What is this thing worth?

hpmctorque

Now that's a model we haven't heard of in a while. I give AMC credit for designing yet another interesting (though somewhat oddly proportioned) car on a very tight budget.

Mr_Shiftright

If it handled well, it definitely was modernized. You can stiffen up these old 60s cars to handle okay on the flats...downright near civilized...just don't hit a corduroy road or you'll pogo-stick into the woods.

parm

Well, handling in a 1950's-1960's vintage vehicle is a relative term. I wouldn't expect to set any hot lap times at Laguna Seca or anything. As a matter of fact, for a car like that, I'd prefer a "sofa on wheels" feel - as long as the car didn't want to wander all over the road as if it had a mind of its own - which, if it did, is probably the "tightening up" you're referring to in order to correct that.

Has anyone recently driven a battleship like this '54 Roadmaster? 1954 Roadmaster Is it possible to have a nice relaxing drive on the interstate in one of these things? With power steering, driving it around town wouldn't require much more than a strong index finger, would it?

euphonium

Memory tells me the most economical improvement for handling was to run radial tires. That shade of Green first appeared on the '52 Olds, Emerald Green. One of my all time favorites which is why that color replaced Mars Gray on my '39 Chev Master Deluxe.

Mr_Shiftright

My memory of 50s and 60s cars "handling" is coming too fast into a turn, and having the front tires squish up as you understeer badly and try to regain control.

If you have the guts, you can try and steer these things with the gas pedal, but you need a lot of power for that....otherwise you can only let off the gas to get the front tires to bite, and hope she don't swing around on ya'.

I always thought the Mopars handled better (less worse?) than the GM and Ford cars---but you had to be realistic as to what you could do with them.

andre1969

Well I don't think this '66 Charger was anything radical when it came to handling. It had radial tires on it, probably 225/70/R14's, which would be light years ahead of whatever bias-ply equivalent that they had back then was. Don't most bias ply have a sidewall ratio of something like 80-85? Probably had stiffer shocks on it as well. I dunno if a Charger would have a front sway bar, but I know from experience that a '68 or '69 Dart doesn't! At least, not standard. Most likely had a freshly-rebuilt suspension too, and I guess it's possible that they used that stuff that's stiffer than the stock rubber parts. What's it called...polygraphite or something like that?

I just drove it to Carlisle and back. I didn't try to re-enact "Bullit" with it. :P

Actually the handling is one reason I've tended to prefer Mopars, too. The setup of torsion bars up front, leaf springs in the back, usually lent itself pretty well too good handling, although it was harder to get a cushy, isolating ride than with coil springs.

Mopars tended to be roomier inside...at least, to me, they always felt like they had more legroom. Heck, my '68 Dart feels like it has more legroom up front than my '67 Catalina convertible! Kind funny how there's often no correlation to car size and legroom. A midsize almost always had more shoulder room and trunk room than a compact, and a full-size, more shoulder room and trunk room still. But legroom was often a crap shoot.

Mr_Shiftright

You have to be very careful about what type of poly bushings you use on older cars like that. You'll get a "stiff" ride all right, but maybe a lot stiffer than you want.

texases

"but maybe a lot stiffer than you want."

I had to put up with my dad's complaints for years after putting on a set of 'heavy duty' shocks on my parents' '69 Cutlass. As a smart high school mechanic, I was SURE that the HD shocks were the key to great handling.

parm

My memory of 50s and 60s cars "handling" is coming too fast into a turn, and having the front tires squish up as you understeer badly and try to regain control.

If you have the guts, you can try and steer these things with the gas pedal, but you need a lot of power for that....otherwise you can only let off the gas to get the front tires to bite, and hope she don't swing around on ya'.

Man! You drive these relics a lot harder than I would. Even if I now had a '67 Corvette (which would've been a spirited handler in its day) sitting in my garage (which I hope to some day!), I wouldn't even begin to attempt any kamakazie maneuvers with it. That wouldn't be the point. Not saying I wouldn't want to chirp the rear tires while running through the gears once in a while, but only when I had plenty of straight pavement ahead of me. That's why a well tuned 327 (albeit, one of the more potent variants) would do me just fine, thank you.

