I just picked up a triple black 1973 Eldorado CONVERTIBLE in very nice condition for $7,000. I just put some Johnny Cash in the 8 Track and it's back to the '70s. What a crack up. I need to put about $2,000 into the car and except for the 5 foot chrome the car will be [non-permissible content removed].
Cheap, fun, easy to fix and it's the only one like it where ever I go.
(I could stuff a MG in the trunk but there's a body in the way)
Did I mention everything works? Frosty AC, smooth freshly rebuilt 500ci Big Block, fresh tires and brakes, cruise, supple leather on the rare split bench seat... Drool, drool.
to repair an 8-track? My '79 New Yorker has an 8-track player, but it's broken. Actually, the whole radio is screwed. A few years back, somebody grabbed the antenna and bent it backward, so that it almost matched the rake of the windshield. The radio worked for awhile, but then the FM band went out. Then, one day, driving to the Mopar nationals in Carlisle PA, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (the only thing I could find on AM in that particular area) when the antenna finally decided to let go! So now I have nothing.
I thought it would be kinda cool though, to get the 8-track working again. My grandmother and uncle have a bunch of old 8-tracks.
Cool, so for $25 plus shipping, I could get that sucker working again. Well, that plus jamming a wire coat hanger down in the antenna mount, to give the car that broken-in look! :P
I'm thinking about bidding on that 8-track, but just a bit concerned about the seller's feedback. At 88.9% positive, if that was a Consumer Reports rating, the seller would be flirting with "Much Worse Than Average" and get a black circle! :surprise:
BTW, is there any way to test a radio to see if it works, once it's out of the car? Years ago, I pulled the unit out of my '88 LeBaron before selling it for parts. I was going to try fitting it in my '79 Newport. It would physically fit, but the wiring harness was totally different, so I just packed that radio away somewhere and forgot where I put it.
Hemmings Motor News and the internet are your friends, Andre. There are a number of places in there that specialize in repair of old radios, and wiring diagrams can be found on the internet, especially though make-specific forums. Modern factory stereo harnesses can be pretty complicated but those old school ones are pretty simple, there is a wire for each speaker, a key-power and always hot-power and maybe a power antenna lead.
Sure you can easily bench test a radio...you'll need a speaker of course, a 12V source with a ground wire (an old battery will do)and something to act as an antenna---even YOU would make an okay antenna if you could insert a slim metal rod into the antenna hole there and hold onto it.
Yeah the seller did seem a bit flakey, but only on PAYING her bills, not on shipping. So he/she's only 1/2 a deadbeat.
I used to have some GREAT 8-track music. I liked 8 tracks, they would just repeat themselves for eternity if you liked. I still remember how to fix them (easy).
Well I think I'm going to take a chance and bid on that Chrysler 8-track. At least, as long as the bidding doesn't go up too high. Last time I checked there were no bids on it.
My grandmother has a big old 1960's stereo console, probably about as big as those old 25" console tvs that had the big stereo speakers built into each side. It has an 8-track and a record player. I dunno if it still works or not, though. Years ago, my uncle moved the thing out to her enclosed front porch, and now it's just sitting out there with a bunch of old National Geographics piled up on top.
I vaguely remember the 8-track wasn't working right the last time I played with it. I think you had to shove the cartridge in at a slight angle to get it to play.
BTW, why DO they call them 8-tracks? It's been awhile since I've looked at one, but as I recall, the songs were grouped into four bunches, with each bunch usually being 4-5 songs, unless one of them was something long like "Tubular Bells" or "Innagoddadavida". My grandma's 8-track has buttons labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4, to select the track you want, while I think the Chrysler 8-track just has a button you press to jump to the next track.
I was just reading about the advent of four and eight-track 'technology' (strange to use that term now). I'm pretty sure Muntz invented four-track, at least.
