Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
1963-1964 Cadillacs
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 . . . .
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 . . . .
Tagged:
0
Comments
Meanwhile I see another car for Andre there!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Gee thanks. Just when I was starting to get over losing out on that Coupe Deville in NY state.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
could be I'm too sensitive. I hate rattles in a car, drives me absolutely nuts.
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?
I can think of worse automatics though.
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.
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.
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????
Here's what a $15-16K Cadillac from the 60s should look like (in terms of quality standards, not it terms of good taste). I know the price tag is higher but you can deal heavily right now on cars like this, especially consignments that have been around a while.
http://specialtysales.com/1962-cadillac-deville--c-1653.htm
So, you're thinking is that's a $15-16K car?
Well, that's not always the case. As proof, I submit the previously presented green 1964 Sedan Deville currently being offered by a collector car dealer in Ohio for $19,900. He basically told me to go pound sand when I offered him around $10K - and he's had this car for a while now.
I'm also not too keen on that red paintjob. I know Shifty tends to say the only thing that big that looks good in red is a fire engine, but I think a big car CAN look good in red. But it helps if it has a contrast color. The white roof on that car does help a bit, but I think there's still too much red. Also, this might just be my eyesight, but that red looks just a touch orangish to me. I think I'd like it better if it was a bit darker hue of red. I think burgundy would look really good on this car, too.
Something else I just realized...didn't they pretty much move away from those extra wide whitewalls by 1962?
Buyers determine the market, not sellers. And the "market" is the result of many points of sale, not one or two isolated cases of paying too little or paying too much.
If the seller isn't hungry, then basically his strategy (which is a good one) is to wait for that one sucker who has no idea what something is worth, or for the "emotional" buy, where the person does know what it's worth but will pay double because grandpa had the exact same car, blah blah.
RE: 62 Cadillac -- yeah, $15K without looking at it, just knowing it has things wrong. But the "pimpy" style really appeals to a lot of Cadillac buyers--it's not a 'defect' for that type of car, but rather an asset I think. For every purist with an old Cadillac, there are ten buyers just waiting to put a pair of steer horns and silver dollar door panels on it.
Can't say I'm "gah-gah" about white, but this one looks very nice. And, it doesn't have tilt wheel or cruise control. $29,500? Seems like a lot to me for a non-convertible. But, I'd rather have this than the red '62 convertible that's been "tarted up". What's your take on the value of this one?
If it satisfies you 100%, buy it and pay his asking price BEFORE somebody else does.
If its condition was in the form of a 66 Mustang GT, it wouldn't last long at that asking price.
It's a very nice car but if you look closely you can see little defects....the paint under the headlights, the scarring of the interior door chrome trim, the gorilla who installed the sill plates, somewhat funky door jambs, rust on power brake booster, soiled trunk mat, rip in trunk lid seal, kinked heater hose, blah blah. All nit-picks, but these things would cost him points in a judging and that's how you get a 2+ car.
so for a #2 car, he should ask #2 money, not #1 money.
Incorrect and gaudy interior, wide whitewalls that are wrong for a 1962 etc.
I don't like the vinyl top either. Those silvery blue sedans are prettier.
'59 brochure with a red one, wider whitewalls
'62 brochure, calmed way down
1962 Cadillac colors
The only red in there is a tasteful Pompeiian Red Poly, a deep metallic that's probably similar to what Pontiac called "Firethorne" in the 1970s. Looking at that chart, I'm actually quite impressed. I don't think there's a vulgar color in there. I'd say my least favorite is the Maize, but even that's not bad. There used to be a '62 Coupe that lived in my neighborhood in that color, and I always thought it was a looker. IMO, the Cadillac truly was a class act for 1962, and the colors reflected that.
For comparison, here's the 1963 color chart for Cadillac. It looks like they trimmed the amount of choices considerably but still, I think every one is tasteful. For 1964, the color choices were expanded again. Yet once more, it seems like great care was taken in picking every color, so that they would suit the car.
1964 colors seem far less garish.
What happened to pink?
We were picking on the tarted up non original fire engine red 1962 and unless I missed something, that's not the car he's looking at!
An incorrectly restored car or a #2 car being passed off as a #1 car has nothing to do with a "nit pic" nor jealousy or other babble.
The same is true with the red '62 convertible. Too gaudy for my taste and, again, too much money. That dealer has had it for sale for a while, so I'm apparently not the only one who finds it offensive at that price.
I hope to find something I like in the $10,000 to $13,000 range. For that price, I know I'm not going to find a 1963-64 Cadillac (or any other marque for that matter) convertible in the condition I want. So, I've pretty much relegated myself to a hardtop. Now, it's more of a matter as to how many doors it has. I actually like the Fleetwood Sixty Special. Hard to believe, but it's length is identical to that of the Coupe Deville. http://www.plan59.com/images/JPGs/cad63flt.jpg
I know of a 1963 Fleetwood I can buy in Benton Blue - which is a color I really like. But, at this point, the seller is wanting $15K, though we've really not gotten nitty gritty with the price. And, I'm not ready to move on it yet. Let me say this appears to be a very nice one.