Bargain "Classics"--$12,000 or Less and 20 Years or Older

chris396

Those 70's Mustangs are so gross. I like the shot of the guys finger.

ghulet

...if the damn thing were already restored to near perfection!! eBay, one of the most reliable forms of entertainment, for better or worse.

Mr_Shiftright

How about the guy selling a 1994 Alfa Spider and he turned down $14.5K !!!!

AIEEEEE!

His was the "commemorative edition" (cheap badges on body and dash) so he thought he could get even more than this over-retail bid.

Well, he just showed Lady Luck to the door.

andre1969

...has got to have one crappy interior, otherwise the guy would've taken some pics of it. I'll admit I have a fetish for some '70's cars, but that one ain't part of it!

Mr_Shiftright

True fetishes I think ARE about weird stuff, not the things most of us find attractive.

jrosasmc

That guy was crazy asking $14k for a Spider.

And by the way, I don't think "Commemorative Edition" doesn't mean a thing on the last Spiders. They may have the cheap badges on the body and dash, and some nicer wood trim in the interior, but to me, they look like the same basic car that was introduced in 1966. I read that the last Spiders were produced in April '93, not '94, so technically, those last cars should be MY '93.

Mr_Shiftright

NO, no, it's worse. He didn't ASK $14K. He was *offered* $14,500 in real money and he turned it away! Right in front of my Ebay eyes. I was an eye witness to the crime.

"And now, the Shiftright Bad Decision Award for 2002 goes to....may I have the envelope please?"

qbrozen

He was probably looking at listings like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1862914353

and thinking "if that guy thinks he can get THAT much for THAT spider, than I'm in the money!"

OK, in all fairness, I have seen late eighties spiders go for near $10K on Ebay, but we're talking about zero mile pristine examples from reputable sellers with a zillion pics to back it up.

blh7068

"I mean, look at what GM did to the Corvette and Camaro/Firebird in the late 70s and early 80s. Barely kept it alive and these cars today can be bought very cheap indeed relative to earlier Vettes of the age of the Corvair."

As for the f-bodies...they were REAL close to being dropped after ' 72(which would have meant no pontiac super duty for 73-74). Then by the late 70s (77-81 models) 2nd gen firebird and TA production skyrocketed(with a little help from smokey and the bandit).

lokki

I don't have $10 K (Well, I do) but I DO have Duetto fever (Well, I do).

Does the boat tail add anything to the value of a Spider? This is essentially my dream hobby car - with an engine built to about 150 HP - my youth regained!

http://www.carsonline.net/69alfa403.html

What would be a reasonable offer on this one - not that I'm going to do it...

Mr_Shiftright

Well, price is right in the market, where it should be. I did notice the repair facility name on the license plate (am I sharp or what?) , so if the car was actually serviced there all the time, or is being sold by them, I'd take an extra close look at it. And have it inspected elsewhere.

jaserb

but then again, I'm biased :-)
They also have my car's twin for sale - that '88 Spider is identical to mine, or was before they put dual Webers on it. Just to pick nits, isn't the '69 a 1750 Spider? I understood that Duetto referred specifically to the carbed '66-'67 1600 Spiders, and the '69 with the Spica injected 1750 was simply a 1750 Roundtail Spider (not Duetto). Beautiful car, though, and probably worth every penny if it is what it purports to be.

-Jason

Mr_Shiftright

I think that's so, Jason, but the error persists and will probably become the norm. In a way, calling them all Duetto is more logical.

It's like people calling Jaguars XKEs, which Jaguar never did (E-Type, Puleese!), or 1964 &1/2 Mustangs, which the factory never did, and on and on. Popular nomenclature often defeats historical accuracy and you know, on minor items like this, best to give in.

jaserb

I certainly wouldn't bother correcting someone if they said "hey, nice Duetto." As a potential buyer, though, I'd like to see accuracy in the ad just to help convince me that the seller knows the car well enough that they probably took good care of it. But, as I said - just picking nits, and this one probably doesn't need picking. I don't even think you can tell the difference between a '67 and a '69 without popping the hood and seeing if there are carbs or a Spica system under there.

-Jason

Mr_Shiftright

I'm always shocked at people who advertised their Alfas like this:

For Sale ALPHA ROMEO, rare Italian mini-Ferrari, V-4, 4 speed floorshift.

Don't you just wanna roll your eyes?

lokki

got registered in Idaho as an "Alfie Romeo" Remember the song? "What's it all about, Alfa? Is it just for the moment we run?"