My parents are kinda young to have kids our age, so we never had an 8-track in the house or in a vehicle...we had a Sony cassette in the house around 1972. We were one of those families that owned one cheap car, not much furniture, an awful TV, but always had a great stereo. The only 8-track I had was in my '77 Caprice in high school/college; I had no tapes, so my aunt gave me a bunch, in one of those suitcase-type holders; I seem to remember a Motown compilation, Chicago, Led Zeppelin, the Grass Roots maybe? Kinda fun, though probably half of them were eaten in the player then tossed, the rest were sold with the car when I bought an '85 Golf back in 1989 or 90.
the cassette tape start becoming popular? About the earliest I can remember seeing one was maybe when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade, which would put it around 1978-79. I think the first car that anyone in our family had which had a cassette player was probably my stepdad's '81 Escort. I think his '84 Tempo had one too. Then Grandmom & Granddad's '85 LeSabre came with one, my other grandparents' '85 LTD, Mom's '86 Monte Carlo, and every car since then has had either a cassette player or, now, a CD player.
Ironically, I was watching an old episode of "That 70's Show" last night, where it was Eric's birthday. He said that the two things he wanted for his birthday party were a cassette player (NOT an 8-track) for the Vista Cruiser and NO party. Needless to say, his parents got him an 8-track player. And threw him a party. At one point the mother said something like "I don't know why they don't just put record players in cars!" Which, once upon a time, they did...
When my folks took us across country in 1980, they upgraded the AM radio in their '76 Nova to a Pioneer aftermarket unit with AM/FM "supertuner" (i think they are up to "supertuner 4" now) and a cassette deck. I think they had like 5 cassettes, Steve Miller, Wings, Linda Ronstat, Bob Seger and Eagles...for 2200 miles...YIKES.
When I was in high school many moons later, I remember driving that car to school and everytime there was a strong bass hit, you could hear the rust falling off around the back window to the trunk floor.
I have a 1971 Dodge Dart owner's manual packed away somewhere, and, it's been awhile since I've looked at it, but I vaguely recall an option for a cassette player/RECORDER being listed!
They wouldn't have been sophisticated back in 1971 to be able to tape a song directly off the radio, would they? Or would that have most likely been for some kind of dictation device?
My uncle had this thing that you put a cassette tape in and slid the whole thing into the 8track slot. Many years later he teased me about the cassette adapter to use with my portable CD player.
I was shocked, considering I only won the auction on Monday! I haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but the sucker looks almost brand-new. There is one spot though, where it would attach on the right side to the dash of the car, where it looks like the metal tab that has the bolt hole broke off and was welded back on.
The thing had fewer wires that I'd expect for a stereo setup, but then I remembered that around that timeframe, Chrysler would ground their speakers directly to the car body, rather than having a separate ground wire run all the way back to the head unit. I remember when I put new rear speakers in my '79 Newport, I had to run wires from the ground side to the car body to get them to work.
Even though my antenna's still busted, I guess I could still hook the thing up, stick in an 8-track, and see if it plays!
Does anyone remember the incredibly quick Sunbeam Tiger? It was an amalgem of the British Sunbeam Talbot and a 302 Ford engine w/4speed. Drove one in the late 60s' and another in the early 80s. Astonishingly fast acceleration. (though not as quick as a Cobra )
I do remember them...drove a few, one fairly recently. They have long since left the $12,000 bracket though.
It's a fun car but not one I'd want to drive regularly without making some serious modifications. I'd have to figure out how to get more leg room and also how to keep the tremendous waves of heat from coming out of the firewall and transmission tunnel. Then we'd have to do something about the handling...the car is way overpowered for the chassis it is in.
But if you could take care of those things it would be fun to drive. As it is, in stock form, 1/2 an hour is more than enough for me. It's hard work steering a car with the gas pedal, even if it's quick. Its speed is strictly in a straight line.
the Tiger started life with a Ford 260 and 164 bhp. Contemporary road tests give it a top speed of 117 mph, 0-60 in 9.5 and 1/4 mile in 17 seconds. Not bad for 1965.
The testers (Autocar UK) found the car fun to drive but cautioned about driving in wet or slippery conditions, where they experienced violent axle tramp and very nasty fishtailing. Also they had to get used to a very narrow rev range they said, with the engine quickly running out of steam as you got anywhere near 4,700 rpm. This seems to reflect my own experience, that the 260 was not a good breather. They also didn't like the bump-steer. They also enjoyed steering by gas pedal it seems.
