Yes generally it means more horsepower but some manufacturers couldn't, rather than wouldn't, raise the ratio. Higher compression requires superior head design (for cooling) and higher quality control.
Also higher compression should increase torque, so the "HP" ratings could be rather meaningless unless we knew a) how they measured it back then and b) at what RPM they were claiming for max HP.
275 HP at 3500 rpm is a whole different engine than 275 @ 4500 rpm, especially if it's an old pushrod V8.
I would think that the Pontiac engine was a much better revving engine than the early Mopars--at least this is my recollection. Once we went to radical cams and fancier valve gear, that changed of course.
I would think a Pontiac 390 tri-power would smack a Chysler 383 silly, each in their own stock vehicles of the time, say against a Chrysler 300 sedan.
But this is all speculation. I really haven't investigated the various engine designs you brought up or how they rated the HP.
But if you have the right gas and the cooling, higher compression is a win-win all the way. You can also run more advanced timing (to a point) but that gets risky.
After driving a 1967 Ford Country Sedan, 390 2bbl up to the slopes a couple of times, I gave a machine shop $100 to install a 4bbl carb & intake manifold. Kept the rest of the engine original, but that was the best investment for more kick for the buck. However, for some reason, that car from then on was a ticket taker on the way to White Pass & one of my favorite cars of the past. Oh to be 34 again!
Me too. Part of the confusion is...well, look at what we're dealing with: advertised hp ratings from various manufacturers.
As pointed out in a previous post, the actual RPM at which the hp rating is given can make 2 very different engines appear to make very similar power-at least on paper.
Plus there is the history of gamesmanship when manufacturers advertise an engine hp rating for something other than pure engineering purposes.
And it wasn't just the hp ratings either. EPA ratings have been far from perfect, but car companies were known to exaggerate before then. Remember some of Detroit's old car commercials which quoted impressive MPG results for big sedans under, um, test conditions?
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
First of all, I'm not a Packard guru, though I have a deep respect for the brand. And, normally I absolutely DETEST dog-ear headlights - especially on the Lincolns of similar vintage (ack, barf!) But, for some reason, I kind of like this car. B-J is calling this model a 400, but isn't this a Patrician? The current issue of Hemmings Classic Car spotlights Packards of all flavors, so maybe that's where my fascination is coming from. There's a blurb about one similar to this and the owner raves about how nice it drives, very smooth, plenty of power for a big car, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I'll never be able to afford a nicely restored classic Packard from the late 1920's thru '41 - back when Packard was at the top of its game. But, something from the '50's (with the exception of a Caribbean), perhaps someday. I know, I know. Some of you will argue this is basically a Studebaker with a Packard name plate. And, by the early to mid-1950's Packard had lost its luster and had one foot in the grave with the other in quicksand. That's pretty much why these are affordable. It also makes them kind of cool. You show up at a car show in one of these and you're pretty much be guaranteed you'll be the only one . . . . . that's a good thing, right?? :confuse:
The one above sells at Barrett Jackson this month which probably won't be a fair test of its value in the real market. So, what would you pay for one of these?
This wouldn't be my first choice for a 50s Packard. These can be troublesome cars--remember this is the product of a cash-starved company selling very very few cars in its last year, with fairly complex engineering. (torsion leveling, lock up electronic transmission, etc.)
Packards are Packards up to 1956. After that, they are TOTALLY Studebakers.
You could certainly afford a mid 50s 4-door base Packard like a Clipper for $4000--$5000 in good driver condition, and you could probably afford a plain-jane late 20s Packard 4 door sedan, like a 726 or 733 series for not much more than that.
Hmmm...my memory is a bit foggy on that. I think it went Clipper, Executive, then Patrician then Caribbean, and the 400 was the 2D version of the Patrician. I could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.
I never had much interest in 50s Packards. I find them rather mundane. For the way they look and feel, I'd just as soon get a 50s Mopar----similar in a lot of way except build quality of course. But if pressed I guess a '53 Mayfair coupe or a '54 Pacific hardtop or '54 Clipper Panama 2D HT.
