Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Bargain "Classics"--$12,000 or Less and 20 Years or Older
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The car is just too weird for most collectors. I suppose you can get good money for a Mazda Cosmo or a Toyota Cedric but man oh man we are talking a wafer-thin niche market here.
Sure, I always had a thing for cars, but it wasn't until I was a teenager that I actually obssessed about what I wanted to "own." I didn't become a teenager until the late '80s. Unfortunately, we all know how the new car market was in those days. So, like many young folks at that time, I was all about 4x4s. It really wasn't until the early '90s that I started seeing cars I truly lusted after (mostly the Japanese supercars).
'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
It's hard enough getting $12,000 for an old Japanese car, much less $50,000 and up.
That actually brings up an interesting question in my mind. Would any Japanese car from the '70s or '60s even pull the kind of money that American muscle from that period does these days?
'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
Another question - if you drove around in '72 MGB or a '72 240ZX, which would garner more attention? I'll go ahead and answer because I've had versions of both - almost nobody cares about the Z car. Little boys to old ladies and everybody in between admire and ask about the MGB. I would think a Skyline would come in behind even the Z in this competition.
Nah, aside from the Toyota 2000GT there's no Japanese car I can think of that brings the kind of money that specialized American muscle does.
Of course if you mean run of the mill (yet another) 69 Chevelle small block, well sure, a nice 240Z might match that.
Frankly, my answer is "I don't care."
If I worried what others thought of my car, I'd be driving a bimmer like everyone else in my state. ;P
The skyline is tough. While it may not get the attention of the general unknowing public, it certainly would get alot more cat calls from those in the know.
'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
That being said, the reverse doesn't really seem to always true. For example, DeLoreans get tons of attention, but they don't bring in much more money than a old Z car. So there has to be more than just common appeal, but if you don't have at least that going for your car you are treading on thin ice.
All the rest are just "nice old cars". And nice old cars are good enough for me :P
These emotions are tempered, of course, by more technological savvy when we get older. That's what keeps us from buying Bricklins, DeLoreans, Saab Sonnets, and Opel GTs (my favorite as a kid). Personally, I would by a nice 240Z before I would buy a 70's disco vette. But some people grew up loving those vettes - to each his own.
The other thing, especially seeing previous posts from some of you regulars, is everyone has their car fetishes (right Fintail and Andre?). For me, beside some "normal cars," I love full size jeeps and, yes, Opel GTs. It's nice when you can spend just a couple grand to buy one - then when the honeymoon ends (quickly) to don't lose too much scratch.
Sure, the passing of 60s car collectors will affect the collections of the future, although it is my impression that today's 40 year olds are still interested in muscle cars, so we have a couple of decades before they lose their influence on the market.
I
Not that I don't drool over vintage Ferraris and prewar open MB and the like...but other cars have redeeming qualities too.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX- %3AIT&viewitem=&item=250302331718
I'd say if you want one of these, either one seems like a pretty good example of the type. Just don't put any money into them.
I
I'd rate most old cars' desirability as:
classic (top tier -- great cars, big prices, everybody wants one)
collectible (second tier -- cars that are too common or too young but desirable)
special interest (third tier-- entry level old cars, too new old cars)
curiosities (like old farm trucks, fire engines, et)
And I'd put the '65 Olds 98 as a special interest car, which is a way of saying "entry level old cars that somebody might want".
You probably won't find Olds 98 clubs around the country, if anywhere, in other words.
So what I'm saying is that just about ANY special interest car can be had for less that $12,000....or $6,000 for that matter.
As for getting in and out of the car, I don't know how it would compare, but I don't think the back seat of my '67 Catalina convertible is hard to get in and out of. Heck, with the top and windows down, your buddies can just jump in and out (although I'd have to hurt anyone who did that to my car :surprise: )
Of course, a convertible anything is going to cost much more than its 4-door counterpart, and over the long run will probably be more troublesome (more prone to leaks and rattles, more to go wrong with it, etc)
I always liked 4-door hardtops, too. We saw this nice '72 Cutlass 4-door hardtop for sale at Carlisle for $3995 asking. It was sort of a medium blue metallic with a matching blue interior. Pretty ritzy inside, too. cloth seats, with cloth and carpeting on the door panels. Much more upscale than the plain vinyl slabs and exposed metal you'd often find in midsized cars back then. It did have a little rust that was just starting to come through around the rear quarters, and the paint was flaking a bit on the hood. I know the coupes and convertibles are much more desireable, but I thought this thing was pretty cool.