They conclude: "the major snag with Tigers, in our experience, is the way they are stuck to the road---or not, as the case may be".
i tried checking wikipedia, but the details are a bit confusing. They mention the 260, but it seemed like those were just 2 prototypes(??). And the production model got the 289. However, it could just be the last gen that got the 289 (something like 500+ cars), while the earlier ones got a 260. Like I said, the writing is pretty confusing. Do you know all the true details?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
You are correct...the early and more plentiful cars got the 4.2L 260 engine and the later cars, 571 of them, got the 4.7L
The car failed financially mostly because it looked just like the wimpy Alpine. There wasn't anything to differentiate it other than the drivetrain. Hence today we consider it an "under-rated" car, and in that sense, it certainly was under-rated in its day.
...the price of gasoline remains high, despite the recent decline to <$4, the number of bargain classics whould increase significantly. It'll be interesting to see whether this actually happens.
Cast my vote for the Datsun 240Z as a bargain collectible. Good looks, good handling, in-line 6 that delivers good power and economy, and good reliability. A real nice version will run anywhere from $6-12K. I have only had mine for a couple of months, but it has been a real hoot so far. I have averaged 23 mpg so far in mixed driving. The only downside is that I have to decide which of my kids gets to ride with Daddy in the "race car", generally I have to wait until one is down for nap time to drive it
Yep, lotta car for the money and pretty trouble-free as well. It's the only "Z" car I ever really like enough to give it a second glance.
During the "crazy years" of speculation it was thought these cars were going to "take off" in price like the Austin Healey 3000 but no---they nudged up a bit and then settled down to the comfortable $8K-12K range for clean drivers.
I don't think I see ANY Z's anymore around these parts, except for every once in awhile at a car show. Now sometimes, I'll see a starched-up final-gen 300ZX. But the older 300ZX and the older 240/260/280Z's seem to have all left the building, so to speak.
I did see a late 70's 280ZX at a car show a couple weeks ago, though. Black with gold trim. Nice shape, but it screamed cold-chains and lots-of-chest hair just as much as any black Trans Am with a gold chicken on the hood ever did. I guess that generation isn't too fondly looked upon these days, though? Still, cool car.
I have to comment on this last one, as the 2002 was not introduced until 1968. This car has a BMW 1600 grill. The 1600 was introduced in 1967. I owned one! (My first car). The seller clearly does not know the car well. I would guess that the injected engine and 5-spd tranny are from a 320i. There is no picture of the wheels, but they sound like stock 320i wheels as well.
He was right about one thing. The 1600 did definitely have a low-ratio (high numerical), rear-end. I don't remember the ratio, but unless the 5-speed has overdrive gearing, that car will hit redline at 99.5 mph. :P
Doubtless a fun car to drive. It would have to be rock-solid, and clean to justify his asking price.
Well they aren't plentiful but yeah, it's not hard to find a clean one for sale SOMEWHERE. I did a quick search on Autotrader and found 3 nice ones out of a list of 8 candidates. And there are a few more in Hemmings Motor News, and more still on Cars-on-Line.com.
So sure, if you look you'll find 'em. Maybe not in your zip code, but the hunt is part of the game, right?
1977 Porsche 911S -- stay away from that car at any price.
Values are determined by supply and demand, of course, but is the main reason the Austin Healey 3000, just to cite an example, commands a higher price than the Datsun 240Z, because the Healey is a convertible, or are there other reasons?
Well truth be known, with one exception, no Japanese car has ever achieved any kind of substantial collector car status.
Aside from the Toyota 2000GT, the occasional Supra Turbo, and the rather new-ish NSX, (the latter two still depreciating BTW) I'd say you could buy any older Japanese car ever made in immaculate condition for well under $20,000 and most of those in the $12,000 and under range.
So YEAH, lotsa bargains in the "interesting car department" in the land of Nippon--the 240Z, the 1600 and 2000 roadsters, the cute little 600s, The Supra turbos, the NSX, the magnificent Mazda RX-7 TT, and for the brave at heart, the fun to drive RX3 and RX4 coupes.
