What is this thing worth?

parm

The blue Mustang convert on Ebay would've been built in CA since it has the air supply pump (smog equipment) which is mounted just above the alternator as indicated in one of the photos. One of my Mustang books says the Buck Tags on Metuchen and Dearborn built Mustangs were often affixed to the driver's side inner fender. No metion of the California plant in San Jose. I read another source that says Mustangs built at the California plant used Buck Tags only in 1970 for a short period.

hpmctorque

"Getting a modern drop top Mustang isn't a bad plan in that it sure would drive exponentially better. Unfortunately, it's value drops like a UPS truck off the Sears Tower once you drive it off the lot."

The solution, then, may be to buy a 2-3 year old one.

Mr_Shiftright

Presuming it hasn't been thrashed.

hpmctorque

I owned a '65 V8 4-speed coupe with the optional factory firmer suspension, and it indeed beat the crap out of you on any road that wasn't smooth.

The suspensions on the original Mustang were just poor. No decent compromise was available. The standard suspension handled poorly, without riding all that well, and the optional suspension - only one upgrade was available - beat you up.

texases

My '65 was a 4-sp...with the 170 cid :sick: The garage owner I worked for said I should have autocrossed it against other 6s, like, say a 240Z...

I was too young to know he was pulling my leg!

parm

Regarding the stock suspension woes, would modern materials/components (without getting too radical) such as polyurthane (sp?) bushings, better shocks/springs, etc. help smooth things out? Suspension upgrade kits abound for this era of Mustangs.

Mr_Shiftright

Modern materials would probably make it worse actually, since they are so good. Poly bushings and thicker sway bars are very non-compliant. This is where you get the "pogo-stick" effect.

Some people have taken old Corvettes and put C5 and C6 frames and suspensions under the old bodies, and that seems to do the trick :P Perhaps this is the only way to get an old Mustang to handle like a modern car under less than ideal conditions.

Of course, I"m sure some very clever engineer could come up with IRS and maybe a strut-type front suspension, I don't know---but there's still the terrible flex issues.

I've seen old Shelbys race and they are pretty darn good---but they are on road courses.

hpmctorque

Parm, I defer to Shifty regarding your question on modern materials. All I can tell you is that I'm tolerant of sporty suspensions, but the ride of my '65 was the stiffest I've experienced in a stock car.

kyfdx

...is it really that important to you on a '60s pony car?

How many Mustangs came with A/C? From my recollections of small cars in the '60s, I'd guess way less than half... I remember A/C being "special" in the '60s... On most big-body cars, but not that frequent on cheaper models...

Mr_Shiftright

Not so important on a Mustang convertible but very important on any full-size 60s car, which are after all, often used for family events, club tours in summer, parades, etc. Not too many people dare to use big block muscle cars in parades, or to stuff family in the back seat.

Usually AC adds 10--15% to a value of an old car, even if it doesn't work. On a 50s/60s/70s Cadillac, Lincoln, etc, it's a serious omission.

texases

Well, in Dallas A/C's mandatory for me. Lots of summer drives and shows I'd want to go to.

parm

What do we think of this? '63 Mercury Meteror

I'm out of my element on this one. But, it appears to be a cute little hot rod. I'm usually not much one for hot rodding a car, but IT'S a '63 Meteror for God's sake! So, no harm, no foul I say. I guess some would rather have one of these in bone stock condition, but that would bring new meaning to the term "boring". :P And, when is the last time you saw one of these that wasn't half rusted out?

The seller did the work himself. Not being a nuts & bolts guy, I can't comment on the quality of the work, but it looks decent to me. However, even I know the painted-over fender bolts under the hood suggests a quickie paint job. 4.11 gears wouldn't make it a great highway cruiser, but I'd think this would be pretty peppy around town. No A/C, but the seller says it has power steering and from the photos it appears to have power brakes. No idea what it looks like underneath, but the interior looks pretty tidy.

Don't know why I like this car, but I do. Guess I'm about the only one though, because nobody wanted to start the bidding at his established minimum of $11,700. This thing's gotta worth that, right??? Wrong????

andre1969

Don't know why I like this car, but I do. Guess I'm about the only one though, because nobody wanted to start the bidding at his established minimum of $11,700.

Actually, I always had a soft spot for the '63 Meteor. I think they're good looking cars, nice proportions, and even though tailfins were out of fashion by '63, that car wears them well.

