Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Is a classic car right for me?
I've always loved the styling of the older classic cars but have shied away because of potential reliability/cost issues. But now I'm thinking that I might make my next car a classic, and keep my current reliable Toyota Corolla in case my new car is in the shop. As you can probably tell, I want my classic to be a daily driver. I'm debating between 2-3 different options I might take.
1) A cute 2+2 roadster like an Alfa Romeo 1750, an Austin-Healey 100-6 or MK, a Sunbeam Alpine, or a VW Karmann Ghia (love the styling, hate the slowness).
2) A convertible (or possibly a coupe/sedan after reading the thread on convertible ownership) from the late 40s or early to mid-50s that has a real backseat, but that's not too long in overall length (I don't want an 18' boat). Probably looking at an American make like Ford, Dodge, Plymouth, etc.
3) Or, stick with a modern car.
I like my creature comforts like a/c, cruise control, and a cd player. I want a trunk that can at least fit 2 carry-on sized suitcases, and a backseat that can at least fit a dog if not more. If I have a convertible then I want the top to go up quickly (and preferably automatically). With the price of gas at $4/gallon I want to get at least 20-25mpg. And I live in the hot and humid deep south, so rust may be an issue. I'm not a purist, however, and not everything needs to be original. And though I realize that older cars are going to be in the shop more often then modern ones, I don't want to be handing over all of my money to the mechanic all of the time. And I only want to pay about $20-25k.
So, the question is....is a classic car a good option for me?
1) A cute 2+2 roadster like an Alfa Romeo 1750, an Austin-Healey 100-6 or MK, a Sunbeam Alpine, or a VW Karmann Ghia (love the styling, hate the slowness).
2) A convertible (or possibly a coupe/sedan after reading the thread on convertible ownership) from the late 40s or early to mid-50s that has a real backseat, but that's not too long in overall length (I don't want an 18' boat). Probably looking at an American make like Ford, Dodge, Plymouth, etc.
3) Or, stick with a modern car.
I like my creature comforts like a/c, cruise control, and a cd player. I want a trunk that can at least fit 2 carry-on sized suitcases, and a backseat that can at least fit a dog if not more. If I have a convertible then I want the top to go up quickly (and preferably automatically). With the price of gas at $4/gallon I want to get at least 20-25mpg. And I live in the hot and humid deep south, so rust may be an issue. I'm not a purist, however, and not everything needs to be original. And though I realize that older cars are going to be in the shop more often then modern ones, I don't want to be handing over all of my money to the mechanic all of the time. And I only want to pay about $20-25k.
So, the question is....is a classic car a good option for me?
Tagged:
0
Comments
Of the foreign cars you mentioned, the Alfa would be the most reliable, and if you bought an 80s model, you can have AC. You don't need an electric top with one of those---it's a one hand operation. And you don't have to spend more than $10K.
As for air conditioning, it really was considered a luxury item back in the 40's and 50's, and even early 60's. It was mainly Lincolns, Cadillacs, and Imperials that had it. It was a very pricey option in those days. I think a/c on a GM car in 1956 was a $565 option. A Chevy started as low at $1800 for a stripper 2-door sedan that year, while a Cadillac started at around $4200 for a base hardtop coupe. So needless to say, not too many people were going to buy a new Chevy and then order an option that added 1/4 to 1/3 to the base price!
Also in those days, the prevailing attitude tended to be that if you bought a convertible, you didn't need air conditioning. As a result, I'd imagine a/c was rarer in the convertibles than it was in the closed cars. My mother bought a 1966 Catalina convertible, brand-new, her senior year in high school. I remember asking her if it had a/c, and she just looked at me like I'd lost my mind. "Why would it have air conditioning?! It was a CONVERTIBLE!!"
