HELP--looking for reliable 50-60s family "classic".
Is to have only 2-5 words in the title, and save the details for the message itself.
As far as a car, My suggestion would be a 57 Chevrolet 210 sedan. It's a lower trim line of the Bel Air, so there's plenty of parts to keep it going. The only real styling differences is that the Bel Air had a gold grille and chrome on the tail fins, while the 210 had a chrome grille and painted tail fins. There were other differences, but those are the only ones a layman will notice, and the car is a lot cheaper than a "real" Bel Air.
As far as a car, My suggestion would be a 57 Chevrolet 210 sedan. It's a lower trim line of the Bel Air, so there's plenty of parts to keep it going. The only real styling differences is that the Bel Air had a gold grille and chrome on the tail fins, while the 210 had a chrome grille and painted tail fins. There were other differences, but those are the only ones a layman will notice, and the car is a lot cheaper than a "real" Bel Air.
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
All Mopars except Imperial went to Unibody construction for 1960 (Imperial joined for '67), so rust damage can be more critical than body-on-frame cars. However, I've seen my fair share of full-frame cars with the rails rusted through. If you want bulletproof reliability though, it doesn't get much better than a Mopar slant six, smallblock or bigblock coupled to a Torqueflite transmission.
Owning an older car has enough hassles, you don't need to be scrounging for parts for the orphan makes, and nothing beats GM cars of the 60s for parts availability and junk cars to use in restoration work. They will also hold their value better than the competitors from that era.
Second choice would be a 60s Jeep Station Wagon (NOT Wagoneer!) or a 60s full size convertible or two door hardtop from GM. You can shop for sedans, since they are the cheapest body style to buy, but they are also not as attractive and will not retain value as well as the other types.
GM had a tendency to change their parts every couple of years. For example, when I needed ball joints for my '67 Catalina, I found out that the only ones that were compatible were '67-68 Pontiacs. Not Chevy, Olds, or Buick. And not a '66 Pontiac, nor a '69.
OTOH, if I need ball joints for my '68 Dart, the ball joints for any '67-76 drum-brake A-body will fit. I know on the disk brake setup, one of the ball joints (can't remember if it's upper or lower) is different.
I agree with Shifty, though, on GM wagons. I may prefer Mopars, but I think GM (Pontiac especially) made some of the best looking wagons in the 60's!
I admit that ragtops cost more from the get-go, but I would prefer to invest money in paint, mechanical stuff, etc in a convertible than a wagon (as an example).
But if you're looking for bang for the buck, then a Buick, Olds or Mercury convertible from the '60s is the way to go. You're actually getting more car (or at least more stuff) than a Chevy or Ford and for less money. You get a Turbo 400 instead of a Powerglide, a 400 CID engine instead of a 283 or 327, better quality interiors and more options.
I've had three four-speed Impalas over the years so I like Chevies but for a relatively low-cost collectible I think the Buick-Olds-Pontiac cars are the way to go.
Just my two cents.
But they're huge. Probably a GM intermediate would be a more practical choice, not a musclecar convertible but something with a small V8. LeMans, Skylark or Cutlass, preferably with the Turbo 350.
Early Fairlanes and Comets don't seem to have caught on with collectors and the 289 is a great, durable engine. A few years ago I saw a mint red-on-red '63 Comet convertible, 260 four speed, buckets and console, for sale for I think $4500 that I thought would make a great fun car for not much money. Back in the day I would have laughed at the car--heck, when I was in high school that was a $500 car--but now it looks like lots of cheap fun.
And the great thing about early Comets is that they're easy to work on because they're crude--no moving parts.
I've always been a big fan of GM A-bodies. They really handle and stop pretty well (even by modern standards), hold a lot of stuff/people, and really 'feel' pretty decent when driven.
Great styling, quality interiors, nice instrument layouts, competant drivetrains, not too big or too small, hundreds of thousands sold and many still around, ready availability of parts and buyers, interesting options, good ride and handling.