Packards in 1955 ranged from Clipper Deluxe-5540, Clipper Super -5540 Clipper Custom - 5560 to Packard 5580. (Assume the 5580 = Caribbean)
The 1956 Packard Caribbean Convertible is one of only 276 built by Packard Motor Car Company in 1956. (5588) The Caribbean was fitted with Packard's most powerful engine; a 310 horsepower, 374 cubic inch, V-8 engine. The car rests on a 127-inch wheelbase and weighs 4,960 pounds. The $5,995 price tag made this model the most expensive model Packard produced in 1956.
Much preferred over the Mopars of those years. :lemon:
I was thinking in terms of driving experience. Those Packards, circa '56 are rather clumsy monstrous things, with pinky-tip steering. I think I'd take a '56 Chrysler 300 anyday.
"Packards are Packards up to 1956. After that, they are TOTALLY Studebakers." The 55's and the 56's essentially shared the same body styling, so I'm assuming you're referring to the mechanicals?
"For the way they look and feel, I'd just as soon get a 50s Mopar----similar in a lot of way except build quality of course." I'm assuming the Packard had the better build quality??
Hopefully the 56 Chrysler 300 was a Hell of a lot better than our new 57 Plymouth Belvedere. We bought the Plymouth the day I was discharged from active duty at the Oakland Army Terminal. The guy selling me travelers checks asked what I was going to do with all my money & said I was going to buy a new car and drive us home. His son in law was the owner of Harris Neff Motors in Crockett, CA and on 18 Mar 58 we paid $2400 cash for a brand new 57 301, Torqueflite. It was a gorgeous dark Blue and rode like a dream. However, it was not a kinked speedometer cable that caused the noise, but the tranny was chewing itself up as we drove home to the NW. Santa Rosa DeSoto Plymouth fixed the window regulator on the way home and when we arrived the local DeSoto Plymouth dealer adjusted the torsion bar so as to level it. Chrylser denied to pay for that & when I visited the factory rep in the Terminal Sales Bldg in Portland, I was advised to go to Hell because the dealer at home wasn't an authorized Plymouth dealer. They had lost the Plymouth franchise, but kept the DeSoto. 20,000 miles later, the tranny went [non-permissible content removed] up. My fix at my cost. 5,000 miles later the connecting rod scored the crankshaft. All occuring on or before 25,000 miles were on the car.
The attitude of the factory reps enabled me to never buy a Chrysler product since.
Maybe the 56's were good cars, but our 57 was a POS. :lemon:
the '57 Belvedere convertible can bring pretty decent "classic" money. It no doubt has a small demand but also a small supply due to its bio-degradibility.
The 1955-56 Mopars were well-built, solid cars. However, they weren't as sturdy as the 1949-54's, which were downright tank-like. Build quality is a bit sloppy on the '55-56 models, with larger, more uneven gaps. And while 4-door hardtops tend to be leaky and rattly as a rule, I'm sure the '56 Mopars were worse than typical, because the distance from A-pillar to C-pillar was considerably greater than the Ford/GM rivals.
The 1957's were rushed into production, a year early, and the futuristic styling was a smash hit. The total domestic auto market dropped from about 7.5M units in 1956 to about 6M for 1957, yet Mopar bucked that sales trend, seeing considerable rise. The Plymouth was such a hit that it propelled the brand back to 3rd place, a position it hadn't seen in years, and a new sales record of something like 750,000 units. I think that figure was only topped once, in 1973.
In the case of Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler, sales didn't rise too much above 1956 numbers (I think Chrysler might have actually dropped a bit), but in Plymouth's case, the car was such a hit that they were rushing them out the door as fast as they could slap them together. As a result, the quality of the Plymouths suffered much more than the quality of the other Mopar brands. And even in areas where Mopar normally shines, like engines and transmissions, began to suffer as the components were slapped together quicker than they should have been.
If we presume (and I could back it up with data) that most auction prices go 20% over retail due to emotional purchasing and competition
Shifty Sez: "All you need to get a great price at an auction is two large egos in a room together".
