Actually for a resto-rod, it looks a bit down and dirty. Not sure where $40K went but as they say "God is in the details" and the details ain't in this one. The seat upholstery kit looks like it was purchased at a thrift store.
Don't think of it as a Comet. Think of it as a first year Mustang (or the underpinnings thereof) and perhaps the asking price will seem a bit more palatable . . . . . on second thought, naaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Man, someone would really have to LOVE that car to pay that much for something that's an odd mix of originality and engine mods.
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.
The car is not very well done, is the problem. If you want $40K for a resto-rod, it's got to snap and sizzle. This car has no "pop". Seats sag, surface rust on chassis parts, cheapo ignition wires, no powder-coating I can see, midas exhaust system? ....this is champagne money for a beer car IMO.
I've seen some knuckleheads put those wire wheels on 1965-66 Cadillacs which looks super stupid. I believe the 1956 or 1957 model is the last Cadillac that looks decent with those wire wheels. I have seen those wire wheels on a 1953 Plymouth and they look pretty dopey on such a stubby car. I doubt very many '53 Plymouth buyers, (aside from maybe Art Linkletter) ordered wire wheels. Certainly not somebody as ultra-conservative as my Grandpop who once owned a black Cambridge sedan with blackwall tires.
People can get delusional with those 70's battlestars, too. Here's a '75 Delta 88 convertible for $23K! Looks to be a very nice car, but c'mon! Plus, it's a fairly basic model. Crank windows (but power locks), solid bench seat. My guess is that it just has a 350 under the hood too, rather than a 455.
I wonder what this one would reasonably sell for? And how long the seller is going to be stuck with it?
Regarding wire wheels on 1965-66 Cadilacs, in the voice of Bill Lumberg from the movie "Office Space": Yeaaah . . . . I'm going to have to sort of disagree with you on that.
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
Wires on a 60s Cadillac just scream PIMP to me---I'm sorry, nothing personal, of course!! :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.
Very true, but they made boatloads of 65-66 Mustangs. It's amazing that the prices for these old Mustangs are as high as they are, given the vast quantity of them still around. But plain 'ol 65 Mustang coupes aren't very expensive unless you get them heavily optioned or with 4-speeds.
Buick continued using the dynaflow into the early 60s. I believe the full sized Buicks had the dynaflow through 64, and even the Riviera had it in 63. By the early 60s, it seems they were getting pretty decent performance out of the old dynaflow. I believe they were called "twin turbine" or something along those lines.
I believe the "slim jim" was a modified hydramatic that was used in certain Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs.
Looks like they did a nice job---not a crazy restoration but a good one, with a non-stock engine. Lots of work. Can you imagine paying that army of workers by the hour to restore your Mustang? I would think a couple hundred hours in the body alone.
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.
That is a nice car...love the color! But yeah, $38,900 is ridiculous! Was the Dynamic the cheaper 88 or the nicer 88? I can't keep Oldsmobile's hierarchy from that era straight. If that 394 only has 250 hp, I'm guessing it's some low-compression 2-bbl model designed to run on low-octane. Just for comparison, Chrysler choked their 361-2bbl down to 265 hp that year, while their 383-2bbl stayed at 305. Heck, get a 318 with a 4-bbl, and you had around 255 hp, although that might not have been available by 1961.
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.
I'm thinkin' that in this market, if both cars are really really *sharp* with no issues, questions or problems, that around $15,000 to $18000 is about right.
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.
Who wants a '61 Oldsmobile anyway? Everyone wants a '61 Chevy, we ALL know that.
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.
Who wants a '61 Oldsmobile anyway? Everyone wants a '61 Chevy, we ALL know that.
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.
That Caddy looks like a nice driver, but I can already knock points off for authenticity. The hoses and battery are wrong. For that kind of money, those kind of details should be correct. Who knows what else is wrong. I hate those extra guages below the dashboard. They always come across as a trashy add-on some knucklehead ordered from J C Whitnet and put on the car when it was considered an almost worthless used vehicle in the 1970s. At least, it doesn't appear to have an aftermarket radio, (I really REALLY hate this!) and he didn't cut holes in the doors or package shelf for aftermarket speakers!
