My father worked for GM for many years in the old now gone plant in South Gate, California. He worked in the A/C shop in the mid 50's and told me once that in those days they would install the A/C units in the car after it had finished final assembly but just before it had final QC checks. He said that they could do about 2 cars a day per shift, so figuring 2 shifts maybe only 4 or so a day could be so equipped.
I prefer the '54 to the '53 as well, mainly because it looks more modern to me. If this make any sense, the '53 looks like a 40's car trying hard to pass as a 50's, while the '54 looks like a 50's car that's still trying to shake off some of its old 40's cues...which IMO it would do successfully for 1955.
The only thing I really don't like about the '54's style is the chrome surrounds under the headlights, which give it a droopy, "sad" look. The '53 had that too, but I think it worked a bit better there.
Putting AC in a convertible was unheard of in the 60s---very rare.
My Mom bought a '66 Catalina convertible brand-new when she was still in high school. She got rid of it in 1972, when I was two years old. I remember asking her years ago if it had a/c and she was like why would it have air conditioning? It was a CONVERTIBLE!!
My '67 Catalina has a/c, but it's never worked as long as I've had it. My mechanic said he could probably get it running, do the R134A conversion, etc, for around $1,000. I'm guessing more though, because the controls on the dash are messed up, too, and good luck finding a reproduction of that, I'm guessing. I'm just not that bothered with it because, well, it's a convertible! :P
I guess having non-working a/c would be an issue if I ever wanted to sell the car. But I've had the thing for over 15 years now, so that's probably not happening anytime soon.
Actually it doesn't have to work, as long as it's in there, you get the same credit for AC in the price guides. And you don't have to convert to R134---there's still R12 to be had. But of course you want to make sure your system is not leaking. Contrary to popular belief, R12 is not "illegal" to use, or sell, only to make anymore. But there's plenty around if you want to pay for it. I bought some for my Benz diesel a few years back---it worked great, too. I think it cost me $200 for the stuff.
Let's kick it up a notch. What should someone realistically expect to pay for this '53 Roadmaster convertible? Notice I didn't ask, "what's this car's market value?" Because, for trophy cars like this, the term market value doesn't seem to have much meaning. Why? Because, the number of legitimate buyers for a car like this is pretty slim - at least, compared to the two other Roadmasters we've been discussing. Ultimately, it will come down to just one buyer willing to pony up what the seller wants. And, a market of "one" isn't really a market.
Admittedly, the same argument could be made with any collector car. But, at least with a '67 Corvette (let's say), you'd probably be able to find another buyer without great difficulty who is willing to pay about what you did.
I wonder how many comps there are for this '53 Roadmaster convertible which appears to be a very nice example. No doubt some who are a lot more knowledgeable than myself could debate as to the true level of its restoration, but I think most would agree (at least I would) that this is probably one of the best '53 Roadmaster convertibles you'll find. So, how many comparable sales have there been? To my way of thinking, researching Barrett-Jackson auction results fogs the issue because of the vacuum B-J lives in resulting in sale prices that aren't reflective of real world values.
Looking forward to everyone's input. BTW, I'm guessing the current bid of $5,100 is just slightly under the seller's reserve. :P
Well the buyer might think that the "Roadmaster is more desirable than the Skylark convertible" but the rest of the world doesn't think so, He wants Skylark money for his Roadmaster? Not hardly.
AND that it is "rarer than a Skylark"
Not hardly.
What's his car worth? If it's the best in the world, maybe $125,000 if he hit an absolute home run. A similar Skylark would be easily worth $175,000.
I predict his car will bid to about $75--$80K assuming no shilling involved.
I'm sure if I dug around in my Grandfather's garage, I'd probably be able to find some cans of the stuff. Is it legal to re-sell it, I wonder? Also, I wonder if it'll go bad if it sits long enough? Granddad passed away in 1990, so that stuff would be 20 years old or more.
And the worst part of the photography is the setting of a parking lot with all those White lines. Has he no imagination for display other than the nearest Walmart? :sick:
Probably if you really wanted one of those GSXs, and spend the rest of your life at auto shows explaining to everyone WHY you paid so much for a Buick Stage 1 and WHY it's really faster than a '71 Hemi Cuda and WHY Wikipedia says its worth $500,000.....well then, have at it.