.......and then we have 15% buyer and seller premiums, so that's
$41, 800 minus 35% = FMV in normal retail market, or $27170, which is *exactly* high book for a car #2 or better.
So really it's not as irrational as it appears.
The "market" is set by many price points. One auction sale is a database of "one". :P
Looks like really nice car though---you couldn't restore one for $40K, so really the purchase might not be foolish at all in those terms---if you were planning to restore a wreck I mean. These cars are not cheap to restore either. You don't go to aftermarket catalogs for '56 Packard parts.
Not being one to argue, :P BUT, the buyer's premium at B-J is only 10% (since it's a no reserve auction, seller's premium doesn't come into play). So, using your model, the calculation would be $41,800 -30% = $29,260. But, your point is well taken.
Hi all. I'm looking for value advice on a 2 door hardtop 1972 Buick Skylark that has been "restored" to a "GS" to include all emblems, rebuilt 455 (not original) and 350 tranny with less than 2000 miles documented. Paint is good (not great but certainly serviceable). The engine sounds great and car drives strong. There is some bubbling under the vinyl top near the back window but otherwise the interior/exterior is in very good shape and all electrical functions work fine. Undercarriage displays no issues either. Mileage is 72K original and documented.
I like the 1972 style although I know 1972 is past the prime of muscle cars.
Nothing is as it appears in these auctions IMO. You have to judge each one case by case, and to do that you really have to be there to witness what came down.
Certainly on a reserve auction but I don't know if they can do that monkey business on a no-reserve. They might need a friend to buy it for them. I can't imagine that people can get a $100K car for $3,500 bucks, no.
I just purchased a 33,000 original miles original paint Light green pontiac catalina. I am trying to figure out how to sell it. I would like to get 6500.00 for it is an all numbers matching car with original license plate and manual. It does have rusted fenders but they are repairable says my body guy. The seat needs only the backrest recovered and the drivers door interior panel needs recovered a dog chewed on it. Any idea if this car is worth what i would list it on e-bay for? 389 2 barrell. It a two door hardtop with no posts and factory or dealer installed 8 track.
Sounds pricey at $6,500. Best thing to do is put a reserve of $6500 on it and then start the bidding with an opening bid of maybe $1,500 and see how it goes. As for the mileage, if you can't prove it, you'd best not state it as true, but qualify your statements with "I was told that" or "reported to me that". Otherwise, if someone buys it and finds an oil change sticker under the seat with 133,000 miles written on it, you are guilty of misrepresentation.
I haven't seen photos so can't really pinpoint a price for you. Given that it needs paint, interior and whatever else, and that it is a base model car worth maybe $20K all bright and shiny, then I'd guess wildly here and say it'll bid up to around $3,500.
If it looks better in real life than it does in my mind right now, perhaps higher. Wish you luck on eBay!
I also have a 1967 Pontiac Bonneville Convertible with all matching numbers. Black color rust in quarters and rust on fenders. They can be repaired as well. Power seats power top tilt wheel 400 4 barrel. it has 18000 miles on it beutiful dash convertible top cloth needs redone. Any idea as value to it?
Sounds like it also needs a good deal of resto. Maybe $5,500 to $7500? This presumes it runs well enough. Even restored, this is not a high dollar car. If it were a '57, you'd be in the chips, big time.
Hemmings Motor News is very good and quite reasonable.
www.hemmings.com
You could test the market on eBay by putting a high reserve. If you get 10-20 bidders, the # they bid up to is probably close to market value. Then, even if reserve is not met, you can contact the failed highest bidder and maybe work a deal. The more photos you post on eBay, and the more questions you answer, the higher your bids will be.
In Hemmings, of course, you have to post a price. You can always e-mail people photos if they answer your ad.
Again, without lots of photos, I"m going guessing as to value but eBay will educate us both.
Don't turn down a decent cash offer in these weird economic times. Project cars are not easy to sell.
The black one appears to be a bit nicer, but is it worth over $10,000 more? No doubt both are over priced, but "for the money" which would you rather have and why? Finally, how much would you pay for each?