Even when I see a stunning '69 Z28, I don't think of it as a canyon carver - unless, of course, it had been "pro toured". But, if slot car handling is the goal, you'd be money ahead to buy a late model Vette to get your "ya-ya's" out. Then, when it's time for a nice leisurely early-evening summer time cruise, that's when you back the '54 Roadmaster out of the garage.

Mr_Shiftright

Actually I was describing normal everyday driving BACK THEN. We didn't have anything to compare it to, unless one were lucky enough to own a British sports car or an E-Type.

If you drove a stock 60s car off a freeway ramp in 2009 like you do a Japanese sedan, you'd still scare yourself.

My motto these days driving 50s or 60s cars is "If you do anything sudden with either the brakes, steering wheel or gas pedal, be sure the tires are straight"

andre1969

Then, when it's time for a nice leisurely early-evening summer time cruise, that's when you back the '54 Roadmaster out of the garage.

Well, just as a rough reference point, CR tested a 1955 DeSoto Fireflite with a 200 hp 291-4bbl Hemi, and I think 0-60 came up in around 13 seconds. They also tested a 1955 Olds 98 with (I think) a 324-4bbl putting out 202 hp, and got 0-60 in around 11.8 seconds. I think a '54 Roadmaster would have a 322-4bbl with 200 hp. I'd guess performance-wise, it would come in about on par with the DeSoto? Bigger engine, more torque, but also heavier. The DeSoto was probably handicapped by only having a 2-speed Powerflite, versus the 4-speed Hydramatic in the Olds, but I imagine the Dynaflow would be a hinderance, as well?

Any of these cars would be slow in a drag race by today's standards, but should be fine for most driving. FWIW, 0-60 in my '76 LeMans, '79New Yorkers, and '85 Silverado comes up around 11-12 seconds, and I never have any problems with highway merging.

Out on the highway, I imagine the biggest annoyance would be how those old bias-ply tires and the loose steering tend to let the car wander. Truck ruts and those metal joints on bridges that run with the road, rather than across it, will also make the car wander around if you hit them. And radial tires, unfortunately, aren't always the answer. Bias ply tires are softer than radial tires, so in those days they made the suspensions and such a bit stiffer to compensate. Once radials came out, they actually softened up the suspensions to counteract the stiffer radials. So, putting a stiff tire on a car with a stiffer suspension can cause all sorts of handling/ride "anomalies", as they say at NASA. As the 1960's progressed, I think the cars became more radial-friendly. I have radials on my '67 Catalina and it seems to do okay, although one of my old mechanics said that the radial tires were the reason it tended to chuck hubcaps.

And then, when it comes to braking, well those old drum brakes, especially power-assisted, can be very touchy until you get used to them. While a new car can stop more quickly in an emergency...say a situation where you have to haul the car down from highway speeds to a dead stop, in other situations the car might actually stop quicker, like if you just need to slow down some and press on the brake pedal a bit, and they grab quicker than you thought. If someone's tailgating you, they might end up imbedded in your bumper!

parm

Speaking of braking, a '54 Roadmaster would not have a modern dual cylinder brake system set up. Is it possible to add this to increase the safety factor?

Mr_Shiftright

I'm sure you could get something to work. There are kits for popular GM and Ford cars---probably not specifically for a '54 Buick but I'm sure a little creativity could fix that.

lemko

My Dad's 1981 Thunderbird had headlamp doors that were vacuum-operated. If one wished to leave them open, Ford provided a clip that pinched the vacuum lines to allow the doors to remain open.

Question: were the headlamp doors on the 1942 DeSoto power operated or manual?

lemko

Well, the original car that was called the Tarpon was a smaller car built on the American chassis. I don't know why they made it a Classic and later an Ambassador.

andre1969

Question: were the headlamp doors on the 1942 DeSoto power operated or manual?

I'm guessing the '42 DeSoto had vacuum-operated headlight covers, but I don't know for sure.

I think my '79 New Yorker's covers are electric, as they can open and close with the key in the "on" position, but the car doesn't have to be running. If you need to keep them open to change a headlight, all you have to do is turn the car off before you turn off the headlights. That locks the covers open, but then they'll close up the next time you turn the car back on.