Austin Healeys are rather iconic, beautifully British, drop-tops, and have credible highway performance on modern roads with their electric overdrives and torquey Big Six, so what's not to like? The fact that they are almost laughably primitive and somewhat ornery is hardly the point for the British classic car lover.
Total production of all forms of the 3000 models from 1959 to 1967 is just over 40,000 cars, as opposed to roughly 150,000 of the 240Z.
And look at the porky 280ZX, punching out over 600,000 cars in 4 years.
I don't think that car will hold its value in the future because of current legal imports coming in from Japan. It'll suffer like the old BMW M cars did from the 80s---as soon as we got USA "Ms", that was it for the old cars.
I think these are over-looked, mostly because of the big bumpers... but, this is essentially the same car as the 240Z with a more powerful engine and a 5-speed... (not the '79+ 280ZX... that was a pig)..
If I were looking for one, that might be the way to go... As noted, they aren't really going to appreciate in value, anyway..
A friend of mine had a Austin Healey 3000, which I rode in numerous times, and drove a couple of times, so I understand the appeal of this car very well. Its styling is timeless, and beautiful, the engine produces a beautiful sound, and it's a joy to ride in and drive.
Although I never even rode in a 240Z, my perception is that it's got a lot of positives going for it, and considering its period in history, few negatives. From your explanation, Shifty, it would seem that the much higher production numbers of the 240Z may be the primary reason for the Healey's higher value compared to the Datsun. Also, as we both noted, the Healey was a drop top, but that may be second in importance to the greater supply of 240s.
A possible caveat to the supply factor is that I think a significantly higher percentage of 240Zs were modified and neglected than Healey 3000s, but I have no figures to support this notion. If that were true, however, it would mitigate the greater supply explanation. Do you have any thoughts on this?
While modern sports cars have some great attributes, the dynamics, feel, and experience of those older cars is unique, and totally different from that of the older ones. Today's retro cars don't even come close to duplicating the experience of the older ones.
The 240Z was an incredible bargain when it came out. I can still recall the "buzz" about that, and articles in 1970 auto magazines will verify. The car was fast, handled well, was of very high quality, and all for a ridiculously low price. I think the 1970 240Z felt like it was built in 1985, and the 1960 Austin Healey 3000 felt like it was built in 1935.
Nonetheless, it's wasn't easy for a Japanese car to win the hearts and minds of enthusiasts who in 1970 were weened on British cars, Ferraris and Mopar muscle. "Datsun" still meant small and cheap in 1970, and there was still prejudice against Japanese imports back then.
Still I don't know why the 240Z is as cheap as it is, given that even the ugliest E-Type Coupe 2+2 is worth more, as is a beater '69 Chevelle.
You'd think a 240Z would price out with a Porsche 911 of the same era (6 cylinder, coupe, etc.).
I suppose "heritage" comes into play here, in a big way.
I pretty much agree with your comments regarding the '77-'78 280Z.
The subsequent 280s, especially the 2+2s, were more like Japanese Thunderbirds, and while, except for styling cues, they were very different from their predecessors, I must say that I like them too. One of my cars is a '88 300 ZX, which is an evolution of the '79-'83 280Z, and it's been a very satisfying car to own, albeit in a different way than the 240s, 260s, and early 280s. One of its charms for me now is that it's old, and you don't see even the '84-'89 generation every day. I get a lot of comments and questions, from people who've owned one or more, or know what it is, and from those who don't.
Incidentally, the '84-'89 generation was the most popular Z, in terms of sales, by a wide margin. So, while they're little more than used cars now - and some might think that even that is generous - they had their fans back in the day.
To cut Datsun/Nissan some slack, most of the negatives of the post 240Z were due to the same government mandated safety and emissions regulations that affected all cars from this period. While some manufacturers coped better than others, its hard to identify a model that didn't become increasingly bigger and/or heavier, slower and less fuel efficient, less nimble, and, in many cases, less attractive, after '72.