I'd have to look underneath both cars to decide. If both were equally clean top to bottom, and IF.....IF....both had AC (which neither appears to have), I'd pick the rose one for $30K.
$40K would be a knock-out show car, so I'm not seein' that in either one. Maybe I'd go $32K with air.
I don't think these 50s coupes look good in black.
Oh maybe $30K--$34K, on the black one, which appears to be far nicer, if it was very clean and sanitary underneath. If it has worn out under-chassis, with surface rust on frame, various leaks, old rubber bushings, dented mufflers, etc., then down we go.
One always has to be careful of "tarted up" cars that look great up top but are just old cars underneath. These never grade higher than a #3, no matter how nice the body or interior. So in that case, we're in the $20Ks for the Rose car. I blew up some of the photos, and I suspect the car is a mess underneath. It may not even be worth buying at any price. I"m seeing crappy paintwork on the door jambs, carpeting pulling off the sill plates and kick pads, rusted firewall (real bad), rain leaks in trunk, cracking rubber trunk seal, old carpets, stains in door panels. What I"m seeing here, IMO, is a once-original car that was repainted with a decent "tape job" and given some new rubber and a shampoo. I don't think I'd even consider this car, more I think about it, for anything over $20K.
Lack of AC has gotta cost 10 to 15% deduct on either car.
Alrighty, same exercise, but this time we're talk'n 1966 Mustang convertibles - which we've discussed earlier. Both cars have perhaps my favorite Pony interior - the blue/white combo. While I prefer the blue exterior color, I think I'd go with the white one because it just looks fresher to me. It's not a real GT, but I'm a sucker for the GT look/options and like the upgrades it has received. The blue top isn't a factory correct color (I don't believe), but I love it. I'd drive the hell out of it. Then when it needs a repaint, I'd change it to a proper Mustang Brittany Blue - which is close to the color of the blue one. Then, I'd have my ultimate '66 Mustang (sans the K-code motor).
Blue: this has to be the more valuable car of the two. A high #3 '66 auto GT I think is worth all of $22k on a good day. By quick glance at the pics, it seems to me it would just take some work under the hood to push this into #2 territory.
White: It is just all wrong. Although I do have to agree that it is more visually appealing. I'm going to put $19k on this one.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
i agree with gbrozen---both cars are overpriced by a good margin, as least on the face of the photos and descriptions. The #3 car is just priced at too much for that grade, maybe $5K--8K over. The other car, while no doubt very nice, isn't real and has a number of things that are "wrong" with it, so it can't be claiming REAL GT money. So maybe $28K on that one if she's a real beauty---not a good investment though---you'd have t consider both these cars "drivers" that you will use frequently.
Personally, a stripped down 4-speed V8 coupe with AC would be perfect for me, with some handling improvements.
Admittedly, the white one is not how it was born. But, here’s the thing. Ford made tons of these. If someone wanted to find a real 1966 GT convertible, it wouldn’t be that hard (but would cost them more) and there are enough bone stock examples out there to satisfy hard-core purists. So, once the GT options were installed on the white one, I don’t think it’s a crime to change this car’s original DNA as long as the seller provides full disclosure, which he’s done. Obviously, the padded center console is incorrect and I actually prefer the look of the original console which the blue one has – then again, the steering wheel on the blue one isn’t correct either. But, the arm rest and cup holders are a nice convenience – especially since this car will never be a concours competitor. The white one has the Monte Carlo brace under the hood which would help with the car’s overall rigidity. Can’t see what all else is going on under there, but an electronic ignition would be fine with me. I’m pretty much of a purist myself. But, as long as the upgrades are tastefully done (which appears to be the case on the white one) and are disclosed AND so long as you’re not converting a K-code to a six banger (or something equally blasphemous), then I say no harm, no foul when it’s a car that was made in such a large quantity.
At $22K, you might be able to strike a deal on the blue since it’s in the same ballpark as the seller’s $29K asking price. But, with the white one, the difference between the seller’s $34,900 asking price and $19K is a pretty big swing. Still, I asked what it was worth and you just might be right on the money.