I think by the late 60's, air conditioning was really becoming popular. By that time, the prices of the cars had risen, but the cost of the a/c had actually dropped, to around $300-350. I've had two Dart hardtops, a '68 and a '69, both with a/c. The '68 probably MSRP'ed around $3300, while the '69 was around $3600, so by this time, the a/c was only about 10% of the total price of a compact. Much more reasonable.
You could probably get a big 60's convertible with a/c, a power top, nicely equipped, for a reasonable price, as long as you didn't go for some high performance model like a Catalina 2+2, Impala SS409, etc. I bought a '67 Catalina convertible for $3775, but that was way back in 1994, so I dunno what it would be worth today. But you said you didn't want to lug around 18 feet of car. I think my Catalina comes in at 17 feet, 11 inches.
So if it has a Chevy engine with aftermarket fuel injection, then it would have to be priced as a street rod, not a stock '63 F-85.
Street rods are priced mostly on how well the work is done, and how much HP has been added, and how tasteful/tasteless the modifications are.
You'd have to give us lots more details, as well as some photos, to get any idea of value.
If in fact, it is a completely stock '63 F-85, we could give you a pretty accurate value I think.
The C engine has the 2.8 rear end ratio for economy whereas the A engine has the 3.0 differential for performance. Many are still on the market with Air, Automatic, & Power Steering. They continue to increase in value, but not at a sky rocketing rate.
Your Bowser will fit easily in the back seat and the trunk is very generous.
Part availablity is very ample for this motor car.
Install a Pertronix ignition and it'll go forever.
That'll work, but I have to mention it's a tin can when it comes to accidents. Using these as a daily driver does bring with it risks, some common to all cars of this vintage (minimal safety equipement), some common to many convertibles, the Mustangs in particular (very limited body strength, you have to be careful not to bend the body during restoration), and some particular to Mustangs (drop-in gas tank, fuel can enter trunk in an accident). I grew up with a '65 Mustang, none the worse for wear, just make sure you're aware you're not dealing with a modern vehicle.
Also, is there a better reference resource than the Standard Catalog's for classic cars? (The American from 1946-1975 or the Imported from 1946-2002) I was thinking about going through those to see what models would even be able to meet my requirements in terms of seating, length, etc, but didn't know if there were better guides out there.
I can't remember...do those American Standard catalogs list overall length and width of the cars, or just the wheelbase and base weight? As for interior dimensions, the only reference I can think of right offhand is the annual auto issue of Consumer Reports, which has been coming out every April probably since the dawn of time. A big enough library might carry those. For instance, when I went to college at the University of Maryland, their library had them going back to the early 50's.
I'd say for the most part, any domestic "standard" sized car from the 50's or 60's should be big enough to hold 6 people. Some cars, like Studebakers, tended to be a bit smaller. Once compacts and intermediates came out, they might have still had 6 seatbelts, but that doesn't mean they were a comfy fit. 2-door coupes, both hardtop and fixed pillar, tended to have smaller back seats than 2- and 4-door sedans, and sometimes convertibles lost enough shoulder room that it cut the back seat down to a comfy 2-seater.
Older cars, from the earlier 50's, tended to sit up higher, more pickup truck like, and would often put a bus-sized steering wheel right in your lap. But then cars like the '57 Mopar lineup, and '57 Buick/Olds/Cadillac, really gave you a lower seating position that was further back from the firewall.
Anyway, good luck with your search! Keep us posted!
1) Some kind of a backseat to fit a large dog (or some small kids)
2) A trunk large enough to fit at least 2 carry-on suitcases
3) Creature comforts like a/c and cruise control (again, no issues adding these on later)
4) Decent gas mileage (at least 20-25mpg)
5) Not always in the shop for repairs
6) Cost less than $20-25k
7) Not as big as a boat
Now that I've eliminated the convertible part, I didn't know if there are other options in the classic car field that would pop up that are not the coupe versions of the convertibles already mentioned (Dart, Mustang, Buick Special, 280E (gorgeous but out of budget)). So any classic contenders, or should I stay with more modern vehicles?
