1967 Grand Prix convertible - opinions sought

2»

Comments

  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Here's a couple of links that'll show you visual differences between the '67 Grand Prix and Catalina.


    1967 Grand Prix http://classicalpontiac.com/articles/99poci/c5.html


    1967 Catalina http://www.cars-on-line.com/67cat2418.html

  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    My guess is that the dealer told your neighbor that so he could unload the car--not that these things happen ;-).

    BTW both cars are four speeds. That's one of the neat things about old Pontiacs. How many four speed full size Buicks and Olds are there? Or even Impala SSs? The correct engine for the '67 Catalina would be a 400 or 428--the 421's last year was '66.

    Andre, does the GP's grille remind you of the '69-70 fuselage Chrysler (without the beak)?

    No, no AC with the Super Duty, just like no AC with the Ramchargers or Thunderbolts. But the Pontiac did come standard with its frame drilled with lightening holes.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...I never thought of it before, but now that you bring it up, I see a strong Mopar resemblance to the GP's grille. Well, since the GP came first, I guess I'd have to say the '69-70 Chryslers have a GP influence ;-)

    I never was too crazy about the fuselage-styled Mopars, but the Chrysler models with the hidden headlights weren't too bad. I'd never swap my '67 for one, though!
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    I have to say I like the front end of the GP better that the Catalina, but never been a fan of fender skirts. I think I would be more into the 2+2, but the GP is a conversation piece that parts would be a snap to get. Having never seen one in person, I really probably can't judge.

    I started out wanting a GTO, prices were in the atmosphere. Then I nearly bought a Canadian Pontiac before the Galaxie, but the price and it's relatively oddity made me hesitate. Pontiac's are my favorite GM's from the 60's, they were just a little more than I wanted to spend on my first "classic" car. My first car was a 69 Catalina, so maybe a little nostalga was in play as well.

    Also liked the Imperial and 300 convertibles from that time frame, but they were too long to fit in my middle-class garage. An Imperial is nearly indestructible, built to high standards, and not too expensive today if a land yacht is appealing. They might be too big, to tell the truth. Odd how a Dart convertible sometimes goes for more.

    It is a great hobby, and I enjoy my old car more than the Miata I had. Something about being able to take a group of friends with you appeals to me (though we will all be sweating, as discussed previously). That, and a 60's cruiser translates well to the traffic patterns of today.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    Yes, A/C was definatly an option on that 428!

    Speedshift, are you sure about the 64 Catalina 2+2 engine? I would have been willing to bet that all of those had the 421 in them.

    But, I sure could be wrong.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    A few months ago, I found some old road tests of some '60's Pontiacs online. Wish I could remember the url though! I do remember them testing a 2+2, and for some reason, I want to say it only had a 389. I'd imagine the vast majority of 'em had the big engine, but maybe they ran a few with 389's?


    One of the websites I remember checking out was www.pontiacserver.com, which has tons of stuff on it.


    Oh yeah, if anyone's interested, I finally posted a few pics of my '67 Catalina online. http://briefcase.yahoo.com/andre_1969 . There's a few folders in there...one for my DeSoto, one for the NY'er, and one for the Catalina. Just don't laugh to hard at the dorky looking 20 year-old standing beside the '57 DeSoto with the two old folks ;-)

  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Funny you should mention people borrowing your convertible. My sister owns an insurance agency, and wants to use my convertible for the 4th or July parade. Hey, if I can get $50-$100 for it plus gas, maybe.

    No wedding requests yet, but I would use it for mine, if that ever happens.
  • badgerpaulbadgerpaul Member Posts: 219
    Here's a link to that article;

    http://www.pontiacserver.com/
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...yup, that was the article. My memory was playing tricks on me though. The Catalina 2+2 they tested was a 1965 with a 421, but it was a low-output 338 hp version with a 10.5:1 compression ratio. They mentioned a 356 hp version with a 10.75:1 compression ratio, and a HO model with a tri-carb, and 376 hp.

    There was also a Bonneville test, with a 325-horse 389. 10.5:1 compression ratio, 4-bbl carb. I'm actually surprised that the 421 doesn't have more hp, though. If they can get 325 hp from a 389-4bbl with 10.5:1 compression, shouldn't a 421-4bbl with the same compression ratio do better than 338? However, the 421 had about 30 ft-lb more of torque (459 versus 429) so I'm sure that helped a lot.