I'd say you could buy any older Japanese car ever made in immaculate condition for well under $20,000 and most of those in the $12,000 and under range.
Maybe in Japan you could get that kind of money but not here. Nobody in America wants to pay big bucks for a car that you have to constantly explain to everyone.
Hmmmm... well, it may affect the prices, but I don't think by much. If I'm not mistaken, those cars still go for half the price of a new GT-R. Not to mention the very limited production of the new GTR. Unless Nissan decides to make much more of them and they become decent deals used, THEN maybe those older grey market cars will suffer.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Comments
Cheap, fun, easy to fix and it's the only one like it where ever I go.
(I could stuff a MG in the trunk but there's a body in the way)
Did I mention everything works? Frosty AC, smooth freshly rebuilt 500ci Big Block, fresh tires and brakes, cruise, supple leather on the rare split bench seat... Drool, drool.
I thought it would be kinda cool though, to get the 8-track working again. My grandmother and uncle have a bunch of old 8-tracks.
Late 70s Chysler 8-Track
james
I'm thinking about bidding on that 8-track, but just a bit concerned about the seller's feedback. At 88.9% positive, if that was a Consumer Reports rating, the seller would be flirting with "Much Worse Than Average" and get a black circle! :surprise:
BTW, is there any way to test a radio to see if it works, once it's out of the car? Years ago, I pulled the unit out of my '88 LeBaron before selling it for parts. I was going to try fitting it in my '79 Newport. It would physically fit, but the wiring harness was totally different, so I just packed that radio away somewhere and forgot where I put it.
Modern factory stereo harnesses can be pretty complicated but those old school ones are pretty simple, there is a wire for each speaker, a key-power and always hot-power and maybe a power antenna lead.
Yeah the seller did seem a bit flakey, but only on PAYING her bills, not on shipping. So he/she's only 1/2 a deadbeat.
I'm set! (except for the Shirley Temple and the Jim Neighbors tapes)
Look out Guido, I have your car!
What, you don't have The Carpenters?
My grandmother has a big old 1960's stereo console, probably about as big as those old 25" console tvs that had the big stereo speakers built into each side. It has an 8-track and a record player. I dunno if it still works or not, though. Years ago, my uncle moved the thing out to her enclosed front porch, and now it's just sitting out there with a bunch of old National Geographics piled up on top.
I vaguely remember the 8-track wasn't working right the last time I played with it. I think you had to shove the cartridge in at a slight angle to get it to play.
BTW, why DO they call them 8-tracks? It's been awhile since I've looked at one, but as I recall, the songs were grouped into four bunches, with each bunch usually being 4-5 songs, unless one of them was something long like "Tubular Bells" or "Innagoddadavida". My grandma's 8-track has buttons labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4, to select the track you want, while I think the Chrysler 8-track just has a button you press to jump to the next track.
Shouldn't it be called a "4-track", then?
Ever had one decide to come apart while playing it. I remember pulling gobs of tape out of my player hopeing it wouldn't just break in there.
My first tape deck was a FOUR track! Made by Muntz. I remember my first tape was a Mama's and Papa's.
Gawd am I old!
My parents are kinda young to have kids our age, so we never had an 8-track in the house or in a vehicle...we had a Sony cassette in the house around 1972. We were one of those families that owned one cheap car, not much furniture, an awful TV, but always had a great stereo. The only 8-track I had was in my '77 Caprice in high school/college; I had no tapes, so my aunt gave me a bunch, in one of those suitcase-type holders; I seem to remember a Motown compilation, Chicago, Led Zeppelin, the Grass Roots maybe? Kinda fun, though probably half of them were eaten in the player then tossed, the rest were sold with the car when I bought an '85 Golf back in 1989 or 90.
Ironically, I was watching an old episode of "That 70's Show" last night, where it was Eric's birthday. He said that the two things he wanted for his birthday party were a cassette player (NOT an 8-track) for the Vista Cruiser and NO party. Needless to say, his parents got him an 8-track player. And threw him a party. At one point the mother said something like "I don't know why they don't just put record players in cars!" Which, once upon a time, they did...