Personally if I were spending that kind of cash, I would not want to have to apologize for it, or explain it, every time I show it.
You buy a big block Sting Ray, you buy a Hemi Cuda'....badda-bing....everybody knows what it is already and wishes they had it.
Buick GSX LUST??? I kinda doubt it, even though it is rare and probably pretty fast.
Here's a question in keeping with the early 50's Roadmasters I posted earlier. Both cars have Dynaflow transmission. While I know Buick heralded Dynaflow as a technological marvel, I've heard it's actually not all that great - but, nobody has said WHY it isn't all that great. I'm guessing the "diss-ing" of Dynaflow is influenced mostly by the improvements in transmissions that have occurred over the years. At the time, Dynaflow may have been pretty impressive. Otherwise, why did Buick keep using it? But, it's only natural that 1940's-50's technology is going to be inferior to something more modern. So, that may account for the bad rap Dynaflow has received.
I think I've read that Dynaflow doesn't provide much grunt at the low end - particularly problematic when you're trying to get 2 tons of steel moving. But, once under full sail, it's my understanding that a properly adjusted Dynaflow runs/shifts very smoothly. If Dynaflow was such a hunk of junk, nobody would keep buying and restoring old Buicks.
Well without getting all too technical about it, the Dynaflow wasn't "junk" by any means---it was just a form of transmission technology that did not become the standard---it was expensive to build and not very efficient.
Basically, it relied on spinning oil to drive the car, with pumps to assist the torque converter...think of one boat propeller trying to turn another propeller some distance away.
this principle eats up a lot of power and wastes a lot of energy getting the job done. But it was certainly smooth and I believe quite reliable.
Buick realized the deficiencies and made a couple of major revisions, but eventually Hydra-matic won out--it was really a far more efficient design.
A very good description - even for a mechanically-challenged naif like me. Yes, that does seem pretty inefficient. That would also explain my limited knowledge that a Dynaflow is not the transmission you want in a drag race.
I thought I had heard Buck made improvements to the original Dynaflow design. Does anyone know the year/years that occurred??
how does it feel to drive one of those old 4-speed hydramatics? Do they shift hard? IIRC, the dynaflow was a very smooth-shifting transmission, and I think therein lied a lot of its appeal. Personally, I like a transmission that shifts "crisply". Those trannies that try to hide their shifts just feel mushy to me. Even newer ones...I really don't care for the 5-speed automatic in my buddy's 2000 Xterra, for example.
I guess a lot of people consider a tranny that shifts hard to be crude and lo-tech, though.
A dynaflow doesn't "shift" on it's own. It's a variable vane turbine type transmission that stays in high range all the time unless you manually shift it to low range. The variable vanes in the turbine change position based on load and torque to move more or less fluid over the output side of the turbine. If you want, you can start out in low range and shift it to high range if you like. That was the way it was driven during the performance trials in the early 50's. Various improvements were made, mostly to the turbine by adding more components to move the fluid more efficiently.
In short, as kids in the 60s used to say "those cars were pigs". But the dawg is quite right---if you took say a 50s Century, rammed it in low and wound it up and then manually shifted, you would still lose to a '55 Chevy but it wasn't humiliating. :P I doubt there was a 50s Buick in America that ever left a patch of rubber.
Maybe that's why they were sometimes referred to as Dynaslow.
When floored from a stop, the Buick straight 8s with Dynaflow sounded kind of like a passenger jet taking off, without the thrust, of course..
The early Powerglides (~'51, '52) were similar, in that they started in high, unless manually shifted to low. They earned the refrain "slip and slide with Powerglide."
Those push button Torqueflite 8 transmissions were great for drag racing. Pretty sturdy, although the reverse servo used to break if you weren't careful.
Those push button Torqueflite 8 transmissions were great for drag racing. Pretty sturdy, although the reverse servo used to break if you weren't careful.
But why would you drag race in reverse? :P The pushbutton Torqueflite has a lockout feature to keep you from going into reverse at any forward speed over 10 mph. You can press the button, but I think the car just goes into neutral. At least, that's how they were in 1957, although I'm not about to test it out on my DeSoto! And I guess it's possible in later years that they eliminated that lockout feature?