The Cutlass convertible is a great choice. It was a big seller and there should be plenty still around. Even a Vista Cruiser would be interesting. That's the wagon with windows in the raised roof over the rear. Maybe the sharpest wagon around except for the Nomad/Safari. You could pack plenty of people into one, especially with the rear seat option.
For a family car I'd go with the 350. The 455 was available on non-442s toward the end and has a lot more torque but I'd be concerned about mpg.
I will say that these convertibles probably aren't for people who demand that their cars feel as solid as a bank vault. I had '65 Tempest and '67 Le Mans convertibles and they felt a little limp even by '60s standards. Maybe the later ones are better.
The GM intermediate hardtops and especially the sedans feel tight and more refined than the competition. Maybe they were designed better or maybe they just had more sound deadening material--they are heavy.
I think my favorites, just going by style, are the '64-67 intermediates. I especially liked the Pontiac and Olds...just something about their styling made them look a lot bigger than they really were.
I wonder if the reason the GM mid-sizers back then felt more solid an refined than the competition had to do with their full-perimeter frames. Chrysler and Ford were using unitized bodies at that time for their intermediates, although I think Ford switched back to full-frame around 1972. From about 1966 to '71, though, the Falcon and Fairlane/Comet/Montego/Torino shared the same platform.
For what it's worth, A body convertibles have different frames than non-convertibles. I imagine there's scads of frame reinforcing gizmos in the aftermarket which would significantly stiffen one of those cars.
They (A-bodies) are all sort of flexi-flyers. On an LS6 Chevelle, for instance, I swear you can see the car twist when really hammered (the car that is). Supposedly, the car twists enough to cause the stock Muncie linkage to bind, although I've never had that happen.
Cars like the Monte Carlo and A-body Grand Prix were on the longer 116" wb (I think the Grand Prix was actually 118-119 for its first few years as an intermediate), but I believe the additional length was all ahead of the firewall. It gave you a nice, long hood, but no more interior room than a Malibu or Tempest coupe.
Are you sure the A-body convertibles actually have a different frame? I've never paid much attention to the A-bodies in particular, but most 'verts, from what I've seen, have an X-member that connects the outer frame rails and cradles the driveshaft, and sometimes a bulkhead that runs under the back seat, connecting the sides of the car. I'd always thought it was the same frame though, just with some reinforcements added.
I guess to a restorer it probably gets hairier yet (oddballs like Z16 for instance).
Maintenance and repairs are cheap, but more frequent. So is insurance. But the biggie is depreciation.
As a 2nd car, you come out further ahead with a collector or older car than having a late model for a 2nd car due to depreciation, (say a 99 Mustang GT Convertible will probably depreciate $1000-$1,500 a year vs. one from the 60's, that hopefully will not), so breaking even financially is all I am hoping for when or if I ever sell.
That said, resale value is attractive (where else can you drive a car for five years, put as many miles as you want on it and come out even or better?). If I were buying a 60s sedan as a second car, I'd probably stick to something kinda basic with plentiful parts supply. Maybe a 67 Impala with a small block, upgraded to HEI and a turbohydramatic (powerglide two-speed=lousy on highway).
Hey andre1969, if you're there: I was in rural Indiana this weekend, drove by a farm (on Route 28, about 20 miles west of Frankfort) with three old mopars: a 68-69 Barracuda CONVERTIBLE, a 68-69 Dart GT coupe and an Aspen coupe (the fastback variety with triangular rear window). The cuda was of course the most intersting.
Hopefully things will turn around.
But, I agree, old cars aren't a good investment as a rule. They go up and down and buyers can be few and far apart.
Potential buyers who lack mechanical skills need to be careful when buying since most shops can't or won't work on old cars.
Make Big Money Owning Old Cars! My father had the right attitude. He drove for pennies per mile by fixing only the things that made the car move--nothing else. None of us here have that kind of hardened self-discipline (or Depression-era cheapness).