It was great for insurance purposes though... I parked around the corner from the Agent's office and went in to buy insurance. She couldn't find it in the book - no computers in those days? "What kind of car?" "Italian." "How big's the engine?" "It's a 4 cylinder" "Like a Fiat or a volkswagen?" "Yeah"

Bingo. Economy car rates... I finally got the title fixed to be sure I'd be able to sell it later.

revdrluv

What about late 60's 911 (or 912) coupes? They seemed to be priced around 10k.

Mr_Shiftright

Big difference between a 911 and a 912. One is a screaming 6, the other a somewhat anemic 4. Both are fine to own and drive as long as you don't pay the same for both cars. Basically a 912 is a 911 body shell with a 356 engine in it. Also the 911 is upgraded where necessary.

Figure $6,000 is more than enough for a decent 912 and $10K should buy a decent early (pre-69) 911.

One major problem with the 912 is that althought the engine is just a 90HP 4 cylinder, rebuilding it costs more than the price of the entire car, possibly double. So you don't want a 912 without a rebuilt engine receipt in your hands.

revdrluv

From what you know would you say it is easier to maintain the 911 over a 912, or just more worth it?

Mr_Shiftright

I guess I'd say I can't think of any advantage of a 912 over a 911. You may save some pennies on maintenance and gas mileage but it's hardly worth the disadvantage of meagre performance. To make a 912 engine run strong you have to spend a lot of money. These engines are limited in what they can do unless you undergo serious, expert modification at substantial cost.

jrosasmc

I'm just curious: how technically complex and/or advanced was a '76 Cadillac Eldorado convertible? I mean, it had all these power devices and a power top that were virtually uncommon in the '70s.

Mr_Shiftright

I think like most American cars of the time it wasn't technically advanced at all, but it did have some gadgets here and there. It's a pretty frightening car to drive if you don't prepare yourself for 1950s roadability and handling, but it would be fun in a parade or to take kids for ice cream.

rea98d

Everybody seems to rag on '50's cars, but what did people do in the '50's when that was state of the art? Drove 'em at 70 or 80 (or faster) just like we do today. Why can't someone still use a bone stock '55 Chevy as a daily driver if they wanted to, so long as they left plenty of room between them and the guy in front of them?

Mr_Shiftright

Yep, that's the key, to drive the old cars very conservatively.

Sure people drove old cars fast but they died in larger numbers, got car sick and a lot more tired than we do now I think.

ndance

I'll bet that driving habits have changed little by little through the years (slowly enough to escape notice). When I was commuting in the East Bay in an early Z/28 ten years ago or so, I noticed that you really had to be careful on watching distances between cars vs. using the brakes. Avoiding collisions was definitely more hairy than in a GTI.

argent

The 76 Eldorado ragtop was quite gadget-laden by the standards of its day. Fuel injection, electronic ignition (still relatively novel in that era), power windows/mirrors/locks/seats, cruise control, climate control automatic air conditioning, automatic rear level control, Twilight Sentinel automatic headlights, the works. (By that point I think Cadillac had given up their short-lived Max Trac rear anti-lock braking system; interestingly, front airbags were a rare option on all '76 Caddies _except_ the Eldo convertible.) None of that is unusual today, nor was much of it new even in 1976, but when contemplating buying an old car it is a lot of stuff that can break expensively.

Mr_Shiftright

Most didn't have fuel injection, though. It was a $600 option, oddly enough, and not one you really wanted. The '76 I drove a few months ago was carbureted and it ran pretty well. Sucked fuel at an enormous rate, though. They got 190 HP out of 500 cid. As one history book says, and I think quite accurately: "These Cadillacs are likely to be regarded by the historian or old car hobbyist today as a reflection of a great company's decline".

speedshift

My impression from watching clips of traffic scenes in the '50s is that everyone drove like they were in a parade. I wonder if the interstate system turned us into speed demons.

jrosasmc

What was wrong with Cadillac's fuel injection system back in the mid-70s?

jsylvester

Having two cars that have similar market niches in their respective times (67 Galaxie and a 00 Intrepid), I think people drove differently because of several reasons:

The cars were not as enjoyable to drive recklessly or overly fast. Handling, braking, etc. demand a more leasurely pace.

Roads were not nearly as crowded everywhere you went. Sure, some freeways were crowded, but not every freakin' road out there.

People are more preoccupied in the car, from eating, the radio, the cellphone, changing CD's, watching t.v., etc.