I believe Buick made a last go of Dynaflow with the 1958 models called the "Triple-Turbine Dynaflow." After that, they went to Hydramatics.
Wasn't there some issue with Powerglide transmissions? I remember people saying, "Slip 'n slide with Powerglide!" I also recall a short-lived transmission called Turboglide that didn't do so well. To what family of transmissions did the infamous "Slim Jim" belong?
Hard to price a car that this with the lame description and terrible photos. Offhand, the paint and interior look wrong, but it's hard to know for sure with a cell phone photo done in low light while moving one's hand in an arc while sneezing in a fog bank.
Also the "documented" 30,000 miles should be an interesting document to read. How does one document such a thing on a 60 year old car? Unless one has records going back ALL THE WAY, it's hard to prove anything--especially if the records stop at say 1959...it could easily have already rolled over in those ten years.
I'm thinking $20,000 to $40,000 bucks, depending on a lot of things.
Were it a Pebble Beach frame off resto, it could punch out over $50K and possibly hit $60K. But that would have to be some car indeed, and I don't think this one's even close.
Fiat DINO -- it's not a "Ferrari". It's a Fiat. Is a '55 Chevy with a Corvette engine in it a '55 Corvette? Noooooooo.......$25K?? Kinda doubt it but if it checks out superbly.....still no.
65 Morgan 4/4 -- doesn't say which engine is in it? Ford or Triumph? YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THESE THINGS SELLER!!! (Geez, I could just scream). Deduct for Ford engine. Also color is bad for a Morgan, really bad. I'm thinkin $35K is all the money here, restored though it might be. Again the old formula: Cost of Restoration / 2 = market value.
69 Jaguar -- sale proof at $25,000. If an automatic, deduct $5000 additional. A Series 1 4.2 coupe is what everyone wants and they'll pay $60K for a beauty. So a SII---- maybe $22K with a 4-speed, $18K with an automatic.
50 Buick Woody -- he might get it. He just might. Potential here for a $100,000 ++ car. But it's a long and $$$ road to that number.
Stanley--- I have no idea.
1970 Porschewagen --- eh....a 1.7 engine is not the one you want. Maybe $5000 bucks here? Superb handling car, anemic, rust-prone and cheesy VW parts all around, including the engine (from a VW 412).
The last '54 Roadmaster I presented a couple of weeks ago was all green with a white roof. This is a similar color combination with a current bid that is greater than our earlier concensus. Admittedly, being that this particular example is a former AACA award winner gives it some pedigree the other one didn't have.
While this one doesn't have the after-market radiator fan, the wiring behind the front grill does appear to be consistent with the all green one - which I believe was an item that was brought up as to its faithfulness to originality.
It'll be interesting to see where this one winds up.
This '61 Starliner is offered by an Ohio dealer who has some nice inventory. I really like this car, but $36,900 seems kind of steep. Take 3 minutes to watch the YouTube video describing the car - which says it has only 5,700 original miles. Funny they wouldn't put a claim like that in print in their narrative description? It also describes the shocks and mufflers as being original which may indicate you'll need to swing by the local Midas shop for new mufflers and shocks after leaving the dealership. LOL! And, color me stupid, but with 29,000 of these built, can you honestly call a '61 Starliner coupe even "relatively rare"??
It seems to be a familiar formula that a car being offered by a dealer is probably worth about half of its asking price, which would put it at about $18,500. But, if this car is as original as advertised, I'm guessing the dealer wouldn't even bother making a counter for anything less than $20,000.
Anybody seen a recent sale of anything comparable to this car? If so, for how much? All comments welcome and encouraged. Gentlemen, the floor is yours . . . . . .
I have a feeling that thing's going to be a tough sell. Even though it's a very nice car, I just don't think there's anything all that special about it. To me, it's kinda gaudy. Maybe if it didn't have those three little round things on the C-pillar, no fender skirts, and lost that stainless crap behind the rear wheel, it would be a sharp looking car. But as-is, it looks to me like a 1960's car that hasn't quite escaped the 50's.