Also, I've started looking at some more modern cars. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum (if not, please tell me where this would go) but some other contenders are:
Audi TT 2000-2006 (but focusing on 2004-2006 as reliability reports seem to be better for those years)
Jaguar XK8 or XKR 1997-2001
Porsche 911 1995-1998 (focusing on '97 and '98 because of better reliability than the earlier two years)
Toyota Celica GT/GTS 2000-2005
Acura RSX 2002-2006 (focusing on 2004-2006 for imroved reliability)
Anyway, thanks in advance for your advice!
HELP ME CHOOSE
A mustang coupe is pretty bullet-proof, 65-71, or a Chevelle small block.
You don't ever want old foreign stuff---they really can't take day to day pounding and they can be fussy.
A turbo Buick GN might be fun, from the 80s.
Sure a 55-56 Chevy would do fine on modern roads in everyday use. I don't think Fords of that era were anywhere near the quality or reliability.
Those cars you mentioned are good for around 12-15 MPG if you are lucky.
As far as modern driving, they would do just fine providing you respect the car's age. You don't drive 75 MPH and you don't taligate people.
I would lean toward the Chevy over a Ford of that era.
I'd agree with Shifty, the 20-25mpg is going to really limit your search. I was able to get that mileage once out of my 68 Cutlass, but I was driving at 55 mph with the old 75 series tires on it... 14-16 mpg was much more the norm after we put lower profile/wider tires on it.
Not sure how the 6 cylinders of the 60s/70s did, but my guess is the gain in fuel economy came at the cost of fun-to-drive and safe merging power....
Oh a BMW 735i from the late 80s would be a nice car to own---those were good cars---if you can find one that hasn't been neglected too much.
But wouldn't maintenance and repair costs offset any mileage advantage over an American land yacht by a wide margin?
The 735i was a *really* good car.
A guy in my town has for sale, a 1994 BMW 533i.
Anyone know much about these? I understand they are somewhat rare.
I haven't seen it in person yet but the picture looks good. 250,000 miles but the guy says it runs like new with the exception of a noisy pilot bushing and a worn L.S. wheel bearing.
Asking 1200.00.
I do remember that BMW stands for Breaks More Wallets.
Anyone?
533i is indeed uncommon - if it is cosmetically nice and has no mechanical issues, might be worth it for a better than usual old heap.
Well you could end up buried in this car if you need a full clutch kit and if the wheel bearing has wiped out the hub---you might also need a flywheel re-surface, and with that many miles, there could be other issues.
I'd be more inclined to suggest that you purchased a really cherry one for $3000 and be done with it. They may be rare but they aren't valuable.
Weaknesses include cracking cylinder heads and worn driveshafts. If you feel a vibration in the seat of your pants throughout the car as you lift off the clutch, that's a worn driveshaft---and they are not rebuildable if I remember correctly.
So anyway, this is a car you need to check out more thoroughly, and definitely low-ball it.
Also price out the parts you may need. Always "think the worst".
Sounds like if it runs well a cracked head isn't a problem.
I don't think the fact it's rare makes it worth anything extra.
He did mention that he "thinks" it "might" need a universal joint and those have to be sent out to a machine shop on an exchange basis.
And, I'm thinking that that "pilot bushing" is more likely a bad throwout bearing. I'm smelling a big time money pit here and although I may go take a look, I doubt if I'm going to be a buyer.
I do "think the worst" because experience has taught me that the worst is usually what the problem is!
Thanks!
Sounds more parts car-ish with each new fault.
I love it when they say, " May need a new clutch at some point" or " The A/C just needs some "freezone" put in.
I called that BMW guy and told him I wouldn't be coming.
On cars like that maintenance CAN'T be skimped on. They are very unforgiving and they will punish you.
Now, it was hardly a rocket with that slant six, but it was adequate. I also owned an '80 Malibu and an '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe, both with V-6'es, and it was faster than either of them. In college, a friend of mine had an '86 T-bird with the 232 V-6, and it was faster than that, too.