Not an easy job.
Yeah, I can imagine! I had a '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop that seemed pretty solid to me at the time. But I also got rid of that thing 13 years ago, and, well you know how things aren't always as good as we remember them to be! I also might have been willing to put up with more back then than I am now.
FRICKIN AWESOME!!!
The one nice thing about the yellow 98 on ebay is the Sport Disc wheels which are fairly rare and not very easy to find. They were available for only a few years - 1963 to 1965, give or take. Normally, I love these wheels and they look great on a 2-door like a Starfire. And, I've even seen them look very sweet on a '65 Olds 98 convertible I almost bought several years ago. But, on this 4-door sedan, the look is downright goofy. The "sportiness" of the wheels are counter to the reserved/conservative nature of the 4-door LS model.
Supposedly you could get a 170 hp 350-4bbl in 1978 and 1979, although I don't think it was listed in the sales brochure. I believe it had to be special-ordered. With that setup, they were probably pretty quick. There was also a 305-4bbl offered in 1979 that put out 160 hp...probably not too bad. I think it got choked down to 145-150 hp for 1980-83 though.
Another similar car that I always thought was good looking was the 1981 Pontiac LeMans coupe. That year it had quad headlights and a sloped front-end that was faintly reminiscent of a 1977-78 Trans Am. The '78-80 LeMans had, IMO, a somewhat bulky, clumsily-styled front-end that looked a bit too much like an Olds to me. But still, overall, the coupe had nice lines. I liked the way the beltine on the LeMans kicked up at the rear quarter window, in contrast to being level on the Malibu.
I think those '78-81 Malibus are collectible to a degree, because of the very things you mentioned. Full-frame, decent looks for the time, and real easy to put in a big-block. Or even just a hopped-up smallblock. Around these parts, people have been rodding them for years. Heck, if my old '80 is still out there, I wouldn't be surprised if it was hopped up by now!
It's more in the spirit of the original "hot rod" scene, where kids took basically mundane cars, stripped off the chrome, frenched the headlights, raked the suspension, added power, loud exhaust, etc.
So I agree, this is all a plausible argument even if it doesn't really define a "classic". More like a hobby car.
Overall though, I think I prefer the look of the formal roof. That 6-window roof just seems too big for the overall proportions of the car, IMO, like it really belongs on something Caprice-sized. Ditto the 2000 Avalon! At least the Avalon had roll-down rear windows, though!
Supposedly those flip-out vent windows did provide good ventilation. GM claimed that the flip out vent actually gave better airflow than if they had made the door window roll down. But still, having a stationary window in a 4-door sedan just screams of cost-cutting!
That sounds like a good term to call it. I always called that back window in the door a spacer window.
I even get irked at rear windows that don't roll all the way down.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of those either, but got used to them, I guess. What I really hate though, is when a car has a "soft pillar" / "spacer window" and yet they STILL can't get the back window to roll down all the way! :mad: It wouldn't stop me from buying a car that had that infliction, but I'd still gripe about it!
The back windows in my grandmother's '85 LeSabre went down about half way, and in my '79 Newport about 3/4. In my '79 New Yorkers, the windows go down all the way, but they're also really small. I think one of the worst offenders might have been the 1992-99 Bonneville. I think the back windows on that car only went down about 1/3 of the way, despite having the spacer window!
I was always impressed with some of those 4-door hardtops that had low beltines and big windows, that could still get them down all the way. Cars like the big 1971-76 GM hardtops, or the '74-78 Newport and NYer. In the GM cars, there is a little triangular wedge that sticks up, but as big as those windows are, I'm still impressed!
I can't believe that didn't hurt sales, and it really does scream cheap.
I do recall reading that GM was a bit disappointed with the sales, in general, of their downsized midsized cars. They did sell well for the most part, but they weren't the home run that the downsized big cars had been the year before. And the big sellers were the personal luxury coupes...Cutlass Supreme, Regal, Monte Carlo, and Grand Prix. The clunky Olds and Buick "aeroback" models sold very poorly, but once the sedans were revised for 1980, sales took off. The Malibu was a good seller in 1978-79, but I don't think it really did much better than the 1977 model. The LeMans ran off around 120K units in 1978 and 136K for 1979...better than the 96K for '76 and 81K for '77, but still not a home run.