I think they had like 5 cassettes, Steve Miller, Wings, Linda Ronstat, Bob Seger and Eagles...for 2200 miles...YIKES.
When I was in high school many moons later, I remember driving that car to school and everytime there was a strong bass hit, you could hear the rust falling off around the back window to the trunk floor.
They wouldn't have been sophisticated back in 1971 to be able to tape a song directly off the radio, would they? Or would that have most likely been for some kind of dictation device?
They made two different types. The cheap ones had a one record slot that loaded like a modern CD player.
The better ones were a chrome box that you could put (I think)five or six 45's in. They loaded from the bottom.
I remember the needle looked like a roofing nail! They wore the records out quickly and if you hit a bump, the needle would skate all over the record.
Very primitive but oh so cool when you played it through your Vibrasonic unit!
The thing had fewer wires that I'd expect for a stereo setup, but then I remembered that around that timeframe, Chrysler would ground their speakers directly to the car body, rather than having a separate ground wire run all the way back to the head unit. I remember when I put new rear speakers in my '79 Newport, I had to run wires from the ground side to the car body to get them to work.
Even though my antenna's still busted, I guess I could still hook the thing up, stick in an 8-track, and see if it plays!
)
It's a fun car but not one I'd want to drive regularly without making some serious modifications. I'd have to figure out how to get more leg room and also how to keep the tremendous waves of heat from coming out of the firewall and transmission tunnel. Then we'd have to do something about the handling...the car is way overpowered for the chassis it is in.
But if you could take care of those things it would be fun to drive. As it is, in stock form, 1/2 an hour is more than enough for me. It's hard work steering a car with the gas pedal, even if it's quick. Its speed is strictly in a straight line.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The testers (Autocar UK) found the car fun to drive but cautioned about driving in wet or slippery conditions, where they experienced violent axle tramp and very nasty fishtailing. Also they had to get used to a very narrow rev range they said, with the engine quickly running out of steam as you got anywhere near 4,700 rpm. This seems to reflect my own experience, that the 260 was not a good breather. They also didn't like the bump-steer. They also enjoyed steering by gas pedal it seems.
They conclude: "the major snag with Tigers, in our experience, is the way they are stuck to the road---or not, as the case may be".
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The car failed financially mostly because it looked just like the wimpy Alpine. There wasn't anything to differentiate it other than the drivetrain. Hence today we consider it an "under-rated" car, and in that sense, it certainly was under-rated in its day.
Cast my vote for the Datsun 240Z as a bargain collectible. Good looks, good handling, in-line 6 that delivers good power and economy, and good reliability. A real nice version will run anywhere from $6-12K. I have only had mine for a couple of months, but it has been a real hoot so far. I have averaged 23 mpg so far in mixed driving. The only downside is that I have to decide which of my kids gets to ride with Daddy in the "race car", generally I have to wait until one is down for nap time to drive it
During the "crazy years" of speculation it was thought these cars were going to "take off" in price like the Austin Healey 3000 but no---they nudged up a bit and then settled down to the comfortable $8K-12K range for clean drivers.
I would think that every single 240Z was completely rusted away by now, unless it's undergone a complete restoration..
I'm not arguing about the value... Probably the only old car that I could see myself owning..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I did see a late 70's 280ZX at a car show a couple weeks ago, though. Black with gold trim. Nice shape, but it screamed cold-chains and lots-of-chest hair just as much as any black Trans Am with a gold chicken on the hood ever did. I guess that generation isn't too fondly looked upon these days, though? Still, cool car.
'74 Porsche 914, 2.0
a somewhat faster Porsche: 1977 911 S
1972 Datsun 240 Z
same price: 1971 Datsun 240z
RHD Mini Cooper
another: BRG
1967 BMW 2002?
I have to comment on this last one, as the 2002 was not introduced until 1968. This car has a BMW 1600 grill. The 1600 was introduced in 1967. I owned one! (My first car). The seller clearly does not know the car well. I would guess that the injected engine and 5-spd tranny are from a 320i. There is no picture of the wheels, but they sound like stock 320i wheels as well.