I heard the slant six became a bit of a guzzler in later years though, as it didn't take well to emissions controls, and as it went into heavier cars, performance really suffered, too.
I also had a '68 Dart with a 318, and it was more like 12-13 around town, 16-17 on the highway, maybe high-seventeens if you really babied it. Oddly, my much-heavier '67 Catalina convertible, with its 400-4bbl, gets about the same highway mileage, although around town, I'm lucky to break 10 mpg.
If he's hearing a growling sound with the clutch OUT in neutral or while driving, that's bad transmission front bearing, not a throwout bearing. (is this the "wheel bearing" he's hearing?)
In any event, if you drive it around the block, you can determine which it is. Naturally the severity of these maladies is as follows
(from best case scenario to worst case)
1. bad throw out bearing
2. bad pilot bushing
3. bad trans bearings
re: DRIVESHAFT -- yep, machine shop *may* be able to rebuild the driveshaft, but it had better be dynamically balanced, too, or you'll be sorr-eee.
Sounds like you might have to replace items from the flywheel to the differential---a driveline rebuild.
I'm going to be buying my first classic car and I really need to educate myself and this seems a very knowledgeable place so I'm hopping I'm in the right place.
- My two favorite models are the MB SL and the Karmann Ghia
So, with that info above, what do you think of the SL or the Karmann Ghia? What do I need to think about, look out for, be concerned about?My budget is max $15K
The car will be kept outdoors
I don't know about cars so before I even start looking, I need to find a very good/fair/honest mechanic that I can always go to for maintenance, repairs.
I drive daily, all day, but not long distances (city driving)
I'm in Miami
I do not want to buy a project, I want to buy one that has been restored or is in good condition already
This will be my main car
Any and all input will be most appreciated
Thanks from Sunny Miami
How about a Miata instead? More fun, more modern, better mpgs, a better car all around in my opinion.
Your lack of knowledge of cars will be a major issue in trying to keep a 25+ year old car on the road. Fine if it's a hobby car, looming disaster if it's your only car.
There are lots of decent independent shops out there - but lots of sketchy ones too. Join a car club and get references. For your budget and desires, I think a Ghia, a later 107SL, or a 6cyl 129 SL would probably be best.
I think for simplicity of mechanical maintenance, it's a Karman Ghia hands down; however, this car is a bear to restore cosmetically, so you'd better buy one with the nicest, soundest, cleanest body you can afford. You do NOT want to do any rust repair on a Ghia and you do NOT want to be hunting down, and paying for, rare bits of exterior trim. On the minus side, the KG is slow, and lets' face it, not the safest thing you could be in at 60 mph. I'm not sure it would like "outside" very much either.
As for the SL, it's got to be a 560SL or just forget it. $15K would only buy you a real RAT of a 230-250-280SL, and while you can buy a very nice 380-450SL for that money, the 560SL is a much better car in all respects. Also keep in mind that repairs on a V8 SL are going to be pretty high, so if you don't have backup in your checking account, a V8 SL will slowly drain your resources...or quickly drain them if you have a major catastrophe mechanically.
So, given all that you've said, I'd say a 560SL is your best choice IF you are lined up with a good independent Benz repair shop that can help you learn about the car and maintain it. You need teamwork to own a car like this.
If you are in the boonies, or have no such resources as a good indy shop that you trust, then go with the Ghia if you can find a rust-free, damage-free example, and if you don't mind their primitive uncomfortable nature.
They do just fine providing the driver respects the cars limitations.
I've driven many thousands of miles at 70 MPH and never felt unsafe or threatened in any way.
The Mercedes can and probably will be a financial disaster. They use tons of gas and they can be nothing but trouble and I'm talking about EXPENSIVE trouble.
The Miata suggestion is an excellent one! Great cars that are troublefree as can be.