I like that Chevy, but those wheels have got to go. I'd immediately find the OEM-style tires and wheels and put them on the car. Personally, I'd pass on this one as there is too much stuff to undo.
resto-rods are very popular for this era of Chevy--especially if it used to be a 6 cylinder automatic car. You wouldn't do this to a Caddy or Olds, but you can get away with it on a Chevy---sometimes even increasing the value over the original.
I need to stop playing around on the internet. I'm starting to get an itching for a '61-62 Cadillac, and finding them for sale is only feeding the fire!
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. Wish I had the funds available to honestly say, "An opportunity missed."
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 can't estimate the copper one because we don't know the engine. The value of these cars is all tied up in engine size. It could be $7500 or $75000 dollars.
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.
Those Chargers are both 383-4bbl, which I think put out around 330 hp. By that time, is there really even any advantage to a 361? It only had a 2-bbl carb and put out 265 hp. The 318-2bbl put out 230 hp, but was a lighter engine, and the car itself was probably lighter, as it required less beefing up. So overall, I wonder if a 318-2bbl in a Charger gave about the same performance as a 361-2bbl?
Probably the 361 had more torque, yes---since torque comes from displacement. 35 HP might not seem like much, but if you add to ADD 35 HP to a 318, you'd have to spend a fair amount of money. Certainly the 318 would be more economical to drive. The Mopar big blocks are gas hogs. You'd be lucky indeed to get 15 mpg driving cross country at 55--60 mph. If you romp on 'em around town, think more like 10 mpg.
OK, the dealer's website now has a write-up and a $22,995 price tag on the copper '66 Charger. Makes me wonder what one could really buy it for? It's a 383-4bbl. They must like the red one better given that they're asking $28,995 for it. They don't show under-carriage photos of either one.
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
You could probably get it anywhere within $5000 of the asking price. Not sure why he thinks the red car is worth so much more. Again, without eyeballs on an old car, one never knows how accurate price estimates are. Photos are SOOOOOO deceiving, in my experience. Cars I like in photos, I hate in person, and vice-versa.
Major stumbling blocks that have increased my disappointment in a car that looks good in photos are:
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:
A car with a #2 price tag on it has got to "POP" when you see it. It has to have real sizzle. I don't know how else to explain it, but I can just walk up to a car and within 30 seconds I have an exact impression of what the car is, and is not.
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.
You're right, the name for that lilac color is Heather. That '62 Eldorado is a nice one and is fresh top and bottom. But, it's so over-priced it's not even funny. Like that '61 Olds, this car must be on consignment with a delusional seller/owner. They've had that Eldo for sale for a while I think. Gee, I wonder why???
More like $40K for the Eldo in this market. If it were show quality throughout, maybe $45K. This is 2009. Did they really have blue power steering pumps? What's with the cut in the arm rest? And scratches on the stainless? Unglued weatherstrip? Nice car but it must be an older restore that has a few glitches now. The color is a real minus.
Those hideaway headlights on 1966 Chargers? Where they an option (like A/C) or did you need to upgrade to a specific model? The red '66 Charger on that dealer's website has them, but it doesn't appear to be a special model - such as an R/T for example.
Yes 66 Chargers are merely disguised versions of the rather mundane Coronet, with hidden headlights and sloping roofline. This is why a plain ol' 66 Charger is a dime a dozen car compared to the Charger R/Ts of a few years later, when the car was completely redesigned.
Hidden headlights were standard on the 1966 Charger. However, getting them to operate correctly, now THAT was optional! I remember on my buddy's '66 Charger, you had to get out and manually open them, as the power assist had failed.
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!
I was leaving with a friend one evening.... when we got to her car, she got out some sort of allen wrench and cranked open one of the hidden headlights on her Firebird (classy!)
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.
AFIK all Chargers of the original style had hide-aways. At the time, I thought that with the lights out, the Charger looker just like a Coronet; at least from the front.
Of course, from the back, they were very different.
That '66 Charger was a VERY nice handling car. However, I think it might have been modernized a bit. It had radial tires, for one thing. Still probably had drum brakes all around, but I'm used to that, so no big deal. Steering was tight; I think it had recently been worked on. The only thing I really hated were the backrests on the seats. They were really low, topping out just under my shoulder blades. Now I've had cars without headrests before...my '57 DeSoto and '67 Catalina, and even my '85 Silverado. But these seatbacks were lower. I imagine getting rear-ended in this car would be pretty brutal.
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.
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.