    BTW, if anybody wants to see these tests, there isn't a direct URL link. But if you go to www.pontiacserver.com, click on "classic road tests" on the LH side, and then there are a few cars highlighted under "1965 Motortrend Car of the Year"
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,628
    In the 1964 debut, the 2+2 was a trim option, not a separate series, as was the case in 65-67. My copy of 'The Standard Catalog of American Cars' mentions that the 421 was standard in 65-67, but makes no mention of it for the 1964 model. I don't think you'll find too many 2+2s with the standard 389 2v, but I imagine there are a few around (plus for rarity, minus for the engine itself).
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Here's another rather brief blurb about the '65 2+2. This excerpt is from Car Collector Magazine (to which I'm a subscriber) and this was 3-4 page article with some nice photos.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Guess I forgot to include the website address for the 65 2+2 write-up I mentioned in the post above.


    Sorry. Here it is.


    http://www.carcollector.com/cover_detail.cfm?StoryID=1624

  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Anyone know if there are reference books specifically for Grand Prix's? There are books out the wah-zoo for GTO's, Thunderbirds, Mustangs, etc. - many of which I own ;-) so I'm not being negative on those particular models.

    Obviously, the GP is not in the same league as these more popular models so any books that are on the market would be few in number. I suspect a generic book on Pontiacs is about as specific as it gets. But, I thought you folks might have some ideas.

    Thanks.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...a reference book somewhere. I've got a reference book that's put out by Consumer Guide that covers all of GM's history, from the dawn of time through 1986, but nothing that's more Pontiac-specific. It's broken out by model year, and for the most part, isn't going to say much more than a sentence or two, or at best a paragraph, about any particular-year Grand Prix. I also have an auto encyclopedia put out by the same people, that covers everything American from 1939-89, and also lists engines, hp, borexstroke, base price, base weight, and production figures.

    Only thing I can think of is try a really big book store like Borders, or maybe go online to Amazon.com or something, search for "Pontiac" or "Grand Prix" and see what happens.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    In order to inflate their perceived value, owners of '67 GP convertibles will tout how rare their cars are in that Pontiac made only 5,856 Grand Prix convertibles (in '67, the only year for a GP convertible) which doesn't seem like very many by today's production standards.

    However, I've found plenty of classified ads offering '67 GP convertibles for sale (of course, most are not what you'd call in great shape). In any event, they don't seem as rare as their production figure would indicate. Anybody else find this a strange phenomenon?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Rarity doesn't matter anyway when it comes to value, even though it is historically interesting. There are many very rare cars that aren't worth anything. It's supply and demand that drives price, not rarity. This is why an un-rare 1965 Mustang convertible is worth a lot more.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    The value (ie., demand) for a '67 GP convertible seems to be exclusive from its supply. But, go try and tell that to the man who owns one . . ;-)
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    That either means a) there's a small group of enthusiasts who sell GP convertibles to each other, or b) people buy them based on the hype, find out they don't live up and quickly sell them. Could be.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Perhaps the GP is considered mostly a trim level of the full size Pontiac convertibles for that year.

    I would think this would be a decent time to be buying - cars are sitting in garages during the winter, and the economy is to the point where those that lost their jobs now are struggling to pay Christmas bills.

    I like the mid 60's Continental convertibles, they seem to be holding their value.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Cars like the GP convertible sell not for rarity or history but because they are nice looking large 60s convertibles. There's almost this "generic value" for attractive 60s full-size convertibles from GM, and if they aren't muscle cars or Mustangs, then they fall into the Pontiac-Olds-Buick-Cadillac-Cherolet full-size convertible market, which is very stable and very similar.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    I agree with jsylvester. My favorite is the 1967, the last year (I believe) for the big convertible. I recently saw one up close for the first time in decades. I couldn't get over how wide the trunk was. This car is an aircraft carrier with wheels! Makes most full-size cars of the 60's look mid-size in comparison.

    Bet you'd really get your money's worth on a cost per sqft basis. Anyone requiring more space after looking at one of these should call a real estate agent!