That's the problem with giving advice to complete strangers - I will always error on the side of caution...
But you're right of course, if you are careful and respectful then all you have to worry about is the other drivers.
Of course, there are also issues of comfort. The engines are noisy, sound-deadening is nil, heat and defrost are iffy, seats are primitive.
I'd consider this a fair weather car at best.
There are far better alternatives out there for a daily driver convertible.
I do agree, a VW (Karmann Ghia) has to be owned by a person who understands this and knows how to take care of it.
By the grace of God, I never got into an accident or I probably wouldn't be typing these words. Ten gallons of gas in your lap and zero crash protection.
The thought of any nice old car sitting outside bothers me too.
Seriously, I think the Miata suggestion was spot on!
I am a MB fan but the only SLs I want are ones I can't afford :shades:
It would be fine for modern roads...it's the modern drivers I'd be concerned about!
I've driven many thousands of miles at 70 MPH and never felt unsafe or threatened in any way.
How long ago was that, though? You might feel different if you had to drive one today! The newer cars have dumbed us all down a bit, whether we notice it, or want to admit it or not. Often you don't notice how bad something is until you experience and get used to something newer and better, and then go back and experience the old thing again.
For instance, I was only 24 when I bought my '67 Catalina convertible. And back in those days, there were times when I had gotten it up over 100 mph, and had no trouble handling it. But nowadays, at the ripe old age of 41, I really don't like taking it much above 70-75. Part of it is that I'm simply more cautious now, know I'm not immortal, and it wouldn't take THAT serious of a wreck for me to die in the thing. But, over the years, I also got used to better and better handling. My '79 Newport, '86 Monte Carlo, '89 Gran Fury copcar (that one probably had the best brakes of any car I've ever owned, and its firm-feel power steering felt more like a modern car than something dating to 1976), 2000 Intrepid, and now my 2000 Park Ave.
So now, when I get behind the wheel of that Catalina, it feels incredibly vague, floaty, and unstable. Not at all the way I remember it. And since I put the bigger wheels/tires and had some transmission work done on it, it doesn't even chirp the rear tires on the 2-3 shift anymore, like it used to back in the old days.
I'd imagine the experience would be similar with any old car.
Also, I don't have nearly the driving experience that you have, but even in the 25 years I've been driving, I've noticed a change in habits. People tailgate more, are more likely to cut you off, slam on the brakes in front of you, drive too fast in the rain, snow, etc. And then throw on cell phones, smart phones, sexting, etc, and people are not only driving more aggressively today, but more distracted. And there are a lot more big trucks and SUV's out there these days. Way back in 1994, my ~4000 lb Catalina was one of the bigger vehicles on the road. Nowadays, even a lot of midsized cars are pushing the 4000 lb mark.
Personally, I think I'd be afraid to depend too much on something like an old VW Bug nowadays. I think I'd feel a bit safer in a Karmann-Ghia (justified or not), but I'd still feel vulnerable.
If I had to depend on an old car day in and day out, I think the smallest/slowest I'd feel safe in would be something like a Dart or Valiant with the larger 225 slant six, or a Chevy II with one of the larger 6-cyl engines. Wouldn't be opposed to something smaller, but I just wouldn't want to have to depend on it as my primary transportation.
Went and looked at a 1990 325i convertable this week.
The owner made a huge deal out of the fact it had the optional hardtop and couldn't believe it when I told him I had zero use for it. He didn't mention that the soft top needed to be replaced.
German Made - 1800.00
USA made - 1580.00
OEM - 3800.00
Beautiful car that had a 100% perfect body and paint. Interior was 90% very nice!
Check Engine light on - "Probably just needs to be reset" - (owner's comments")
SRS light on - " Probably just a seat belt latch"
A/C inop - " Probably just needs a recharge"
Speedo custler replaced with a used one - Makes the car a TMU (true miles unknown) car.
Asking price - 4500.00
Way overpriced especially with the problems - PASS