Personally, a stripped down 4-speed V8 coupe with AC would be perfect for me, with some handling improvements.
Ahhh, but you're about forgetting the whole top-down, wind in your hair (for those of you who are still that lucky LOL!) driving experience. Otherwise, you might as well be driving a '95 Camry. :shades:
Hmmmm...'95 Camry?? While I often think about getting a 1st gen Mustang (my first car), I've never convinced myself I'd actually like having it. That white one's a good example. Start adding the stuff that makes it more convenient (and I'd also have to have AC), and it's not very original. At those prices, even adjusted for reality, I end up thinking 'why not just wait for the 2011 V6 (270hp), convertible if I want, for not much more money?'. It's either that, or Shifty's '65 coupe with a 4sp and AC.
Comments
Also higher compression should increase torque, so the "HP" ratings could be rather meaningless unless we knew a) how they measured it back then and b) at what RPM they were claiming for max HP.
275 HP at 3500 rpm is a whole different engine than 275 @ 4500 rpm, especially if it's an old pushrod V8.
I would think that the Pontiac engine was a much better revving engine than the early Mopars--at least this is my recollection. Once we went to radical cams and fancier valve gear, that changed of course.
I would think a Pontiac 390 tri-power would smack a Chysler 383 silly, each in their own stock vehicles of the time, say against a Chrysler 300 sedan.
But this is all speculation. I really haven't investigated the various engine designs you brought up or how they rated the HP.
But if you have the right gas and the cooling, higher compression is a win-win all the way. You can also run more advanced timing (to a point) but that gets risky.
After driving a 1967 Ford Country Sedan, 390 2bbl up to the slopes a couple of times, I gave a machine shop $100 to install a 4bbl carb & intake manifold. Kept the rest of the engine original, but that was the best investment for more kick for the buck. However, for some reason, that car from then on was a ticket taker on the way to White Pass & one of my favorite cars of the past. Oh to be 34 again!
Me too. Part of the confusion is...well, look at what we're dealing with: advertised hp ratings from various manufacturers.
As pointed out in a previous post, the actual RPM at which the hp rating is given can make 2 very different engines appear to make very similar power-at least on paper.
Plus there is the history of gamesmanship when manufacturers advertise an engine hp rating for something other than pure engineering purposes.
And it wasn't just the hp ratings either. EPA ratings have been far from perfect, but car companies were known to exaggerate before then. Remember some of Detroit's old car commercials which quoted impressive MPG results for big sedans under, um, test conditions?
As Shifty sez: "Your asking price is your way to exercise your First Amendment Rights".
First of all, I'm not a Packard guru, though I have a deep respect for the brand. And, normally I absolutely DETEST dog-ear headlights - especially on the Lincolns of similar vintage (ack, barf!) But, for some reason, I kind of like this car. B-J is calling this model a 400, but isn't this a Patrician? The current issue of Hemmings Classic Car spotlights Packards of all flavors, so maybe that's where my fascination is coming from. There's a blurb about one similar to this and the owner raves about how nice it drives, very smooth, plenty of power for a big car, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I'll never be able to afford a nicely restored classic Packard from the late 1920's thru '41 - back when Packard was at the top of its game. But, something from the '50's (with the exception of a Caribbean), perhaps someday. I know, I know. Some of you will argue this is basically a Studebaker with a Packard name plate. And, by the early to mid-1950's Packard had lost its luster and had one foot in the grave with the other in quicksand. That's pretty much why these are affordable. It also makes them kind of cool. You show up at a car show in one of these and you're pretty much be guaranteed you'll be the only one . . . . . that's a good thing, right?? :confuse:
The one above sells at Barrett Jackson this month which probably won't be a fair test of its value in the real market. So, what would you pay for one of these?
Value? $15,000 to $20,000 if really nice.
This wouldn't be my first choice for a 50s Packard. These can be troublesome cars--remember this is the product of a cash-starved company selling very very few cars in its last year, with fairly complex engineering. (torsion leveling, lock up electronic transmission, etc.)