I also don't know much about Ford engines from that era, but I don't think the 352 is anything to write home about. It was pretty powerful when it first came out around 1958 or whatever, but in the early 1960's it was toned down something serious. I think it only had 220 hp with a 2-bbl, and by that time I think if you wanted performance, Ford wanted you to go with a 390, so they weren't messing around with hot 4-bbl 352's anymore. To put it in perspective, Mopar's 318 put out 230 hp with a 2-bbl carb. When the Chevy 327 came out, it had 250 hp with a 2-bbl, or 300 with a 4-bbl. And when Ford's own 289 came out, I think it had 200 hp just with the 2-bbl.
As for price, I have no idea, but I have a feeling that $18,500-$20K is being generous. The low mileage is nice, but this just isn't a car that people are dying to get ahold of.
" I doubt there was a 50s Buick in America that ever left a patch of rubber."
At least once a week Broderick Crawford got the right rear spinning on the gravel then peeling rubber as he pulled out on the tarmac. I guess that's cheating.
When it comes to Starliners, I much prefer the 1960 models, as the design is more pure and is as you say, a real blend of the 50s and 60s, but not going more in one way or the other. It has fins, chrome, and bric-a-brac, but it isn't too flamboyant. The updated 61s have too much of a modern 60s front and rear end, but keep some of the geegaws, but it doesn't work as well. And the 390 was new for 61 I think, so it would certainly be the engine to have.
I'd say it's worth in the mid teens, maybe 15-18K. The wire wheels do nothing for me, as well.
It does look like a very nice car----but he's high. I'd guess that in the best of all possible scenarios (high-end auction, bidders drunk, etc.) the car would sell in the mid to high $20Ks.
A buyer would really want one of these things, coming as it does from the Dark Ages of Ford styling (pre 1964 Renaissance). Without the GM panache or Mopar muscle, what you have is a kind of glitzed-up Galaxie with a mopey, gas-sucking engine.
The dealer's "problem" is that he's asking convertible money for the hardtop and that he has a very fine, but odd-duck, of a car on his hands.
The reason they are "relatively rare" is somewhat painful but true---nobody bothered to save them. Look at all the 57s Chevys around, so as to hammer home this point.
How many of those Starliners (or just about any other early 60s cars) actually came from the factory with those wire wheels? That's second on my list of 'restoration' add-ons that shouldn't have been, behind the Continental kits. :sick:
If your wheels aren't as big as a hula hoop, don't use wires, is my rule of thumb.
The whole point of wire wheels was to take unsprung weight off small sports car and also to give lightness/openess to the wheel well area--to lift a blocky prewar design "off the ground" so to speak.
Putting wires on a 2 ton postwar car with tiny wheels and fender skirts makes no sense whatsoever to me.
it's the equivalent of putting pontoons on land-based aircraft.
Putting wires on a 2 ton postwar car with tiny wheels and fender skirts makes no sense whatsoever to me.
I think they look good on some cars, but not many. For instance, Cadillac offered wire wheels for awhile, and I think they looked good, maybe up through 1956. Tolerable on a '57-58 perhaps, but they'd be totally out of place on a '59.
Similarly, I've seen 50's Mopars with them, but here I don't think they look good on anything newer than a '54 DeSoto or Chrysler. The '55 models are just too modern looking for them, IMO.
I don't think they should be on something low-end like a Ford, Chevy, or Plymouth though.
I was waiting for someone to reference "convertible money". Here's a '61 Starliner convertible (offered by another dealer) with an asking price of $60,000. I've actually seen this car in the flesh at the Kruse Labor Day auction a year or two ago. Looked darned nice to me. Anyone want to comment on whether the $60,000 for this convertible starts to make sense out of the $36,000 for the hardtop coupe??
Well, one thing that '61 has going for it, other than being a convertible, is the color, which I find more appealing than that yellow hardtop. Still just has the tame 352 in it though. And good lord, even with a 4-bbl it only made 220 hp?! What's wrong with this picture?
My guess is that the convertible is really worth around $30-35K (or less?), which would then put the hardtop at around $15-20K.
I've also heard that one thing you NEVER do with a high-dollar convertible is put the top down, because it can get wrinkled. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a convertible, but I guess I can see the logic if you're looking at the thing solely as an investment. Well, that Galaxie is showing off, top-down in some pics....an indication that it's not one of these pristine, ultra-high dollar cars.
