By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
This dealer buys and sells a bunch of stuff at the Mecum auctions. He's a huge, multi-store, multi-brand new car dealer in the Indy market. His classic car operation is just over an hour from me, but I've never been there. It's only been within the last few years that he's really made a significant effort in the collector car market.
I wonder what this one would reasonably sell for? And how long the seller is going to be stuck with it?
http://www.kanter.com///closeup.aspx
I say this as a huge Cadillac fan, I think those wire wheels look sharp on all 1960's Cadillacs (and many 1950's models) through 1970 - espcially on convertibles. Now, super wide white wall tires? God NO! But, a tastefully narrow white wall completes the look for me. Then again, I'm the guy who likes the grill of a 1970 Bonneville. So, there's no accounting for taste. :P
I'm a "less is more" kinda guy. I put "Happy Birthday" on a birthday cake, not a replica of the Manhattan Skyline with Haley's comet streaking overhead. I mean, that's FUN in its own way, but remember, unlike a birthday cake, with a car, whatever you do to it, you have to look at it every day.
75 Old Convert --- I think the $12K area is what its worth. This is not exactly the Glory Era of American cars.
Explains why today there are more "GT'" s out there than the factories made.
My landlord has a '65 GT K code 4-speed convertible---pristine. THAT car is about as good as it gets for $$$ in a 1st generation Mustang.
I believe the "slim jim" was a modified hydramatic that was used in certain Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs.
http://payitforwardcar.com/default.aspx
Fortunately, an early Mustang is a fairly easy car to restore. Comes all apart, gazillions of vendors for aftermarket parts, dirt simple mechanicals (circa 1935). Great hobby car and fun to drive when you're done.
So, what's the consensus on this one? $38,900? Wow! When they price these cars,sometimes I'd simply like to ask dealers, "What are ya think'n?"
Neat car, but I honestly can't fathom that anyone with even half a brain would pay anything close to $38,900. What's odd is that I've seen other cars from this dealer that were actually fairly reasonably priced. But, not this one. Yes, it looks to be in pretty nice original condition, but it's been repainted, doesn't have A/C and with 88K miles, it's not an ultra low-mileage car. This has got to be close to a record price for a generally stock '61 Olds Dynamic 88. But, it's not a 500-mile pristine example and Elvis didn't sweat on it.
What am I missing here?????
I have no idea what it's really worth, but I'd probably be willing to go as high as $10K. Maybe $12K if the stock market happened to do really well on that particular day and I was feeling foolish with money. Now maybe if it was some low-mileage, fully-loaded model with a hot engine (could you still get the J-2 that year?) I could see it commanding a high price.
To me, this price of $21,900 actually seems like a steal in comparison. Much more luxurious car, with power windows and a/c, stronger 325 hp engine, and the more durable 4-speed hydramatic, versus the slim-jim that Olds 88 would have.
I have a feeling this one's a bit overpriced as well, though. After all, it has 94,000 miles on it and, like that Olds, has been repainted.
Any tatty pieces, or disappointments in the undercarriage (as in un-restored, surface rust, worn bushings) and the price goes down accordingly.
The problem with these ads is that you can't tell if you have a restored car, or a tarted up old car with a nice body, engine bay and interior sitting on a tired old frame.
It's the frame restoration that costs almost as much as topside---pulling the body off I mean.
If someone wants #1 show car money, it had better be just that.
So without seeing the cars, I'm presuming a #2 automobile, at best. If these cars had an undercarriage you could eat your breakfast off and not get your eggs dirty, well then, bigger bucks is possible.
This car may be on consignment and the owner has dementia. A realist would take 10 to 12 and .
I think the Olds could pull $15K in an eBay auction, and $18K at a drunken bidder brawl at Barrett-Jackson.
But yeah, on craigslist, $12K would be a home run.
It's all about supply and demand. Yes, a pristine '61 Olds 88 2D HT is rare, but who cares? Very few aficionados and most of those not with deep pockets.
The Caddy would have more comers.
Well, the '61 I'd REALLY want is a Pontiac! I definitely like the Caddy, though, although the more I look at the details, I prefer the '62 Caddy to the '61.
I think the Olds 88 is definitely more car for the money than a Chevy, but, like you say, it's all about supply and demand. There's a '61 Olds 98 that shows up at the Hershey PA car show/swap meet pretty regularly, that always caught my eye. It was a 4-door hardtop, and I always found it to be pleasing to the eye. However, I find the hardtop coupe to be a bit of an awkward beast...
I think part of the problem is the way the rear-end droops off. It might look better if it had more upkick to it, like the '61 Caddy with its fins. I can't find a pic showing a good side view of a '61 Electra 2-door hardtop, but here's an angle view...
I guess it looks better from the side than the Olds would, because it doesn't have that droop. Also, the Olds needs to lose those fender skirts.
Tastes may be subjective, but buyers vote with their checkbooks:
Happened to check the dealer's website last night and found that this Starliner has sold. Would love to know what it went for. I know this dealer has had it for at least 6 months - but, less than a year . . . . . . . I think. :confuse:
I guess it was slightly optimistic of me to hope this car would still be for sale in about 10 years when I might be able to afford it.
