me the car just recently sold for $25,000. Admittedly, he could be fibbing. However, based on his emails, he seems like an honest guy. So, I can't technically document the sale price any further than that. But, given that this car did not sit forever on the market, I'm inclined to believe the car sold for $25,000.
OK, I know this discussion was originally about coupes vs. convertibles. BUT, at one point, the discussion went in the direction of the aesthetics of a 4-door. So, here's what appears to be a pretty nice '64 Fleetwood. Can't say I'm crazy about the white exterior, but I love the navy blue interior which is a color you don't see that often in these cars. The interior is usually black, white &/or not in very good condition. If I were master of the universe, I'd buy this car and paint it a nice navy blue. Now, THAT would be an elegant car.
Wonder what this one will go for? Right now, it's sitting at $8,000 with 26 bids (a surprisingly high number, I think). The ad says the seller has invested $20K over the last two years. I would think that $12,000 to $15,000 would be all the money for this one. But, lately I've been banished to the corner wearing my dunce cap when it comes to estimating a sale price.
It strikes odd that this car is located in Scottsdale, AZ with an Ebay auction date that ends on the Saturday of Barrett-Jackson. If this car is as good as the ad states, I would think the seller would have wanted to expose it multiple millionares by letting it go across the auction at B-J or any one of the 2-3 other January auctions in Arizona. Hmmmmmmmmm. Makes me think this car isn't really for sale - except for an outrageously high (ie., above-market) price - which the seller can't control at a no reserve auction.
Nice car though.
Bill
A lot of one's success in BJ depends on the day and time you are willing to pay for. If you get a lousy time, your car won't get any good bids anyway.
I TOLD YOU these cars are bringing close to coupe money. It's probably worth $8,500 to 10,000. It should bring about 1K more than a Sedan DV. If it were extra sharp I could see $12K. Higher than that, we are talking show quality merchandise.
One thing that annoys me about cars like that though, is when they talk about all the money they put into restoring it, and then you see obvious defects, like the cracked leather on the driver's door armrest. The other three armrests look like they've been re-done, but in vinyl. Also, the outer trim on the front seating surfaces looks like it's leather, but on the back seat, looks like it's vinyl. Now I'm not talking about the side parts of the seats...that's just vinyl, both front and back. The area I'm referring to is the trim area just to the outside of the fabric. It looks cracked up front in only the way leather can do, but in the back seat just looks too smooth and shiny to be leather.
That does look like a nice, comfy cruiser though. A lot of people would slam a car like this, saying that it looks like they put a couple of livingroom sofas in there. But compared to that, anything else is just plastic lawn furniture with a tarp thrown over it. :shades:
Personally I'd rather see a car a bit weather-worn and original then restored badly and crudely.
Ok. Here's a 1964 Fleetwood I found for sale with a listing price of $10,950 offered by a dealer in MN. Don't know anything about the history of the car in terms of where it spent most of its life. However, I've received photos additional photos of the interior, engine and trunk and they look pretty decent to me. The car is reported to be, and looks to be, in unmolested, original condition. Interior is in good shape, while used, it's not abused. Is it a #1? No. Is it a #2? Nope. But, I'd say it's a pretty good #3. Anyway, this car looks nicer than the white Fleetwood on Ebay located in Scottsdale, AZ. More importantly, the seller appears to be pretty realistic on his price. The price may be a bit high because, after all, the seller IS a dealer and one would assume he's willing to accept something less than $10,950. Still, the price isn't hideous either. Finally, a seller/dealer who isn't delusional!
I said this .64 Wildcat Coupe would go in the mid $20'sK. Well, it sold for around $33K. Either this car was nicer than I thought, or there was a free/open bar that day. LOL!
My Barrett-Jackson rule of thumb is: estimate what you think the car would realistically sell for, then add 35%. Well, if you add 35% to $25,000, you're alarmingly close to $33,000. UNCANNY!!!!
Hope those weren't the same trannys that Chrysler used in their '60s TV ad, the one with the car being jammed from drive to reverse to drive repeatedly at speed...
In TV land, nothing ever breaks and the road is always clear and your wife or husband never looked better.
Andre, try this and let us know if it breaks.
Well, the closest thing to tranny abuse I ever had was with my '68 Dart. It accidentally got thrown into park at about 35 mph once. The original owner of that car had no left arm, so the turn signal was rigged on an extra long stalk that still came out the left side of the column, but then, through a series of right angles, went under the steering column and came up and out on the right side, near the gear shifter. I let one of my friends drive the car, and he tried to signal left with the gearshift lever! :surprise: The car stopped immediately and stalled out, but didn't seem to suffer any long-term damage from it. And that was in late 1992. That car did quit running about 9 years later, but I think it was from a bad fuel pump.
As for the '57 Torqueflite, supposedly you're not supposed to be able to throw it into reverse if you're moving forward more than something like 10 or 15 mph. It has a safety lockout. It also has lockouts for first and second gear. I think it's 45 mph for first and 70 for second.
My DeSoto has no brakes, thanks to a leaking rear wheel cylinder, and needs a carburetor rebuild. However, the engine and transmission have never given me a bit of trouble. But then, this car never was a daily driver for me. I've had it since September 1990, and I doubt if I've put 5,000 miles on it. As far as I know, it's the original engine/tranny.
I never saw the commercial where they were throwing the car back and forth between drive and reverse but yeah, it would've been the same basic transmission most likely...a Torqueflite 727. There was also a lighter-duty version called the 904 that was introduced for the 1960 Valiant, but eventually was used with bigger cars and engines. My Dart has a 904, and I think my '79 New Yorkers have something called an A998, which is a slightly beefier version of it, with the "A" standing for lockup torque converter. There was another version called the A999, which I think is what smallblock copcars mainly used. I think that's what my '89 Gran Fury had.