Still, it's a gorgeous car. Just not a $60K gorgeous car...at least not to me!
For $60,000, you could buy cars to make that '61 Starliner look like a pile of gravel in comparison. That is ker-crazy money for it. Another case of seller wanting the market to re-imburse his restoration costs.
$35K--$40K for the convert $25--$28K for the coupe
At $25K-$28K, I'm semi-stunned your value estimate of the coupe is that much, assuming the buyer is not in an alcohol-induced state and not on cable TV. :P
While a '61 Starliner coupe wouldn't be on anyone's "top 10 gotta have" list, I do like this car. I agree with the earlier comment that a Continental Kit is over-used (thank God this car doesn't have one), but I must admit that I do like the wire wheels on this car. They sure beat the stock wheel covers.
With regard to the engine, I'm sure its not a hi-po torque monster. But, I don't know if that's really the point of owning this particular car. To quote an old blues song, "I was built for comfort, not for speed"
I see this '61 Starliner as more of a weekend, take me down to the Tastee-Freeze, cruiser. And, I think it would turn more than a few heads at any cruise-in or car show you take it to. Unlike a '57 Chevy and any Chevelle or Mustang, I'm guessing you'd be the only one there with one of these.
Well that estimate is based on the assumption that all claims and photos are true and real. Certainly one could not restore a '61 Starliner to that condition for $28K, or $56K for that matter. So the person buying it, is, in that sense, getting a fair deal.
There's no sense to the laws of supply and demand with old cars. It's not based on merit. If it were, would anyone buy a Delorean? A Pacer? A Comet?
I wouldn't give you $10,000 for a '61 Starliner---I'd go buy a #3 daily driver 70s convertible for that $10K money, and have more fun, go faster, and not break down as much. I wouldn't even bother to pick up a '61 Starliner if I won it in a contest---just send me the check. :P
No doubt a collector car purchase is based on emotion. I mean, that's why we're all here, right? You think I'd want to own that '61 Starliner or the '54 Buick so I can go canyon carving?
So, what 1970's convertible for $10K would a suave and urbane sophisticate want to drive? :P
Here's one...$12K asking, but in this economy I betcha you could score it for $10,000 if you just pushed the whole stack of bills at him across the table at the local diner.
Do we really think one would get 3X the attention in the '61 Starliner to justify 3.5X the cost? I truly doubt it. In fact, you might get *less* attention.
Comments
Putting AC in a convertible was unheard of in the 60s---very rare.
The only thing I really don't like about the '54's style is the chrome surrounds under the headlights, which give it a droopy, "sad" look. The '53 had that too, but I think it worked a bit better there.
My Mom bought a '66 Catalina convertible brand-new when she was still in high school. She got rid of it in 1972, when I was two years old. I remember asking her years ago if it had a/c and she was like why would it have air conditioning? It was a CONVERTIBLE!!
My '67 Catalina has a/c, but it's never worked as long as I've had it. My mechanic said he could probably get it running, do the R134A conversion, etc, for around $1,000. I'm guessing more though, because the controls on the dash are messed up, too, and good luck finding a reproduction of that, I'm guessing. I'm just not that bothered with it because, well, it's a convertible! :P
I guess having non-working a/c would be an issue if I ever wanted to sell the car. But I've had the thing for over 15 years now, so that's probably not happening anytime soon.
Let's kick it up a notch. What should someone realistically expect to pay for this '53 Roadmaster convertible? Notice I didn't ask, "what's this car's market value?" Because, for trophy cars like this, the term market value doesn't seem to have much meaning. Why? Because, the number of legitimate buyers for a car like this is pretty slim - at least, compared to the two other Roadmasters we've been discussing. Ultimately, it will come down to just one buyer willing to pony up what the seller wants. And, a market of "one" isn't really a market.
Admittedly, the same argument could be made with any collector car. But, at least with a '67 Corvette (let's say), you'd probably be able to find another buyer without great difficulty who is willing to pay about what you did.
I wonder how many comps there are for this '53 Roadmaster convertible which appears to be a very nice example. No doubt some who are a lot more knowledgeable than myself could debate as to the true level of its restoration, but I think most would agree (at least I would) that this is probably one of the best '53 Roadmaster convertibles you'll find. So, how many comparable sales have there been? To my way of thinking, researching Barrett-Jackson auction results fogs the issue because of the vacuum B-J lives in resulting in sale prices that aren't reflective of real world values.