Packards are Packards up to 1956. After that, they are TOTALLY Studebakers.
You could certainly afford a mid 50s 4-door base Packard like a Clipper for $4000--$5000 in good driver condition, and you could probably afford a plain-jane late 20s Packard 4 door sedan, like a 726 or 733 series for not much more than that.
I never had much interest in 50s Packards. I find them rather mundane. For the way they look and feel, I'd just as soon get a 50s Mopar----similar in a lot of way except build quality of course. But if pressed I guess a '53 Mayfair coupe or a '54 Pacific hardtop or '54 Clipper Panama 2D HT.
The 1956 Packard Caribbean Convertible is one of only 276 built by Packard Motor Car Company in 1956. (5588) The Caribbean was fitted with Packard's most powerful engine; a 310 horsepower, 374 cubic inch, V-8 engine. The car rests on a 127-inch wheelbase and weighs 4,960 pounds. The $5,995 price tag made this model the most expensive model Packard produced in 1956.
Much preferred over the Mopars of those years. :lemon:
"For the way they look and feel, I'd just as soon get a 50s Mopar----similar in a lot of way except build quality of course." I'm assuming the Packard had the better build quality??
Inquiring minds want to know. :P
The attitude of the factory reps enabled me to never buy a Chrysler product since.
Maybe the 56's were good cars, but our 57 was a POS. :lemon:
To me, Classics have to be rare & in high demand.
Then there are "Personal Interest Cars" such as the 57 Bel Air & 65 Mustang V8.
The 1957's were rushed into production, a year early, and the futuristic styling was a smash hit. The total domestic auto market dropped from about 7.5M units in 1956 to about 6M for 1957, yet Mopar bucked that sales trend, seeing considerable rise. The Plymouth was such a hit that it propelled the brand back to 3rd place, a position it hadn't seen in years, and a new sales record of something like 750,000 units. I think that figure was only topped once, in 1973.
In the case of Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler, sales didn't rise too much above 1956 numbers (I think Chrysler might have actually dropped a bit), but in Plymouth's case, the car was such a hit that they were rushing them out the door as fast as they could slap them together. As a result, the quality of the Plymouths suffered much more than the quality of the other Mopar brands. And even in areas where Mopar normally shines, like engines and transmissions, began to suffer as the components were slapped together quicker than they should have been.
No, that's a 400 all right. Value? $15,000 to $20,000 if really nice.
Shifty, hang onto your bloomers. This one just sold for $41,800 with buyer's premium.
If we presume (and I could back it up with data) that most auction prices go 20% over retail due to emotional purchasing and competition
Shifty Sez: "All you need to get a great price at an auction is two large egos in a room together".
.......and then we have 15% buyer and seller premiums, so that's
$41, 800 minus 35% = FMV in normal retail market, or $27170, which is *exactly* high book for a car #2 or better.
So really it's not as irrational as it appears.
The "market" is set by many price points. One auction sale is a database of "one". :P
Looks like really nice car though---you couldn't restore one for $40K, so really the purchase might not be foolish at all in those terms---if you were planning to restore a wreck I mean. These cars are not cheap to restore either. You don't go to aftermarket catalogs for '56 Packard parts.
Also check the auction results to see if it was re-run. If it was, and failed to sell, then the first "sale" wasn't real.
Auctions do very funny things in their reporting.
I like the 1972 style although I know 1972 is past the prime of muscle cars.
Any big red flags on this style and year car?
Thanks, MD
I haven't seen photos so can't really pinpoint a price for you. Given that it needs paint, interior and whatever else, and that it is a base model car worth maybe $20K all bright and shiny, then I'd guess wildly here and say it'll bid up to around $3,500.
If it looks better in real life than it does in my mind right now, perhaps higher. Wish you luck on eBay!
www.hemmings.com
You could test the market on eBay by putting a high reserve. If you get 10-20 bidders, the # they bid up to is probably close to market value. Then, even if reserve is not met, you can contact the failed highest bidder and maybe work a deal. The more photos you post on eBay, and the more questions you answer, the higher your bids will be.