I have no idea on what its value is, but with all that work done, $11.7K seems reasonable to me. Stock, I think the biggest engine these cars came with was a 164 hp 260 V-8, so that hopped-up 289 with the 4-speed has to be a major improvement.

As for highway cruising, I'd guess it would be pulling 3200-3300 rpm @60 mph? I'm just basing that on my 2000 Intrepid, which had a 3.89:1 axle. If you kept it in 3rd, which was a 1:1 ratio, it would pull around 3000 rpm@60, although in 4th it was around 2000 rpm.

Is 4th gear on a 4-speed manual usually a 1:1 ratio, or are some of them overdrives?

I think it's a shame that Mercury canned the Meteor. I thought it was a lot more car than the Comet, which was just a stretched-out Falcon. However, because that stretching took it to about the same size as a Meteor, yet it was cheaper, most buyers went for the Comet.

parm

Not saying it adds much (if anything) to the value, but being an S-33 is kind of cool - assuming it is a real S-33 . . . . not to launch another "GT autenticity" debate. :P Not a big deal, but does anybody know what extras you got with the S-33 package? I know in the bigger brother S-55 Marauder, you got a bigger motor - probably more, but that's all I recall.

How many S-33's do you see anyway? Not many. And, I think that's what adds to this car's charm, at least for me.

I've exchanged some brief emails with the seller and he's definitely a North Carolina "good 'ol boy". "I done this, I seen that, etc." Don't know if that's a good or a bad thing. He might be a slick huckster you can't trust any farther than you can throw him. Or, he may be someone who grew up with a wrench in his hand that knows how to properly put an engine/car together in a quality manner and is as honest as the day is long. He said the reason he's selling this is because he has a '56 Chevy he wants to move on to.

Mr_Shiftright

Might be worth it as a resto-rod, but it's not worth $11.5K as a stock S-33.

Comets are not highly prized or desired, which of course is a prime motivator in driving up value. The old rule applies here: "unloved when new, unloved when old".

Personally I think the car is kind of cool in a grotesque sort of way, and really, it's something different to bring to the Show and Shine, and might even be fun to drive as long as you don't forget you aren't in a 2000-era automobile anymore.

My verdict? "Fair enough price if you can stand to look at it every day".

Certainly a good bang for the buck compared to equivalent Falcon Sprint, way more fun than a '63 Corvair or Valiant, and as long as you don't lose any trim pieces, easy to keep running for a long time.

omarman

Not sure what a Mercury Meteor S-33 is but suspect it's a special-trim, Mercury cousin of this Ford Fairlane for sale.

If both cars are all metal, no bondo or rust, engine checks out (compression,etc), and have a nice interior and paint, well then maybe it comes down to preference.

You wouldn't expect to get hurt on either for the price unless you later have to track down hard-to-find glass, trim, whatever. Probably hard to sell either for more than $10K no matter what it costs for repairs/upkeep.

Somewhere back in this thread, there was a link to a really clean Mustang coupe with a 4-speed. The seller was asking high 20's and the market value was estimated around $20K.

The Mercury seller wants bidding to begin at over $11K. That may only work for buyers who already know what a Meteor S-33 is and really want to have one. Not a big demographic.

Compare that to Mustang fans who bid against each other for a vastly better-known car and which was built in vast numbers.

So which do you like? The Fairlane or Meteor? I'll pass on both but they do look nice and might be nice summer cruisers.

Funny thing is, they're probably both just Falcons under the fenders, like the Mustang. If you wanted a smaller boxy car for cruising, I wonder what the Mercury seller would take for the red Chevy II in the background?

andre1969

I think the S-33 got you bucket seats, maybe some extra trim and such, but probably no performance upgrades. As for production, there were 4,865 S-33 hardtop coupes made for 1963, and 7,565 of the cheaper Custom hardtop coupe. So, even if it's just a Custom hardtop cloned to look like an S-33, it's still not exactly an everyday occurrence.

Mr_Shiftright

Weren't the hardtops called S-55s? Some books list them all as S-22s. ???

Another case of "rare, but who cares?"

