Howdy, Stranger!

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





1963-1964 Cadillacs

parmparm Posts: 723
Not to rehash the story, but I recently lost out on buying a nice/original and heavily optioned 1963 Cadillac Coupe Deville. If interested, go toward the end of the Collector Car Insurance thread to read my tale of woe. Any-who, I'm back in "search mode". The 2-door Coupe Deville has been my main area of interest, but I'm really starting to warm up to a 4-door Sedan Deville (or a Fleetwood) because, much like buying a large farm, they're cheaper per acre! Haaa! Actually, the exterior dimensions of the Coupe and Sedan are identical. Feel free to weigh in on the whole 2-door vs. 4-door debate. While one would think the coupe would command a premium in price, that doesn't seem to be the case with Cadillacs. I think they're pretty comparable in price - assuming both are in similar condition.

So, let's help 'ol Parm find a nice 1963-64 Cadillac, shall we? Alrighty then! Let me start things off. Submitted for your approval: http://www.motorcarportfolio.com/product.php?id=3416

Hallelujah! This one is offered by a dealer that is actually a comfortable drive from my house - a refreshing change. But, naturally, being a dealer, the asking price ($19,900 - reduced from their original price of $22,900) is excessive. They've had this car for a while. Today, I exchanged emails with the seller and politely presented my opinion (even supplied him with a listing comp) that their asking price was high and said I'd come inspect it with a check in hand if they'd agree to $9,000. While the dealer was very nice, they implied that at that price they'd be losing money (if that's true, they paid way too much for it) and that they'd rather hold the car indefinitely waiting for their price. Perhaps $9,000 is a bit low, but it's closer to what this car is worth than $19,900. Having said that, this is the quality of car I'm looking for and know of an equally nice (perhaps nicer) '63 Fleetwood that's more reasonably priced (but, I'm keeping that one close to the vest for right now).

So folks, take a look at this green '64 Sedan Deville (I actually like color) and tell me if you think I'm a genius or The Village Idiot (trust me, as a father of 2 teenagers, I'm used to hearing the latter!).

Gentlemen, the floor is yours . . . .
«13456712

Comments

  • fezofezo Posts: 9,364
    Nice car and overpriced sounds about right. I'll wait for Shifty and others who have better ideas on the right price.

    Meanwhile I see another car for Andre there!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,026
    I like that '64 DeVille a lot, but agree with you on the price. Personally, I don't think I'd go more than $9-10K on it. Very nice car, but it's still just a 4-door hardtop. BTW, I really like that shade of green, too! If nothing else, the seller has your contact info, so if he gets desperate enough, he'll get in touch with you. Either that or sit on his pride and continue losing money as the car sits. ;)

    Fezo, I kinda like that '72 Impala. IMO that's crazy money for it though, even with those low miles. Maybe if it was a 4-door hardtop with a/c, and had a 402 or 454 under the hood I'd be tempted. I like the way the ad talks about "saving $5,000", as they market the price down from $12,900 to $7,900.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,860
    That guy has some nice looking cars, but it seems just about everything he has is a good 30-50% more than a realistic price. He's either in really deep, he's stuck in the time when people got endless HELOCs to buy toys, or he's tacitly asking for lowball offers.
  • parmparm Posts: 723
    I told the dealer if the car has all the options the ad says (some of which are out of view on the photo angles) that I'd go more than $9,000, but still less than the halfway point between $19,900. The guy politely said "no".

    Here's the listing of 1966 Fleetwood Brougham for $10,000. http://www.clcpotomacregion.org/66cadillacforsale.htm

    Looks pretty nice, right? Well, the dealer didn't think so and said it had "issues" with its interior and trim that his '64 Cadillac didn't have. That may well be true, but the under hood photos of his '64 shows it has "issues" too - which I told him. But, he apparently didn't see it that way (or, at least wouldn't admit it to me). How odd. :P
  • fezofezo Posts: 9,364
    I liked his Corvair Monza convertible but would have liked it more if it was a 65 or later.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,026
    Hmm, that '66 Fleetwood Brougham looks familiar, somehow. I might have seen it at various local shows. I know some guys who are into Cadillacs, so for all I know I might even know someone who knows the seller!

    Of the two, I think I like the '64 better, because of the color and because of it being a hardtop. But that '66 is a much more upscale car. I'd definitely take it at $10K before I'd take the '64 at $19K!

    Plus, at least the seller of the '66 is only "asking $10,000", not trying to pull any of this "firm" crap.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,860
    I bet you could knock off a little too, given this stag-deflationary nightmare economy right now. Those brocade cloth interiors have always seemed amusing to me, much cooler than 70s velvet/velour.