    However, I read a recent article on these cars where the convertible top mechanism was notorious for having problems. Still, if you use good quality parts installed by someone who knows what they're doing, its probably no more problematic than any other full-size convertible.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...the '67 GP convertible wasn't THAT rare. 5,856 may not be a whole lot, but it's not that much less than the 10,000 Catalina verts and 8,900 or so Bonneville 'verts that rolled off the assembly line that same year.

    I wonder if a lot of people look at the '67 big Pontiacs in general as the last of the really hip, swingin' ones? I seem to see '67's all the time at car shows, but '68's seem pretty rare. Same with '69's. To me, '70 is where they really lost it, and traded that sporty image for the neo-classic "personal luxury" look that would ultimately do the big Pontiacs in as the '70's wore on. But '68 seemed to be a definite downturn.

    My auto encyclopedia doesn't break out individual production figures of the big Chevies, but the '67 GP 'vert did sell more than any individual full-sized Oldsmobile model. IIRC, Olds had 3 models...two '88's (a Delta and a Delmont?) and the 98. Each one was around 3-4000 units that year. Didn't check the Buick figures for that year, though.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,628
    Wow, GM offered a staggering amount of models/trim levels on their big cars. '67 Buick convertibles and their production figures in brackets:

    LeSabre Custom (2913)
    Wildcat (2276)
    Wildcat Custom (2913--I am suspicious of this number because it's listed as the same as LeSabre Custom above)
    Electra 225 Custom (6941)

    Kinda strange that Buicks most expensive convertible was their best-selling, that wasn't usually the case for other makes.

    I'm of the opinion that full-size '67 Buicks and Olds were generally better looking than their '66 counterparts, while the opposite is true for Pontiac (sorry, Andre). I do think the 67 Pontiacs are better looking than the 68s. Those '68 taillights, and the introduction of the Edsel-like front end treatment, didn't do those cars any justice.

    As for GP versus other '67 Pontiac convertibles, I think the GP is a bit more interesting, but if I were in the market, I'd probably be just as happy with a Catalina or Bonneville, given the likely price difference especially.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    I think the '63-66 Pontiacs have a cleaner, more classic style than the '67, but the '67 just looks so much more unique to me, a style that lasted only one year. Even though the '68 was mechanically identical, it just looked totally different.

    Something about the '67 Olds just bothers me though. The '66'es had a nice, trim look about them, and almost looked like mid-size cars if you gave them a quick enough glance. The '67 makes me think of a Mercury, for some reason! The body itself is not bad; I like the way it's rounded off, but I just don't care for the front-end. I think the Olds style from '68-70 was pretty nice, though. As for Buick, I really didn't care for them as much after '66, either. They're not bad, but just don't do a whole lot for me.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,628
    ......the '67 Olds full-size front end is a bit severe. They're a very 'sled' looking car, in general. My uncle in the late '70s had a '68 Delmont 88 4-door hardtop as a second car (in that '68-only burgandy/purple color). It was a beast at the time, but had a great 350 4-v, and was extremely reliable. I guess everyone knows the 350 is a great engine, so I'll not go on about that.

    It's interesting that '66 GM cars in general (especially Olds and Chevies) were kinda boxy, which helped them look a bit smaller. When they went the full-'fluid' route in '67, they definitely looked bigger (if they're not actually). I just saw a '66 Impala sedan, it didn't look absurdly big.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    The cars that were popular when new are the ones that command a lot of money today.

    Rarety has little to do with it. I love it when someone stands next to their '63 Buick Special station wagon beaming because they only made 350 of them. Well...it's nice they love their car, but since it was a car few people wanted when new, it'll appeal to very few folks today.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    That's usually the rule. If nobody cared then, nobody cares now.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...I'd say it's going to depend on several different factors. For example, why did the car sell so well? Was it because it was popular, or because it was cheap? For example, in 1957, Ford beat Chevrolet in sales, and Plymouth had one of its best years ever, but Fords and Plymouths arent' that popular today and '57 Chevies are all the rage.