Looking forward to everyone's input. BTW, I'm guessing the current bid of $5,100 is just slightly under the seller's reserve. :P
AND that it is "rarer than a Skylark"
Not hardly.
What's his car worth? If it's the best in the world, maybe $125,000 if he hit an absolute home run. A similar Skylark would be easily worth $175,000.
I predict his car will bid to about $75--$80K assuming no shilling involved.
Probably the nicest around, but $19K and 25 bids and reserve not yet met.
That's a lot more desire than I thought any Reatta would ever see.
Oh, and isn't Freon what was used to make the foam they use in Twinkies? :surprise:
$320,000
Buick---what is that, a GSX maybe? Oh great, where's the documentation, build sheet, VIN #s, history---NOT!
And of course we'll defer to Wikipedia on value...of course....
Once again, if you don't have docs up the ying-yang, you got nothin;
For that money he doesn't even give us 3 pages of BS and a bunch of fuzzy pics?
Probably if you really wanted one of those GSXs, and spend the rest of your life at auto shows explaining to everyone WHY you paid so much for a Buick Stage 1 and WHY it's really faster than a '71 Hemi Cuda and WHY Wikipedia says its worth $500,000.....well then, have at it.
Personally if I were spending that kind of cash, I would not want to have to apologize for it, or explain it, every time I show it.
You buy a big block Sting Ray, you buy a Hemi Cuda'....badda-bing....everybody knows what it is already and wishes they had it.
Buick GSX LUST??? I kinda doubt it, even though it is rare and probably pretty fast.
I think I've read that Dynaflow doesn't provide much grunt at the low end - particularly problematic when you're trying to get 2 tons of steel moving. But, once under full sail, it's my understanding that a properly adjusted Dynaflow runs/shifts very smoothly. If Dynaflow was such a hunk of junk, nobody would keep buying and restoring old Buicks.
So, what's the deal?
Basically, it relied on spinning oil to drive the car, with pumps to assist the torque converter...think of one boat propeller trying to turn another propeller some distance away.
this principle eats up a lot of power and wastes a lot of energy getting the job done. But it was certainly smooth and I believe quite reliable.
Buick realized the deficiencies and made a couple of major revisions, but eventually Hydra-matic won out--it was really a far more efficient design.
I thought I had heard Buck made improvements to the original Dynaflow design. Does anyone know the year/years that occurred??
I guess a lot of people consider a tranny that shifts hard to be crude and lo-tech, though.
Various improvements were made, mostly to the turbine by adding more components to move the fluid more efficiently.
When floored from a stop, the Buick straight 8s with Dynaflow sounded kind of like a passenger jet taking off, without the thrust, of course..
The early Powerglides (~'51, '52) were similar, in that they started in high, unless manually shifted to low. They earned the refrain "slip and slide with Powerglide."
V-8 with standard trans with overdrive. Car will drive down the road right now ...We are not sure yet of the price
http://dallas.craigslist.org/sdf/cto/1370436732.html
What's this thing worth? :confuse:
But why would you drag race in reverse? :P The pushbutton Torqueflite has a lockout feature to keep you from going into reverse at any forward speed over 10 mph. You can press the button, but I think the car just goes into neutral. At least, that's how they were in 1957, although I'm not about to test it out on my DeSoto! And I guess it's possible in later years that they eliminated that lockout feature?
Wasn't there some issue with Powerglide transmissions? I remember people saying, "Slip 'n slide with Powerglide!" I also recall a short-lived transmission called Turboglide that didn't do so well. To what family of transmissions did the infamous "Slim Jim" belong?
Also the "documented" 30,000 miles should be an interesting document to read. How does one document such a thing on a 60 year old car? Unless one has records going back ALL THE WAY, it's hard to prove anything--especially if the records stop at say 1959...it could easily have already rolled over in those ten years.
I'm thinking $20,000 to $40,000 bucks, depending on a lot of things.
Were it a Pebble Beach frame off resto, it could punch out over $50K and possibly hit $60K. But that would have to be some car indeed, and I don't think this one's even close.