Here is a '66 Charger listed with a dealer. This same dealer also has a red '66 Charger listed with an asking price of $28,995 (don't know how long they've had it). Sorry, you'll have to look it up on their website as it doesn't seem to have a distinctive link address. The copper one is a new arrival and doesn't yet have a "public" asking price - and no details are available in terms of engine size (though I suspect somebody in this forum will know what's under the hood) but it does appear to have A/C and power brakes and therefor is fairly similarly equipped as the red one.
OK, time for some "paired-sale" (sort of) analysis. What's the copper one worth? Which one would you rather have?
BTW, this is the same dealer with the green '54 Roadmaster I drool over - though in my defense, I do that a lot. :P They seem to have some pretty nice stuff.
We'd need to know the 5th digit of the VIN.
SECOND LOOK: Okay, it's not a 318, so it's either a 361 or 383. Definitely not a Hemi.
Given that, I'd say $17,500 for a 361 and around $20K for a 383.
Again, this presumes that the undercarriage is not some gunked up, rubber-rotted bed frame with a pretty body on top.
Assuming it's not a rot-fest underneath, I think I'd prefer the copper one. Still, the red one has the hidden headlights - which I think look terrific, though I'm guessing they'd be a maintenance headache today. Being "Mopar-knowledge challenged", what option box did one need to check in '66 to get the hidden headlights?
This same dealer has a '67 Coronet R/T convertible in the same copper color with a 440-4bbl. Asking price = $37,500. Be still my beating heart!
If I were shopping for a copper color mid-1960's Mopar, I'd be hard pressed to decide between this Charger and the Coronet. If it weren't for this pesky little "lack of funds" thing, I'd buy'em both! :P
Major stumbling blocks that have increased my disappointment in a car that looks good in photos are:
1. unrestored undercarriage---surface rust, worn cracked bushings everywhere, oil leaks, dented floor pans
2. all the trim is lightly scratched and dimpled, sometimes with buffer damage.
3. Glass is scratched up from faulty parts inside door.
4. weatherstrip on doors and windows is shot--cracked, old, torn.
5. some gauges don't work or bezels and instrument glass scratched and pitted (it's pull the dashboard time!)
6. heater and AC problems (ever try to pull the heater core on a 60s car with AC?)
You can see NONE of these things in photos, and yet they are all very expensive to make right again.
So if car A has all these problems and car B doesn't, there's a BIG difference in otherwise identical cars, in terms of value.
Don't forget the "I shouldn't be able to see the carpet from below" problem - I was looking at an outwardly-nice '65 Mustang, bent over, has a good view of the rotten floor pans and the carpet :surprise: :sick:
Some cars look okay but there is a....um....dullness....about it, or an unevenness in quality. A nice paint job with dull chrome looks like crap, and the reverse is true, too---it looks uncompleted.
So you can't price a car on just ONE AREA that's nice, or even two. The car has to have a kind of *totality* about it that exudes quality; otherwise, it's just another quickie, resale-red-resto.
"God is in the details" and if you're going to pay top dollar, you want the *hard stuff* done for you. And that "hard stuff" includes things like window seals and gaskets, exterior trim restoration, chrome work, dashboard work---all those details that in unison differentiate the great cars from the blah ones.
I need to stay off that site. I found two cars that really catch my eye. One of 'em is a '61 Bonneville convertible with 389-tripower for $49K, and the other is a '62 Caddy Eldorado convertible for $59K. I can even take the washed-out lilac color on the Caddy...I think they called it Heather or Laurel? Hardly my first choice on a modern car, but I think it looks really sharp on a '62 Caddy.
I have no idea what either one is truly worth, but I'm sure even the realistic selling prices would be a bit brutal on my bank account.
Did they become standard issue in '67?
There was some way to flip the headlights and manually lock them in place, but I forget now how to do it. And I remember, when my friend let me take that car to Carlisle, I had problems with it and couldn't get them to lock. So I had to make sure the car was off the road before it got dark!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
How did that Charger drive?
And, I'm still kind of fuzzy on what model of 66-67 Chargers had the hideaway lights, and which didn't. Obviously, it didn't have to be an R/T because I've seen a non-R/T that had them.
Of course, from the back, they were very different.
This one had a 383-4bbl with a 2.76:1 axle. It had a tach in it, and, presuming it was correct, at 75 mph it pulled about 2500 rpm...same as my Intrepid, which has a 3.89:1 tranaxle, IIRC, but then something like a 0.67:1 overdrive gear, which effectively knocks it down to around a 2.60:1
I think the R/T came standard with a 440-4bbl and something like 375 hp. So this one was just a Charger with a big block. Before this one, my friend briefly owned a '66 Charger with a 318. Originally a poly-head engine, but by the time he got it, it had a 318 wedge under the hood. It was also grossly mis-represented, and he was able to strong-arm the dealer into buying it back. As far as I know, ALL '66-67 Chargers had hidden headlights. At least, both of my friend's did, and they were just regular Chargers.
I think a lot of confusion might abound though, because the 1967 Coronet used a grille very similar to the '66-67 Charger. I'm not sure now if the Coronet could be had with hidden headlights from the factory, but the parts were interchangeable enough that you could put the Charger's flip-up lights on a Coronet.