    That dealer must have a big low overhead storage facility, if he's planning on selling those cars at those prices...because they'll be hanging around for awhile.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    I think the '66 is worth about 80% of the '64 Sedan de Ville, and I think the '64 is worth about $8K--$9K in today's market, so the '66 would be worth about $6,500 or $7,000 tops.

    Both cars are overpriced, the '64 ridiculously so, and neither one, in my opinion, has the value or desirability of a 2D hardtop.

    You could spend $100,000 dollars on restoring that '64, and I'd bet a big lunch you would not sell it for $19,000.

    If you are going to pay "top dollar", it has to be for a 2D hardtop, or you'll lose your shirt on resale.

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

  • parmparm Posts: 723
    If you are going to pay "top dollar", it has to be for a 2D hardtop, or you'll lose your shirt on resale.

    Gee thanks. Just when I was starting to get over losing out on that Coupe Deville in NY state. :cry:
  • parmparm Posts: 723
    Here's a 2 year old listing of a Coupe Deville. http://www.carsonline-ads.com/colsite/col?use=UC3_ViewPosting&cmd=showPosting&po- stingID=22917

    Here's the thing, this car just sold yesterday (Thursday) at Barrett Jackson (lot # 618). Sold for $14,300 which includes the 10% buyer's premium - so, the hammered price was $13,000. The car went through a restoration of questionable quality a few years ago. After said restoration, the family listed the car for sale. Originally, they wanted around $21,000. Their asking price eventually went down to $18,000 which is when I contacted them. I offered around $12,500 and they seemed offended and responded with, "We've turned down $15,000!" If a car is really for sale, why do sellers say stuff like that??? It amazes me how when given a market correct offer, some folks will say they've already turned down a ridiculously high price. I lost track of this car after that. Apparently, somebody came along, bought it and took it Barrett-Jackson. I'd love to know what the consigner actually paid for it.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    So a hammer price of $13,000, and then we subtract the 25% "Hey I'm on television and I'm drunk" FACTOR, and we come up with real world money of about $10,000 bucks.

    True Story: One time some guy told me that "I turned down X dollars on this car!" and I suddenly touched his shoulder, made my eyes real wide and said "OH MY GOD...call him back up! That's the highest price i've EVER seen offered for this car and I've been shopping them for a year!"

    Man, was he PO'ed at that. . He was actually hopping up and down while he was shouting at me..... :P

    Follow Up: Car sold 6 months later for $300 more than I offered him.

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

  • parmparm Posts: 723
    Point of order - I watched every minute of Thursday's TV coverage and this car wasn't on it, so it sold before the cameras were on.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    Okay, no TV, just drunk then :P

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

  • parmparm Posts: 723
    The whole coupe vs sedan debate is becoming more and more interesting to me. I know some consider coupes as "sportier" if that's a valid arguement - but remember, we're talking about 1963-64 Cadillacs here. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I'm not seeing that much difference in the sale/asking prices between nice 1963-64 Coupe Devilles and equally nice Sedan Devilles or even Fleetwoods. Seems to me, big cars like these are meant to be enjoyed by more people than just the pilot. Doesn't it make sense you'd want take your partner and another couple out for a spin, or to dinner? I know the idea of "functionality" may be diluted somewhat for a car that's not used as a daily driver, but there's no question that a 4-door is more functional than 2-doors. Now, if we're talking about a smaller car, a 2-door 1970 Nova is definitely more visually appealing than the 4-door. But, when you're talking larger cars (and they don't come much larger than 63-64 Cadillacs), I don't think the difference in visual styling is as apparent between 2 and 4 doors. So, with these 1963-64 Cadillacs, is there really THAT much difference in value? If so, why?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    Don't go by "asking prices". They mean nothing to actual value, as you know by now.

    As for selling prices, these are driven by the old supply and demand equation.

    More people want coupes than want 4-doors. Why? Various reasons. One, as you say, "sporty"; two, 4 door hardtops rattle like crazy; three, generally the coupe design is more handsome.

    I do agree with you though, that this difference tends to blur when you are talking about the USS Nimitz-sized cars. But keep in mind that each and every price guide asserts that there is a difference, and each and every auction list seems to support this as well. Sure there will be the odd 4-door HT selling at an equal price to the 2D HT, but by and large, the 2D will always bring stronger money.

    I think there is a psychological reason here, too. "4-door" suggests "grandpa" or something...I don't know...it's a mental barrier of some sort for old car buyers.

    But hey, buy what you like and take advantage of this seemingly irrational price split, is my advice. Just don't pay 2D money for a 4D--that's not good advice.

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

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,762
    I would definatly lean toward the 1964's. They have cleaner grills and tailights.

    They were the first with the Turbo 400 transmission which is a much better trans tan the earlier ones. First year for Auto Air Conditioning and, I'm almost sure, 1964 was the first year for the 429 engines.