    I wonder what's going to happen when the cars of today become antiques. With the domestics in particular, the reason most of them sell so well is because of incentives, fleet dumping, etc. Back in 1957, if Ford was #1, you could safely say it was #1 because it's what people wanted at the time. But today, if the Ford Taurus is #1 (well more like #3, actually), it's not because people love the car! It's because it's cheap enough for a lot of people to afford, and because of all those rental fleets!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Well, it was that way in the past. A stripped down '57 Ford sedan isn't worth hardly anything, and most were in fact junked. It is the fully optioned coupes and convertibles that get saved. The utilitarian models are generally not restored, nor should they be.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Andre, funny you should mention rebates and '50s Fords in the same post. There was something called the Ford Blitz back around 1954 that is credited with putting the final nail in the coffin of the independents. Ford was trying for market share, as we would say these days, and cranked out more Fords than the dealers could sell. They piled up on the lots and of course had to be sold at a discount, much like what happens today.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    to me, they ALL seem like utilitarian models. I mean, mostly 4door sedans, all monohrome, in drab colors, no chrome, plastic fantastic, no character. Unless you can spring a BUNDLE of cash, you have the same look alike everyone else has. In the 50's and 60's it was different-much different. Sure, today's cars are more reliable, efficient, etc. But I don't think ANY of them will ever be collectible-with a few exceptions.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...called "$56 a month for a '56 Ford?" I think they had to do it because Chevy was positively trouncing Ford that year, so they had to do something. Chevy was pushing performance, but Ford tried pushing safety...standard seatbelts, padded dash, etc. Unfortunately it backfired, that people figured if a car needed seatbelts, it was unsafe to drive!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Yes, that was Iacocca's first claim to fame--the 56 for 56 campaign.

    I think the big 60s convertibles will get more and more valuable as time goes on, so now would be a good timet to buy one, especially GM and Ford.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...maybe I should go pick up a spare one, then! Hey, the first big Carlisle PA car event is only about 2 months away!
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    One for sale on E-bay. $12,000 with no reserve. Sounds like in good shape, but I would have to see it personally. I like it's look, don't care for fender skirts.


    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=602126298


    Or, for the handy man, a fixer-upper.


    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=602109547

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...to that beat-up '69! Before even reading the description, I could tell it didn't have an engine in it! Back when I had my Bonneville, I got the front-end piece (bumper/grille, beak, and headlights) from a junkyard 'vert that was sitting in that exact same stance! Had to drag that thing about 1/4 mile though the snow and muck too, and got a good case of Mono out of the deal!

    Kinda interesting too, to see just how quick the Pontiacs bloated up. I mean, at a quick glance, the '66 in that pic almost looks like an intermediate, but that '69 is a battlecruiser!

    Oh crap, I see it's just in Pennsylvania, too! Just a 2-hour drive from me! Must....resist....temptation!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    You are getting...weaker...weaker....you are ....in...our...power. Go.....and...buy....
  • jaserbjaserb Member Posts: 858
    The guy selling the '66 has a negative feedback? Seems he sold a Honda with a salvage title on eBay w/out disclosing the fact. Dunno what that means for the Pontiac, but...

    -Jason
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,628
    .......people want to sell a $12,000 item on eBay (sight unseen) with one kinda murky picture (not close up, either). His description was also less than detailed. Makes you wonder if he's just lazy or has something to hide, or both.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    The Rally wheels on the '66 bother me. Not necessarily because I'm a purist, it just always seemed like some anomaly like that was a tip off that other things weren't right either.

    Regarding condos, I used to manage them so I've seen the dark underside of condo living. If you're a collector there's no place to put your collection. If you're not a collector you don't always enjoy seeing someone's collection sitting around biodegrading. All of this is less of a problem in a single-family neighborhood, and no problem at all in the country. Unfortunately, condos are all that most gearheads can afford, especially if they're rescueing money pits from storage lots ;-). Resist...Andre...resist.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    About those wheels.

    The whole car looked pretty un-original and I'll bet it's a roach...Nope, I'll pass!
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Why have a convertible, when you can have a truly rare piece of automotive art. Friends would be dying for you to give them a ride!


    You could also use it for the trip to Home Depot.


    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=602127472

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,697
    ...would have a fit if I bought something like that! That, alone, is almost encouragement enough...
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    I was mildly interested until I read the description. A hyperactive small block with freeway gears would not be my drivetrain of choice for that tank. The other stuff might be okay as long as it wasn't hung on with duct tape.

    If I owned it I'd install a luggage rack and trailer hitch just to disprove the old joke about hearses. Maybe some vacation stickers too.
This discussion has been closed.