In Hemmings, of course, you have to post a price. You can always e-mail people photos if they answer your ad.
Again, without lots of photos, I"m going guessing as to value but eBay will educate us both.
Don't turn down a decent cash offer in these weird economic times. Project cars are not easy to sell.
http://www.autotraderclassics.com/
Another good one is:
www.cars-on-line.com
Personally, I'd invest $250 bucks and do them all. I'd blitz it.
Black w/??mi @ $43,365
The black one appears to be a bit nicer, but is it worth over $10,000 more? No doubt both are over priced, but "for the money" which would you rather have and why? Finally, how much would you pay for each?
$40K would be a knock-out show car, so I'm not seein' that in either one. Maybe I'd go $32K with air.
I don't think these 50s coupes look good in black.
Oh maybe $30K--$34K, on the black one, which appears to be far nicer, if it was very clean and sanitary underneath. If it has worn out under-chassis, with surface rust on frame, various leaks, old rubber bushings, dented mufflers, etc., then down we go.
One always has to be careful of "tarted up" cars that look great up top but are just old cars underneath. These never grade higher than a #3, no matter how nice the body or interior. So in that case, we're in the $20Ks for the Rose car. I blew up some of the photos, and I suspect the car is a mess underneath. It may not even be worth buying at any price. I"m seeing crappy paintwork on the door jambs, carpeting pulling off the sill plates and kick pads, rusted firewall (real bad), rain leaks in trunk, cracking rubber trunk seal, old carpets, stains in door panels. What I"m seeing here, IMO, is a once-original car that was repainted with a decent "tape job" and given some new rubber and a shampoo. I don't think I'd even consider this car, more I think about it, for anything over $20K.
Lack of AC has gotta cost 10 to 15% deduct on either car.
White 66 Mustang convert @ $34,900
Alrighty, same exercise, but this time we're talk'n 1966 Mustang convertibles - which we've discussed earlier. Both cars have perhaps my favorite Pony interior - the blue/white combo. While I prefer the blue exterior color, I think I'd go with the white one because it just looks fresher to me. It's not a real GT, but I'm a sucker for the GT look/options and like the upgrades it has received. The blue top isn't a factory correct color (I don't believe), but I love it. I'd drive the hell out of it. Then when it needs a repaint, I'd change it to a proper Mustang Brittany Blue - which is close to the color of the blue one. Then, I'd have my ultimate '66 Mustang (sans the K-code motor).
OK, so what are both of these cars worth?
Blue: this has to be the more valuable car of the two. A high #3 '66 auto GT I think is worth all of $22k on a good day. By quick glance at the pics, it seems to me it would just take some work under the hood to push this into #2 territory.
White: It is just all wrong. Although I do have to agree that it is more visually appealing. I'm going to put $19k on this one.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The #3 car is just priced at too much for that grade, maybe $5K--8K over. The other car, while no doubt very nice, isn't real and has a number of things that are "wrong" with it, so it can't be claiming REAL GT money. So maybe $28K on that one if she's a real beauty---not a good investment though---you'd have t consider both these cars "drivers" that you will use frequently.
Personally, a stripped down 4-speed V8 coupe with AC would be perfect for me, with some handling improvements.
At $22K, you might be able to strike a deal on the blue since it’s in the same ballpark as the seller’s $29K asking price. But, with the white one, the difference between the seller’s $34,900 asking price and $19K is a pretty big swing. Still, I asked what it was worth and you just might be right on the money.
Anyone else???
Ahhh, but you're about forgetting the whole top-down, wind in your hair (for those of you who are still that lucky LOL!) driving experience. Otherwise, you might as well be driving a '95 Camry. :shades:
Because there are more "GT" Mustangs out there than the three plants produced, the faux's self diminish their values.
I'd offer Twenty for the Blue and go from there if you're ready to pull the trigger, but remember it's not an "A" engine, let alone a "K".
Keep looking.