And, I think people are just in a big hurry, why I'm not sure.

revdrluv

The scary thing about driving 50's cars are the brakes. Sure they stop OK compared to other 50's cars, but if you are in a 56 ford pick-up and a modern car equipped with 4 wheel disk brakes and ABS really gets on it in front of you, you are going to smash up his rear end.

jrosasmc

Does anybody know how much money the average car owner spends over the useful life of the vehicle in terms of maintenance and repairs?

ghulet

I guess it depends on a bunch of things, including:

1. how long you consider a car's 'useful life' to be, which depends on

2. the car, and the care given by the previous owner(s), if applicable

3. if you fix it yourself of farm out repairs

4. the age of the car (sometimes, when a car reaches a certain age, and you've fixed a lot of things, you might reach a 'smooth sailing' point, at least in theory)

5. the owner--does he fix every little thing on his old car, or let some 'non-essentials' go (is there a point at which you quit repairing the power antenna, or that blown speaker doesn't bother you any more?)

andre1969

...just about any '50's or '60's car with enough horsepower isn't going to be too ponderous to drive at high speeds. It's when you get into back roads, sharp turns, etc, that they become ponderous.

I never had any trouble with my '57 DeSoto or '67 Catalina, or either of my Darts out on the highway. I'm also convinced that the sorry tires they used to put on cars is a good deal of the problem. My Darts had 70-series tires, and were good handlers. My Catalina though, has 215/75/R-14 tires, which is pretty puny for a car like that.

My DeSoto's even worse. It has those old-style bias plys on it, an 8.55x14 or something like that. I think the 8.55 is at the widest part of the tire though, and not what actually touches the pavement. There can't be much more than 5-6" of tread width hitting the pavement! I'm sure the cheapest economy cars nowadays have more than that!

dgraves1

Just for clarification, Andre, metric sizing is based on section width (the widest part) not thread width, also.

andre1969

Wouldn't it make more sense though, for them to measure the width of the tread, instead of the fattest part of the tire? After all, it's the tread that's hitting the pavement.

dgraves1

What, you want logic in tire sizing? Where were you when we had to put up with F78-14 and the like? It's even worse than it sounds. The "215" is a nominal section width on a certain size wheel, in millimeters, but if you look at tirerack's specs, different brand tires of the same size, mounted on identical wheels will have different section widths. If there is any science behind what the numbers mean, it eludes me. I just consider them estimated sizes.

mhansen1

Can anyone suggest what would be a fair price to offer someone for an all original, #1 condition 1984 Camaro Berlinetta with 50K original mileage? It is a V6/5 speed and the owner is interested in selling. I do not know yet what he is asking yet I wonder what I could get away with offering.

ndance

$2800

wq59b

>>"Why can't someone still use a bone stock '55 Chevy as a daily driver if they wanted to?"<<

Of COURSE you could. There are no functional/operational differences between a good-condition '60s car and a modern one. We're not comparing a Pentium 4 to Pong here, people! Or a 1920s car to a modern one, either.

I drove my bone-stock '64 Catalina everywhere & every day (no back-up driver!) for 2 years and 25,000+ miles (1991-93). I put performance radials & a great alignment on her and she handled very nicely. Tuned her myself every fall and she ran like a top; 'starts like a Pontiac' was the coined phrase amoung my buddies (started so quick it would be hard to 'bump the starter').

And the brake thing is often over-exaggerated with the passage of time. SURE some were bad- just like today. Motor Trend got a '02 Camry to do 60-0 in 146', an '02 Civic in 144' and a '99 Legacy in 135 feet. My '64 Pontiac when new with 8-lugs and crap-tires did the same in 145' (Motor Trend again). Add modern rubber for the Pontiac and it'll outbrake the new jobs. My other ride has the best brakes of the '60s: Buick's 12" finned aluminum drums- zero fade. Try when-new 60-0s in 138' (1960)! Add modern rubber and you should knock an EASY 10' off that.

"Whaaaa- but how would I play my Backstreet Boys CDs?? Where's my security blankie of ABS and EFI and SRS? Duh!... everyone knows 3-letter anacronyms make up for all my horribly pre-occupied & self-righteous driving 'skills'!"

andre1969

...would just be getting reaccustomed to the way an older car drives. I never had a problem with my '67 Catalina and the way it handled before, but after getting used to my '00 Intrepid, I'll get behind the wheel, and start thinking "this thing drives like crap!"

It has no road feel and the brakes are overly grabby, and it can't go around corners as quick as the the 'Trep. It'll probably take off quicker though, and to me it's more comfortable, because there's more room to stretch out. Once I get used to it again, though, I'm fine.