    Not to say the 1963's were "bad" cars, not the case at all.
  • parmparm Posts: 723
    1964 was the first year for "climate control" A/C which some may perceive as a cool feature. But, the downside is that this unit is well known for being much more complicated and thus harder (and more expensive) to repair. The '63 A/C was much more straight forward. As you indicated, 1964 did offer some mechanical advantages, but by 1963, the 390 was reknown for being darn near bullet proof and the hyrdamatic tranmission works fine when its in proper working order - though its probably more expensive to repair than the TH400. I think the '64 would beat a '63 in a drag race, but that's not a big deal to me as that's not how I would drive the car.

    Hopefully, the Car Gods will smile upon me and present yours truly with another opportunity to buy a nice 1963-64 Coupe Deville for a reasonable price. If so, I won't let THAT one get away (trust me).
  • parmparm Posts: 723
    Yes, perhaps the 4-door suggests "grandpa". But, a 2-door 1963-64 Cadillac isn't exactly what'd you call a "babe magnet". So, how much of a hit to its image does a 4-door 63-64 Caddy take?

    With regard to the propensity for 4-doors to squeak, I guess it stands to reason that if you have twice the number of doors that you double your chances for squeaking. But, doors themselves don't tend to squeak, do they? And, keep in mind that 1963-64 Cadillac 4-door models do not have a B pillar which would reduce the possibility for squeaking, right? I mean, that massive roof by itself should provide ample rigidity and the lack of a post eliminates the number of squeak points I would think.

    It's lack of a B pillar is an attractive feature for me. With all the windows down, you get a lot of the open air driving experience - so much in fact that you'd hardly miss not having a convertible. Not saying its the same as a convertible, but its a nice trade-off when you consider the sedan's advantages in terms of cost (both in its purchase and on-going maintenance) and reduced body flex.

    Am I all wet on these points?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    No you're not all wet but I think the lack of a B pillar makes the squeaking worse...there is no support for the windows, so they rattle in their channels.

    The only 4-doors I think are really cool are 4 doors with suicide doors.

    I agree that the 4D is more practical as a usable vintage car but since when did practicality and value go together with old cars? If anything, the opposite is true.

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

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,209
    "I guess it stands to reason that if you have twice the number of doors that you double your chances for squeaking."

    I don't think the number of doors and the chances for squeaks is proportional. The relationship changes because the structure of the two body configurations is different, so their respective rigidity and other squeak-causing factors isn't necessarily proportional. As an analogy, consider the probability of mortality in a given year of a 80 year old compared with a 40 year old. Are they proportional? Or, are an 80 year old man's chances of dying twice the chance of a 40 year old man's, in the same physical condition? We know that an 80 year old's chances of dying are more than twice those of a 40 year old's, wouldn't you agree? In fact, although I don't have a mortality table handy to refer to, it's probably quite a bit more than twice as much.

    Sorry for citing a morbid analogy, but I believe Shifty is is right in terms of the propensity for rattles with a four door hard-top versus a two door hard-top.

    Another analogy would be the cost of repairing body damage if you hit a stationary object at 20 mph versus 10 mph.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    I'm sure a person could remove all 4 door panels, and tighten and lube all 4 window mechanisms, and install new "fuzzies" into all the channels. BIG job but might be worth it if you live on lumpy streets. Nothing worse than having a nice big car like that, sounding like a NYC taxicab every time you hit a rough spot.

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

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,026
    I dunno how the '63-64's compared, but my '69 Bonneville was a 4-door hardtop, was pretty squeak and rattle-free, even at 108,000 miles when I bought it. Now I'm sure the 2-door hardtop was tighter still, and anything with a full B-pillar, even better.

    The really old hardtops had chrome trim around the window glass, and the glass itself tended to be thicker and heavier. I wonder if that extra bulk contributed more to rattling, as the extra weight might stress the lift mechanism more?

    Now that Bonneville did seem flimsy in some respects. The trunk lid seemed kind of tinny when you closed it, compared to the similar-vintage Mopars I've had. My '67 Catalina convertible seems the same way. But the doors on that Bonneville seemed nice and tight, and had a nice sound when you closed them, whether the windows were up or down. The sheetmetal in general just seemed thin on that car, at least compared to the Mopars of that vintage I've had.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    If you had a squeak and rattle free 4D hardtop, it was the only one in the world :P They rattled right out of the factory. Maybe someone really gave your car a going over.

    could be I'm too sensitive. I hate rattles in a car, drives me absolutely nuts.

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

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,209
    Not that one unscientific example proves the rule, but my parents' '63 Olds Dynamic 88 four door hardtop definitely rattled more on less-than-smooth roads than their '69 Dodge Dart two door hardtop. Both cars were purchased new.