They made more Falcon Sprints than this car, but the Sprint is worth more.

andre1969

The S-22 was the sporty version of the Mercury Comet. And oddly, although the Comet was a cheaper car than the Meteor, the Comet S-22 was slightly more expensive than the Meteor S-33! It wasn't a huge difference...$2,635 versus $2,628, but considering how much more car the Meteor was, I find it surprising. The Falcon/Comet was such a flimsy little thing though, maybe the hardtop versions just required more structural modification than the Fairlane/Meteor? In 2- and 4-door sedans, the Meteor ran about $200 more than the Comet.

The S-55 was the sporty version of the full-sized Monterrey, and I believe that's what ultimately became the Marauder.

parm

The S-55's were the bigger Marauder/Monterey. And, you could get them either as a hardtop or convertible.

hpmctorque

I'd pass on both too, but of the two, I prefer the styling of the Fairlane. I imagine the Meteor would get more comments and questions, though, because it's more rare than the Fairlane.

texases

"So, even if it's just a Custom hardtop cloned to look like an S-33, it's still not exactly an everyday occurrence."

Somebody going after that hot '63 S-33 market, I'll bet!

Mr_Shiftright

Did you know that Falcon Sprints ran the Monte Carlo rallye under factory auspices?

hpmctorque

Yes, and it was great publicity for Ford. The Sprint was an interesting and appealing car in its day. While it competed directly with the Chevy II, it was also aimed at Corvair Monza fans, from a marketing standpoint. It was sporty, for a Ford, at a time when Fords had generally grown fat, flabby, and not fun to drive.

The Mustang stole the spotlight from Falcon models with sporty and sporting pretensions.

parm

Here's a good visual of the differences in 1962 between the S-22, S-33, S-55, etc.
Mercury line up

Mr_Shiftright

Obviously all penned from the same hand.

andre1969

I wonder if those cars are drawn to scale? The ad makes it look like the Meteor is a lot longer than the Comet. The Comet was on a 114" wb, and the Meteor was 116.5". I always though they were both around 195-196", but I guess I could be wrong?

That ad also shows one detail I never cared for with those full-sized Ford and Mercury hardtops of the era...that overly boxy, tall roofline. I wonder if the 2- and 4-door hardtop actually shared the same roof? And further, if maybe it was even shared with the 2- and 4-door sedan, just minus B-pillars and window frames? That boxy roof did make for a very roomy car, though. IIRC, Consumer Reports once quipped that a '62 Ford Galaxie had more legroom in the back seat than a '62 Cadillac!

lemko

There used to be the remains of a Mercury dealership at Broad and Hunting Park in North Philly that had a big sign that proclaimed COMET and METEOR next to signs for MERCURY and LINCOLN. The place was demolished about 10 years ago.

ghulet

....fairly near my house (dealer is just east of Homan/Kimball on Grand, for those of you who know Chicago); I'd like to snoop around there and figure out what it was (what brand, etc.). Looks like it was built in the '30s, and I'm guessing by its current state, it was probably closed in the '70s or '80s.

armes

I have put some pictures of my 1917 Olds Model 45 on my profile album page. Hope you can get there an check them out. Story with captions and pictures. Had this one drop into my lap from a dear friend that passed away.

hpmctorque

Near North Side?

parm

On Sunday, that blue '66 Mustang GT (?) convertible sold on ebay for $26,701 That's very close to what he turned down last month and about what we said it was worth. From doing some additional research on classic Mustang sites, it would appear it was possible for an A-Code GT to have been born with a 2.80 axle. But, there's no way to prove it unless you have the original paperwork. I also learned that out of all the years, 1966 is about the only year where it's next to impossible to prove or disprove GT authenticity short of having the build sheet - which makes paying extra $$ for a GT a bit risky.

Mr_Shiftright

I think in those cases you look at the car and disregard the GT-ness of it in terms of paying very much extra.

At least with a fake 4-speed you can usually spot the conversion on a lift.

A 2.80 axle wouldn't be very much fun with a 4-speed.

ghulet

yeah, but more like near west but kinda north side (Humboldt Park), near Augusta (1000 N.) and Homan (3400 W.).

Mr_Shiftright

Here's an interesting article on the insurance settlements pending for the Scottsdale Windstorm Disaster.

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/Legal-Files/2010/April/

Looks like it's going to be a big mess, and a tragedy for some owners.

euphonium

Proving Diminished Value on a previously unrestored collector car will be the most difficult.

The tent company is no more liable than if the hazard were an earthquake.