Lots of cars you don't usually see on Craigslist... at
reasonable,Crazy, uhm, unexpected pricesStanley Steam Car, 1924 Touring - $74900
Electricity isn't the only "other gasoline"
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1393228265.html
1965 Morgan Plus 4 4 Seater Completely Restored-Concours Ready - $48000
$48K for a restored car that was already willfully obsolete in 1965?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/ctd/1394036254.html
66 Ferrari Fiat Dino GT 2.4, Fully Restored, - $25000
You got Ferrari in my Fiat! - No; You got Fiat in my Ferrari !
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/ctd/1393606667.html
Very Clean 1970 Porsche 914 1.7 Litre
"very rare to find one in this condition with less than 2% rust issues"
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/1387492966.html
1950 BUICK WOODY WOODIE WAGON - $18500
Uhm, restoration started....
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/ctd/1374765583.html
1969 Jaguar - $26000
Older restoration, but still in pristine condition
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/cto/1376010455.html
65 Morgan 4/4 -- doesn't say which engine is in it? Ford or Triumph? YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THESE THINGS SELLER!!! (Geez, I could just scream). Deduct for Ford engine. Also color is bad for a Morgan, really bad. I'm thinkin $35K is all the money here, restored though it might be. Again the old formula: Cost of Restoration / 2 = market value.
69 Jaguar -- sale proof at $25,000. If an automatic, deduct $5000 additional. A Series 1 4.2 coupe is what everyone wants and they'll pay $60K for a beauty. So a SII---- maybe $22K with a 4-speed, $18K with an automatic.
50 Buick Woody -- he might get it. He just might. Potential here for a $100,000 ++ car. But it's a long and $$$ road to that number.
Stanley--- I have no idea.
1970 Porschewagen --- eh....a 1.7 engine is not the one you want. Maybe $5000 bucks here? Superb handling car, anemic, rust-prone and cheesy VW parts all around, including the engine (from a VW 412).
The last '54 Roadmaster I presented a couple of weeks ago was all green with a white roof. This is a similar color combination with a current bid that is greater than our earlier concensus. Admittedly, being that this particular example is a former AACA award winner gives it some pedigree the other one didn't have.
While this one doesn't have the after-market radiator fan, the wiring behind the front grill does appear to be consistent with the all green one - which I believe was an item that was brought up as to its faithfulness to originality.
It'll be interesting to see where this one winds up.
When Better Automobiles Are Built, Buick Will Build Them.
This '61 Starliner is offered by an Ohio dealer who has some nice inventory. I really like this car, but $36,900 seems kind of steep. Take 3 minutes to watch the YouTube video describing the car - which says it has only 5,700 original miles. Funny they wouldn't put a claim like that in print in their narrative description? It also describes the shocks and mufflers as being original which may indicate you'll need to swing by the local Midas shop for new mufflers and shocks after leaving the dealership. LOL! And, color me stupid, but with 29,000 of these built, can you honestly call a '61 Starliner coupe even "relatively rare"??
It seems to be a familiar formula that a car being offered by a dealer is probably worth about half of its asking price, which would put it at about $18,500. But, if this car is as original as advertised, I'm guessing the dealer wouldn't even bother making a counter for anything less than $20,000.
Anybody seen a recent sale of anything comparable to this car? If so, for how much? All comments welcome and encouraged. Gentlemen, the floor is yours . . . . . .
I also don't know much about Ford engines from that era, but I don't think the 352 is anything to write home about. It was pretty powerful when it first came out around 1958 or whatever, but in the early 1960's it was toned down something serious. I think it only had 220 hp with a 2-bbl, and by that time I think if you wanted performance, Ford wanted you to go with a 390, so they weren't messing around with hot 4-bbl 352's anymore. To put it in perspective, Mopar's 318 put out 230 hp with a 2-bbl carb. When the Chevy 327 came out, it had 250 hp with a 2-bbl, or 300 with a 4-bbl. And when Ford's own 289 came out, I think it had 200 hp just with the 2-bbl.
As for price, I have no idea, but I have a feeling that $18,500-$20K is being generous. The low mileage is nice, but this just isn't a car that people are dying to get ahold of.