Mr_Shiftright

Vacuum operated headlight doors are a real bad idea. As you go uphill and press on the gas, vacuum drops and your headlights slowly close as if the car were going to sleep. Let off the gas and the eyelids spring open in surprise! I think Corvettes had this problem as well.

kyfdx

I think all Ford products with hidden headlights were vacuum... at least through the '70s...

My mother had a '72 Lincoln Coupe with them... (car I learned to drive on..), but I don't ever remember a problem with them half-closing... I think the vacuum activation was just to move the doors, either direction... Once they were open or closed, that was it... I don't think vacuum was necessary to keep them in position (I'm not really mechanically inclined, so I could be wrong about the operation...lol... but, I know they never got sleepy.)

Mom never bought me a Vette, so I'm not sure about those....

regards,
kyfdx

Mr_Shiftright

I think they were okay unless you had a small vacuum leak. Maybe some systems used a vacuum reservoir. Never much played with them, don't remember.

kyfdx

The extent of my mechanical expertise on the Lincoln... was taking the air cleaner out, so the 460 V-8 sounded meaner..... and, cleaning puke off my Mom's white leather before heading home for the night....

lokki

2002 Ferrari 360 Spider on Craigslist?
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/cto/1424303476.html

Not something that I'd expect, but then when I do the word association game
"Terrell Texas" and "Ferrari 360" almost never come out in the same sentence. :confuse:

Mr_Shiftright

He should put a PRICE ON IT !!!!

Value?

Ask $79000, take first offer around $70K.

All this presumes it has outstanding service records.

Magic number for Ferraris is under 30,000 miles. Over that, price drops like a rock off a bridge.

parm

I have a soft spot for the big '59 Buicks. Love the rear grill and the fins.

1959 Buick Invicta

It's up to $40,100. Seems steep to me. However, I can easily see somebody with a drink in their hand while waving at the camera at a Barrett Jackson auction bidding it up to $40K+. This car has a working A/C and a modern stereo that's neatly tucked away.

Now where'd I put that Powerball ticket . . . . . . :P

Mr_Shiftright

For a # 1 full restoration, that's a market price, if not a bit low actually. It could punch through $45K, no problem.

You don't see many '59s. Most just turned to ferrous oxide powder by now. Fairly rare bird, only about 5,400 made. They individually made more LeSabre and Electra ragtops that year than Invictas.

parm

I think the Invicta went away after 1963. The Electra was the big maah-moo and the LaSabre was the intermediate and bigger than a Skylark in 1960's-speak. So, where did the Invicta fit in? Was it an Electra on a LaSabre platform? Or, a LaSabre on an Electra platform?

andre1969

The Invicta essentially took over the spot held by the Buick Century. It was the lighter LeSabre body with the bigger Electra engine. It was replaced by the Wildcat for 1963 (there was an Invicta wagon that year though), which was the same formula. However, my old car book shows the Wildcat being on the longer Electra wheelbase for 1965-68, then reverting back to the LeSabre's for 1969-70. For 1971 it was replaced by the Centurion, and it was still using the Electra's bigger engine standard, this time a 455, compared to the LeSabre's 350. For 1974 it was replaced by the LeSabre Luxus, although by this time fuel economy was a concern, so I don't think they made the 455 standard anymore.

At one time, there was a need for cars like the Invicta and Wildcat, but then they just started offering the LeSabre with more engines and better trim levels, and it just became unnecessary.

ghulet

....may be incorrect re the Wildcat of '65-68; my grandparents had a '66 Wildcat coupe in the '70s (my 17 year-old at the time uncle trashed the transmission) and visually, it's indistinguishable from the LeSable, except for trim, interiors, etc. Wildcats, as were the case with Invictas and Centurys, traditionally had the small body, larger engine combo, as you stated.

parm

This one caught my eye. '65 Buick GS How's the $27,950 asking price? This car looks like a pretty nice one, but you guys tend to have a keener eye than me. This one even has (what appears to be) factory A/C. Are there any issues anyone can find? BTW, the ad shows this as having a 400 ci motor. That isn't right, is it? Wouldn't it be a 401 nailhead? In '65 the GTO was still running with a 389. On the GTO, did Pontiac move to their 400 ci in '66 or '67? Can't remember what was under the hood on a 442 in '65.