    Incidentally, both of these cars provided good, comfortable, reliable, low-maintenance transportation. The Olds had the "Slim Jim" tranny, which, while not the best design, worked fine, and was trouble-free until the car was traded at almost 100,000 miles. Unfortunately, the Dart Slant Six experienced the cracked manifold problem, but soldiered on to something over 110,000 miles. It was purchased by a young guy who swapped the engine for a 340 V8.

    What puzzles me is that, unlike Yugo and Hyundai, for example, Detroit had a history of building decent and even excellent cars through the '60s. What the heck went wrong in the '70s, '80s and '90s?
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,762
    Your parents got lucky. The Roto-Hydramatics (Slim Jim) weren't that robust especially compared to the Turbo 400's.

    I can think of worse automatics though.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,026
    They rattled right out of the factory. Maybe someone really gave your car a going over.

    I doubt it. I bought the thing from my cousin, and he's notorious for abusing cars. So why, do you ask, did I buy the thing? For the life of me I don't know! I just always liked that car, and was a bit envious when he bought it in 1989. I paid $400 for it, and it was worth every penny! :P

    I'd say that compared to my '68 Dart 2-door hardtop, the Bonneville was definitely tighter, but that may not be a fair comparison. The Bonneville came to me with about 108,000 miles. The Dart? 253,000. Being a much bigger, heavier car, the Bonneville also rode better. It was smoother, which might have helped dampen out the squeaks and rattles. It also had taller tires, 225/75/R15's. I had 205/70/R14's on the front of the Dart, and on the back would switch between 205/70 and 225/70.

    It's also been years since I've had that Bonneville. It finally got towed away in 1996. As I've gotten used to newer cars with full B-pillars and better seals and such, I might not be so tolerant of that Bonneville today. But then, maybe it wouldn't bother me. My '76 LeMans isn't exactly bank vault-like, and neither are my two '79 NYers or my '85 Silverado.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    Of course, I only get to drive the 4D hardtops NOW, with a gazillion miles on them and their creaky 40+ years. But still, every time I drive one, it's the hammers of hell in there when you hit some rough patches.

    Go slow on smooth roads or on the freeway, no problemo.

    The windows just have no support. They are just blowing in the wind. If one examines the design closely, the problem becomes apparent. Open one of the doors and move the windows back and forth with your two fingers---there's a lot of play in there, and no side pillar to stop it.

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

  • texasestexases Posts: 5,617
    Besides the windows, the rear doors' hinges on four-door hardtops are supported only from the bottom, not the bottom and top like on a sedan, so I'd think any given car would be stiffer/less rattley in sedan or 2-door form.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,116
    I could see a 4D hartop's doors popping open on a really hard bounce, yes.

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

  • parmparm Posts: 723
    GENTLEMEN, we're talking about a Cadillac here . . . the STANDARD of the world!, remember??

    Rattles? Doors popping open? In a Cadillac?? Are you serious????

    LOL! OK, we're talking a FORTY-FIVE year old Cadillac, and I get that. But, you guys are talking like this would be my daily driver or something. Believe me, nobody hates rattles more than yours truly. I would be a new car dealer's worst nightmare if I heard rattles in something for which I'd just plunked down 40 large. And, while I doubt I'd want to buy a 1963-64 Cadillac without A/C (thereby suggesting I'd be doing some windows up driving on occasion), the windows will probably be down the bulk of the time when the car is on the road (this would strictly be a spring/summer/fall toy). Again, that's why I'm rather intrigued with the whole idea of a 4-door pillar-less hardtop. With all the windows down, the interior turns into a big greenhouse space providing me with a "wind in my hair" (such as it is these days) driving experience without the drawbacks of a convertible. I'm talking something along the lines of a 1963 Flleetwood like this.

    http://www.rmauctions.com/CarDetails.cfm?SaleCode=AW07&CarID=r172

    You could fit half of Dodger Stadium in there and the hotdog guy would still need a cannon for an arm to pass me one with everything from the backseat!! We're talking Big Sky country here guys! Hence my reason for considering a 4-door.

    BTW, I know of a '63 Fleetwood I can buy like the one in the link above that is pretty much identical in color and in very nice condition. The seller is thinking of selling and has a figure of $15K in mind - though we've not yet had a serious discussion of price. This was originally a California car (delivered new in Beverly Hills) and lived there until 1991 when it was bought by the current owner who moved the car to his home in Texas. He's a member of the Cadillac LaSalle Club and appears to have maintained it nicely. While I think $15K is kind of high, I'm not sure yet what I'd offer him. Any thoughts????
«13456712
Sign In or Register to comment.