I guess by the time these downsized GM cars came out, people were learning to stay away from Aspens and Volares, so people might have been willing to deal with a window that didn't roll down in exchange for a car that was more likely to start and less likely to crack a torsion bar or rust out! The Fairmont/Zephyr came out the same year as GM's downsized cars, and they were wildly popular that first year. But I believe they were also plagued with recalls. Also, while they were about the same length as GM's new midsized cars, they were still classed as compacts, and priced at a lower point, so they may not have been considered direct competition. The GM cars were heavier, roomier, and more substantial.
Mine was an '85 Monte Carlo with the 4.3 Chevy V6, basically the engine that became the Vortec for the truck line. Far rougher than hers, it nonetheless had plenty of power and got superior fuel economy. Where hers had many niggling faults, mine was in immaculate shape. I bought it with 50k on it, and sold it three years later at 124k, having spent almost nothing on it in the interim aside from brakes, tires, and belts. On the other hand, the seats (bench again) weren't nearly as supportive, and it was even more of a strippo model--at least hers had a (non-working) clock! Even with the modest 4.3 under the hood, the brakes and suspension were barely up to the task.
Would I go back to either one? Not without serious suspension upgrades, a set of Recaros, and a V8!
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing what $12k could do to upgrade a Ford Fairmont, if there are any left. The Fairmont had about the same space as the A-bodies, but it used a much lighter unibody--the "Fox" platform shared with the Mustang, as well as T-birds and various other Fords of the era. Most of the components from a Mustang 5.0 should fit. What a sleeper--especially in Fairmont Squire wagon trim!
In all the period family cars I can remember, the back windows never went all the way down. I can remember the Ciera, Tempo, and a couple Taurus anyway.
I suspect that Bonneville isn't a paragon of good design :sick:
When I was in HS, one of my buddies had a Zepher (the L-M version) with a 5.0. One of my other buddies was a Mustang guy and started getting the other kid bolt ons for the wagon. I think it had like 185/75R14s and it could light them up indefinitely.
The family I used to babysit for had a Fairmont with the Kent 4 cylinder in the Pinto (I think their other car was a Capri with the same engine). He kept talking about what a great car it was, if a lil slow.
There was one ergonomic absurdity, though: the horn button was on the end of the turn signal stalk, right where the cruise control would've been in a GM car of the same vintage. Since I practiced a fair amount on my folks' old Cadillac Seville, you can imagine the next frame in the movie. . .
At one point they had a Olds Cierra. First time I rode in it I'm in the back seat and there are no window handles. At think that was the first time they noticed the windows in the back didn't go down!
My great sleeper car was between junior and senior years in high school. My dad bought a 56 Fairlane that had a Thunderbird V-8 in it. This was 1968 so it was a cheap car and the paint had faded considerably but it flew and was a great car for my age. I think dad thought I liled it too much... He sold it when school started back in.
Can't complain though. In addition to having fun with that car it only took him a month or so to realize that we needed the third car. He traded a $250 dishwaher for a 54 Mercedes 300B Adenauer. Four on the tree. I loved that thing.
I had a 79 Monte Carlo. What a piece. Nothing sealed right. Rain meant window leaks. Pavement meant engine and tranny gasket leaks. No fond memories here either.
I also was the unfortunate owner of a mid 80's Ciera. May have been the worst piece of crap I ever owned. Totally unreliable. I finally wised up and took the bath dumping it early. Much more and I might have paid someone to take it since even if you left the keys in it, no one was dumb enough to steal it!
Too bad. He'd have been doing us a favor.
My uncle had a Fairmont wagon...I remember when I was a little kid he lost control of it, drove it off an embankment and through a field, where he was finally stopped by a thick hedgerow. I remember looking at the wrecked car in amazement.
Speaking of the junky Ciera, we had one of those too. I remember it seemed pretty plush to my young eyes, and I am pretty sure the back windows went down. I remember this car had pimpy wire wheel hubcaps that always rattled, and when it was a couple years old it developed a rough idle. It was replaced by a Taurus, bought upon recommendation of the Fairmont-crashing uncle who had a very early Taurus, complete with hubcaps.