As for a stereo, well, it only has an AM radio, so I'd just bring along a boom box if I was going to be in the car for any extended length of time.

The biggest problem with going back to something like this would be the fuel economy. I think I've only gotten below 20 mpg on a tank of fuel in my Intrepid once. With the Catalina, it's more like 10-11, although on a trip to Ocean City, MD, it did get about 18 once.

In some ways, I think older cars are almost easier to pilot around than new ones, because they don't have all the blind spots and hidden corners that new cars have.

And as for performance, it seems like newer cars are really built to only haul around 1 or 2 people. Add more people or cargo, and performance from those high-winding little engines drops off fast. With my older cars, I never noticed much of a performance drop-off, even with a full load. Even the ones with poor acceleration to begin with, a few extra people never hurt.

rea98d

While the part about hidden corners is true (I like to be able to see the end of my car!), my observation is that older cars (at least the two 20+ year-old Mercurys I have) have bigger blind spots than newer ones. The ultra-wide C-pillar (oh heck, let's just call it what it is, a C-panel!) could literally hide a battleship on those two cars. As such features were popular in the '70's, it also explains why we have "opera windows." They weren't there for looks, they were there to let you see into that blind spot. Such wide c-panels would never be allowed on a modern car. Cuts down on visibility too much.

Another thing I never noticed on my '95 Thunderchicken was performance dropping off with more people. Of course, it does have a 200 hp 4.6L engine, which may be small by 1968 standards, but is probably one of the largest engines you can get in a regular passenger car today, so that may have something to do with it. I've never had the (dis)pleasure of driving a 4-cylinder Honda, so I don't know about their driving characteristics.

ndance

The main thing I would [non-permissible content removed] about (been there, done that) brake-wise is if you drive in any kind of serious commute traffic. It's probably nothing you all don't know, but when you're dealing with something like I-80 in the East Bay (SF Bay area), you don't get to choose the distances between cars...slow down too much, somebody cuts in front + the guy in back gets to choose his own distance.

Cascading brake lights are a sure fire cure for non-grey hair in those cases...not just fading problems, but grabbiness and bad front/back distribution.

shill3

I am considering purchasing a mini "granny goes to church car". Basically I'm looking for something different and fun for weekend drives. I'd like to sit four in it, at least for short distances.

I am less concerned with speed than I am with getting an "original" or "stock" vehicle. I've got my Wrangler for adventurous driving (off road anyway).

Any thoughts or horror stories?

Mr_Shiftright

By "mini" you mean you want a rather small, old car that seats four and looks interesting? Is that about it?

huck6

Sorry, should have said Austin/etc. Mini. They seem to be a lot of drivable one around for less than $10,000 (excluding the highly modified). Seems like a bargain for a head-turner.

Mr_Shiftright

They are fun, it's true but they can be rather cranky, no pun intended. Old Minis were not built by BMW so you can imagine a certain amount of patience and pro-active maintenance is essential. If you aren't the type that lifts the hood "just because", an old Mini is probably not a good choice. It would be a deadly choice strictly based on the concept of "cute"

argent

The problem with Minis -- which are adorable and fun to drive -- is that not only do they tend to break, but that while there's an extensive support network for parts and spares, it's almost entirely on the other side of the Atlantic. A friend of mine has a Mini, and when things would fall off (which happened with alarming regularity...minor pieces like the entire exhaust system, and the steering rack) it'd be out of commission for more than a week while she waited for parts to be shipped from England.

Not a good choice for your only vehicle for that reason.

huck6

Sound's like what I expected. However, this will be a weekend kind of car and my hope is to get one that runs and then learn it inside and out.

Frankly, I'd be scared to drive it as a daily due to its small size.

I Would love to eventually "graduate" up to an MG TD. But that is a ways off.

argent

Well, city driving in a Mini (my friend and I live in Los Angeles) is a mixed bag. They get excellent gas mileage, and as long as the engine is in reasonable tune and hasn't been too radically modified (hers had a 1275 engine bored to 1304 ccs) it's perfectly happy with regular gasoline. They're very nimble, and because they're itty-bitty, they're easy to park -- no power steering, but the whole car weighs less than half as much as a Camry, so that's no big deal. And while Minis aren't fast, they can be pretty sprightly. But it's true, you're always conscious of the fact that you're in a tiny little car with all the crash protection of an aluminum soda can, surrounded by oblivious people in SUVs the size of Idaho who may or may not even be able to see you.

My friend's Mini did not help its case by having important suspension and steering pieces abruptly pop off in traffic, nor by its tendency to overheat.