Love the color combination on this one. Shifty, are you familiar with this dealer?

Mr_Shiftright

I've heard of this dealer but have no info on him one way or the other.

Price seems ridiculous on the face of it. About $10,000 too high IMO, maybe $15K too high, depending. The man needs to seriously study his books.

This "GS" is just a Skylark----not to be confused with the mighty GS455s of the early 1970s.

parm

Right, but in '65 the GS was Buick's answer to the GTO, right?

andre1969

I had often wondered about that book and if that was an inaccuracy, on the '65-68 Wildcat's length. Whenever I've seen one (mainly in pictures, but occasionally in person) it just looked like a LeSabre with different trim and a better interior.

However, I just found a '65 Buick brochure online. It's at www.oldcarbrochures.com. Takes awhile to come up, but here's the link to the specs page. It's showing the LeSabre at 123"wb, 216.8" overall length, whille the Wildcat is 126"wb, 219.8"long, and the Electra is 126wb, 224.1"long.

So my guess is that Buick did with the Wildcat something like what Pontiac did with the Bonneville versus the Catalina...stretch out the wheelbase towards the back of the car. Essentially, moving the rear axle a bit further out beyond the C-pillar, which would give the car a longer rear deck, but no more interior room. A bit more trunk space though, perhaps. With the Bonneville though, they also tacked on some extra length behind the axle to help bloat the car up to almost Electra/98 dimensions.

An extra 3 inches of wheelbase on cars this big really isn't noticeable, especially in the coupes and convertibles...unless you happen to see one of each right next to each other! In sedans it's more noticeable though, because the back doors are the same, but they add three more inches to the little bit of quarter panel that's between the back door and the wheel opening. I can't remember the last time I've seen a Wildcat sedan to notice it, but I've seen enough Catalinas and Bonnevilles to notice it. And on something small like a '68-73 Dart 4-door, versus the Valiant, it's real noticeable.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't recall that is was the answer to anything, and I don't remember any rock and roll songs written about the 1965 Skylark, or a "Skylarks rule" T-shirt, no. :P But if you mean dropping an extra- large block of iron into a compact car, then yes, I guess it's sorta kinda like a GTO.

andre1969

I think the first couple years, the GS was something special. The 1965 used the 325 hp nailhead V-8 from the bigger cars, and 1966 that engine came with 325 standard, 340 optional.

It started getting watered down a bit for 1967, when they made a 260 hp 340 smallblock standard, and then that got replaced by a 280 hp 350 for 1968. In later years, I imagine the value of the car depended on the engine...obviously going up with displacement.

Mr_Shiftright

Well HP is only the story "on paper". In fact, there are plenty of engines that look good on paper but really don't make for very exciting street machinery. Chevy small blocks slapped other big V-8s silly for many years. Also providing lots of performance options and sexy styling cues helped to make certain cars "hot" while others were merely dad's car trying to pass itself off as a hotrod. Most people weren't fooled.

andre1969

Would the Buick 401 nailhead have weighed much more than a Pontiac 389? I tried looking up the weights and saw something like 690 lb for the 401, but then for the 389 I saw 590 and 650 lb...so that in and of itself isn't much to go on.

I think the nailhead was more of a torquer, wasn't it? Might move a lot of weight, but not necessarily move it fast.

For 0-60 times I found this:
1964 GTO, 389-4bbl, 325 hp: 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, quarter mile in 15.7@92.
1965 GS, 401(I'm guessing a 4bbl), 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, 1/4 mile in 16.6@86.

No mention of transmission, gearing, etc though.

Mr_Shiftright

Interesting but again, it's all on paper. In reality, the Skylark did not strike the young crowd as anything even remotely exciting. Which is why a '65 tri-power GTO coupe is worth about 3X that particular Skylark. That's a pretty crushing statement made by the marketplace.

andre1969

But now what would just a regular 335 hp 389-4bbl GTO hardtop in that same equivalent condition go for? I'm sure just having tri-power is going to give a GTO a huge boost in value.