At least once a week Broderick Crawford got the right rear spinning on the gravel then peeling rubber as he pulled out on the tarmac. I guess that's cheating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufIsNB_uf00
I'd say it's worth in the mid teens, maybe 15-18K. The wire wheels do nothing for me, as well.
A buyer would really want one of these things, coming as it does from the Dark Ages of Ford styling (pre 1964 Renaissance). Without the GM panache or Mopar muscle, what you have is a kind of glitzed-up Galaxie with a mopey, gas-sucking engine.
The dealer's "problem" is that he's asking convertible money for the hardtop and that he has a very fine, but odd-duck, of a car on his hands.
The reason they are "relatively rare" is somewhat painful but true---nobody bothered to save them. Look at all the 57s Chevys around, so as to hammer home this point.
The whole point of wire wheels was to take unsprung weight off small sports car and also to give lightness/openess to the wheel well area--to lift a blocky prewar design "off the ground" so to speak.
Putting wires on a 2 ton postwar car with tiny wheels and fender skirts makes no sense whatsoever to me.
it's the equivalent of putting pontoons on land-based aircraft.
I think they look good on some cars, but not many. For instance, Cadillac offered wire wheels for awhile, and I think they looked good, maybe up through 1956. Tolerable on a '57-58 perhaps, but they'd be totally out of place on a '59.
Similarly, I've seen 50's Mopars with them, but here I don't think they look good on anything newer than a '54 DeSoto or Chrysler. The '55 models are just too modern looking for them, IMO.
I don't think they should be on something low-end like a Ford, Chevy, or Plymouth though.
I was waiting for someone to reference "convertible money". Here's a '61 Starliner convertible (offered by another dealer) with an asking price of $60,000. I've actually seen this car in the flesh at the Kruse Labor Day auction a year or two ago. Looked darned nice to me. Anyone want to comment on whether the $60,000 for this convertible starts to make sense out of the $36,000 for the hardtop coupe??
My guess is that the convertible is really worth around $30-35K (or less?), which would then put the hardtop at around $15-20K.
I've also heard that one thing you NEVER do with a high-dollar convertible is put the top down, because it can get wrinkled. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a convertible, but I guess I can see the logic if you're looking at the thing solely as an investment. Well, that Galaxie is showing off, top-down in some pics....an indication that it's not one of these pristine, ultra-high dollar cars.
Still, it's a gorgeous car. Just not a $60K gorgeous car...at least not to me!
$35K--$40K for the convert
$25--$28K for the coupe
While a '61 Starliner coupe wouldn't be on anyone's "top 10 gotta have" list, I do like this car. I agree with the earlier comment that a Continental Kit is over-used (thank God this car doesn't have one), but I must admit that I do like the wire wheels on this car. They sure beat the stock wheel covers.
With regard to the engine, I'm sure its not a hi-po torque monster. But, I don't know if that's really the point of owning this particular car. To quote an old blues song, "I was built for comfort, not for speed"
I see this '61 Starliner as more of a weekend, take me down to the Tastee-Freeze, cruiser. And, I think it would turn more than a few heads at any cruise-in or car show you take it to. Unlike a '57 Chevy and any Chevelle or Mustang, I'm guessing you'd be the only one there with one of these.
http://www.fastlanecars.com/Public/Vehicle_Detail.aspx
Still like this '54 Buick though. Dan Mathews, Head of the Highway Patrol, says 10-4! to this one. (yeah, yeah, I know he drove a '55)
There's no sense to the laws of supply and demand with old cars. It's not based on merit. If it were, would anyone buy a Delorean? A Pacer? A Comet?
I wouldn't give you $10,000 for a '61 Starliner---I'd go buy a #3 daily driver 70s convertible for that $10K money, and have more fun, go faster, and not break down as much. I wouldn't even bother to pick up a '61 Starliner if I won it in a contest---just send me the check. :P
So, what 1970's convertible for $10K would a suave and urbane sophisticate want to drive? :P
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/oldsmobile/delta_88/902800.html
Here's another, $11K asking:
http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/carsforsale/oldsmobile/delta_88/902902.html
These look like very nice cars, too.
Do we really think one would get 3X the attention in the '61 Starliner to justify 3.5X the cost? I truly doubt it. In fact, you might get *less* attention.