He was right about one thing. The 1600 did definitely have a low-ratio (high numerical), rear-end. I don't remember the ratio, but unless the 5-speed has overdrive gearing, that car will hit redline at 99.5 mph. :P
Doubtless a fun car to drive. It would have to be rock-solid, and clean to justify his asking price.
So sure, if you look you'll find 'em. Maybe not in your zip code, but the hunt is part of the game, right?
1977 Porsche 911S -- stay away from that car at any price.
Aside from the Toyota 2000GT, the occasional Supra Turbo, and the rather new-ish NSX, (the latter two still depreciating BTW) I'd say you could buy any older Japanese car ever made in immaculate condition for well under $20,000 and most of those in the $12,000 and under range.
So YEAH, lotsa bargains in the "interesting car department" in the land of Nippon--the 240Z, the 1600 and 2000 roadsters, the cute little 600s, The Supra turbos, the NSX, the magnificent Mazda RX-7 TT, and for the brave at heart, the fun to drive RX3 and RX4 coupes.
Austin Healeys are rather iconic, beautifully British, drop-tops, and have credible highway performance on modern roads with their electric overdrives and torquey Big Six, so what's not to like? The fact that they are almost laughably primitive and somewhat ornery is hardly the point for the British classic car lover.
Total production of all forms of the 3000 models from 1959 to 1967 is just over 40,000 cars, as opposed to roughly 150,000 of the 240Z.
And look at the porky 280ZX, punching out over 600,000 cars in 4 years.
although all are, i suppose, considered gray market.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
If I were looking for one, that might be the way to go... As noted, they aren't really going to appreciate in value, anyway..
just my $0.02
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Although I never even rode in a 240Z, my perception is that it's got a lot of positives going for it, and considering its period in history, few negatives. From your explanation, Shifty, it would seem that the much higher production numbers of the 240Z may be the primary reason for the Healey's higher value compared to the Datsun. Also, as we both noted, the Healey was a drop top, but that may be second in importance to the greater supply of 240s.
A possible caveat to the supply factor is that I think a significantly higher percentage of 240Zs were modified and neglected than Healey 3000s, but I have no figures to support this notion. If that were true, however, it would mitigate the greater supply explanation. Do you have any thoughts on this?
While modern sports cars have some great attributes, the dynamics, feel, and experience of those older cars is unique, and totally different from that of the older ones. Today's retro cars don't even come close to duplicating the experience of the older ones.
Nonetheless, it's wasn't easy for a Japanese car to win the hearts and minds of enthusiasts who in 1970 were weened on British cars, Ferraris and Mopar muscle. "Datsun" still meant small and cheap in 1970, and there was still prejudice against Japanese imports back then.
Still I don't know why the 240Z is as cheap as it is, given that even the ugliest E-Type Coupe 2+2 is worth more, as is a beater '69 Chevelle.
You'd think a 240Z would price out with a Porsche 911 of the same era (6 cylinder, coupe, etc.).
I suppose "heritage" comes into play here, in a big way.
The subsequent 280s, especially the 2+2s, were more like Japanese Thunderbirds, and while, except for styling cues, they were very different from their predecessors, I must say that I like them too. One of my cars is a '88 300 ZX, which is an evolution of the '79-'83 280Z, and it's been a very satisfying car to own, albeit in a different way than the 240s, 260s, and early 280s. One of its charms for me now is that it's old, and you don't see even the '84-'89 generation every day. I get a lot of comments and questions, from people who've owned one or more, or know what it is, and from those who don't.
Incidentally, the '84-'89 generation was the most popular Z, in terms of sales, by a wide margin. So, while they're little more than used cars now - and some might think that even that is generous - they had their fans back in the day.
To cut Datsun/Nissan some slack, most of the negatives of the post 240Z were due to the same government mandated safety and emissions regulations that affected all cars from this period. While some manufacturers coped better than others, its hard to identify a model that didn't become increasingly bigger and/or heavier, slower and less fuel efficient, less nimble, and, in many cases, less attractive, after '72.
Ah, yes, heritage. Good point!
Not this one.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S