If the auction agreement states R & S is responsible for care,custody, and control of vehicles on their menu of sales, they're on it.

The insurance requirement of R & S is that there be Liability coverage. Does it require each entry to have Comprehensive? Doubt it.

Recommend that all the damaged car owners form an alliance and as one group, deal with R & S. The problem with doing so is that R & S probably have a huge Liability deductible of up to $500,000 on an occurrence basis. :sick:

explorerx4

if R & S advertised their tent area as protected or safe, they might have a problem.

Mr_Shiftright

It sounds like a real mess brewin'

I feel really bad for the guys who bought a car, parked it, and had it destroyed within a few hours. What's their insurance situation? And, as the article says, will they get back what they paid for the car, or what it is appraised at by the insurance company (if in fact they "grant" them insurance without the formality of the owner having time to call it in).

This could get very very ugly.

euphonium

The following verbiage is quoted from Hagerty. Endorsement AC 00 09 04 07

AUTOMATIC COVERAGE FOR ADDITIONAL VEHICLES

Definitions:

Any "antique vehicle" or classic vehicle" on the date you became owner during the policy period, whether as a new vehicle or replacement of a vehicle shown in the Declarations, provided that:

a. It is in stock condition and has not been modified from the original manufactured design;

b. You ask us to insure it within thirty days after you become the owner, and

c. We insure all of your collector vehicles.

Under Part D - Coverage For Damage to Your Covered Auto, the limit provided on the vehicle, will be the lesser of the following:

a. The purchase price;
b. The verifiable value; or
c. $50,000.

The above is taken from my personal Hagerty policy.

Mr_Shiftright

Lot of wiggle room in those clauses, although I do like Hagerty.

british_rover

a. It is in stock condition and has not been modified from the original manufactured design;

That clause gives you a whole lot of wiggle room.

euphonium

Agree. I would insert the word, "significantly" between "been" & modified".

parm

Asking $18,500

Photos

In addition to the decription in the ad, the seller also wrote me the following: When I got the car, the body was in decent condition in the original color Mission Beige, we painted it Gold Metallic in 2001, and re-chromed the rear bumper and rear grill which really jazzed it up.

The car is as described with very good paint, no dents, everything works, it is in great running order, good compression. Car is complete. Has been garaged at least since the 80's, I'm the fourth owner. Car originated from Kansas, has only been registered there and here in California. No Rust, good chrome. About 500 miles ago I put 4 new tires, new radiator & heater core, window regulators/motors.

At present, these are the things that need attention: Drips a little, top is fair condition at best, most weather-strip needs replacing; Dash is original with 2 cracks. Engine, motor configuration & trans are factory original.

OK, what's it worth? Since it appears to be a decent 10-footer driver and given the issues the seller describes (like a top that essentially needs replaced), I'm going to offer an opinion of $10K, which a few years ago I would've said was too low. What's everyone else think?

Mr_Shiftright

that sounds about right but if it really needs ALL the weatherstripping replaced, that's a very expensive job indeed. That means all glass out. Very tedious work, labor-eater.

Also the color change hurts value. One would have to examine how well this re-paint was done to see if the two colors aren't clashing somewhere in the corners. Nobody but nobody wants a car with that problem.

qbrozen

I'm not familiar with these on the open market, but, for my money, I'd be looking elsewhere at even $10k. I'm "feeling" more like $8500. I mean, what does the top alone on that cost? $1k? So maybe once you do that it is worth $10k. But I still think that is pushing it with a cracked dash.

Mr_Shiftright

On further reflection, I'm with you. $8500 is all the money and then some for this car.

andre1969

I forget now how much my convertible top cost when I had my '67 Catalina re-done a year ago, but once you factor in all the trim stuff, and the well lining, I'm sure it was a lot more than $1,000!

qbrozen

yeah, I'm sure you are right. I mean, I can only compare a little roadster top on my Alfa that cost me nearly $300 just for the material ... and that was 10 years ago.

I could see a shop charging $1k alone in labor to do the catalina!

Mr_Shiftright

The price also depends on the quality of the material and on who does the work. The difference between a good American top and a bad one is pretty dramatic.

andre1969

I can't find the paperwork, but I want to say the top on my Catalina was something like $500. That was just for the part though, no labor. I think that did include the glass rear window though. Plastic would've been cheaper, but I have reservations about going that route.