Mr_Shiftright

Over $30,000 for a non tri-power, non show-car but a nice nice vehicle.

This is why his price is so crazy. He can't be asking GTO money. He's probably going to sell it these days at $18K if it's really nice.

lemko

How about an Oldsmobile 442 versus a GTO? Would they be closer?

parm

Well, when I implied that the 1965 Skylark GS was Buick's answer to the GTO, I was referring more to the fact that both cars shared the same platform (or am I incorrect on this?) and both used the same formula of stuffing a big engine into a smaller car.

In one of the threads in the Classic Car forum, somebody posted a link to old car brochures and I glanced through some of them last night. One of the brochures was specifically for a 1965 Skylark GS and the specs showed the engine as a "400" which kind of surprised me. Does anyone know if that was referring to an actual (and I'm assuming new for 1965) 400 ci engine, OR did they just fudge a little bit and turn the 401 into a 400 through "artistic license".

I'm kind of surprised there was that much difference in the performance between a '65 GTO and a GS. I'm guessing the 1/4 times were due to the differences in vehicle weight and gearing - with the Buick being the more luxo of the two.

In 1965, the basic formula for the GTO, GS and 442 were all pretty much the same - with the difference in their market values today being due to the marketing wizardry of Jim Wangers.

Mr_Shiftright

Maybe a little closer but not "close", unless it were a W30 option, then definitely worth as much as a goat, even as much as a tri-power perhaps.

The market is very precise these days about makes, model, and options. One really cannot value a car accurately unless options are carefully investigated.

andre1969

Yeah, that "400" is a bit of a fudge-job. It's really a 401 CID nailhead. Buick did come out with a true 400 for 1967, though. Here's a pretty good retrospective of the GS at musclecarclub.com

And yeah, the GS, 442, GTO, and Malibu SS were all on the same corporate A-body. Main difference was that the B-O-P triplets were stretched out about 11 inches, most of it in the rear, to give it a more substantial, upscale look than the Chevy. Same 115" wheelbase though.

bhill2

Yeah, that "400" is a bit of a fudge-job. It's really a 401 CID nailhead.

For what it's worth, the engine was advertised as a 400 to satisfy a GM edict that nothing larger could be put in an intermediate. It saved them having to shave a cubic inch off somewhere.

Mr_Shiftright

Here's another "400" for about the same price, but with a bit more visibility than a '65 Skylark:

http://www.ferraris-online.com/pages/carintro.php?reqcardir=FE-412-64307

or how about a '65 Skylark CONVERTIBLE for the same money?

http://www.specialtysales.com/1965-buick-skylark--c-2422.htm

andre1969

That's not a Ferarri...that's a 1980 Malibu sport coupe with some kind of aftermarket kit on it. :P

That Skylark seems like a nice little car. How would it perform though, with that little 300 V-8 and 2-speed automatic, though? I know you don't buy a car like this to drag race though...it's more about just riding around on a nice day and having fun and enjoying yourself.

fintail

Those Ferraris make no sense to me, how they remained in production for so long. That design dates to ca. 1974, when the angular lines were avantgarde and cool. But it was a relic by 1986, especially for that brand. Must have been some money problems.

parm

Let's see, a Ferrari vs. a Skylark? Well, since the cost of a tune up for a Ferrari would cost more than the GNP of some 3rd-world countries, I'll go with the Skylark. :P

While the yellow convertible Skylark looks like a beauty, it doesn't have the larger motor of the GS which should carry some cache, no? Still, your point that the blue '65 Skylark GS coupe is overpriced is well-taken.

Mr_Shiftright

I really don't think the size of a motor in a 60s Buick is even on most buyers' radar. It's the GS455 that the muscle car freaks really want---the Buick line in the 60s is for people who like to have a nice vintage ride---they aren't going street racing.

Mr_Shiftright

Actually the Ferrari 412 is the Ferrari that nobody wants---that's why it's so cheap.

parm

Skylark GS Value Guide

Picked this off of Hemmings. Thought it relevant to this discussion. Looks like around $12,000-$15,000 would be a fair price for a better than average '65 GS hardtop.