SPORTS CARS OF THE 60's

andys120

Cobras, Porsche 911S, A-H 300s, GT-350s, Stingrays, Elites, E-Types...the list goes on and on. This board is to discuss those great and not so great sports cars and GTs of the 60's. Tell us which ones you liked or didn't, which one's you experienced personally or wish you had, which were "real" sports cars and which were not. Those wishing to discuss racing and rally cars of the era are welcome too.

Mr_Shiftright

The nice thing about sports cars of the 60s is that they were so different from regular cars. You left your Pontiac or Chevrolet or even Volvo and got into a real 60s sports car and it was like being in a different universe. A shocking contrast!

Today you don't get that feeling, which is too bad. Now you can go from a sedan to the most ferocious of sports cars and the seats, dashboard, controls, engines, all feel the same as sedans. From the driver's seat, being in a Corvette or a Cavalier isn't much different (until you step on the gas, of course).

kinley

Even the factory steel hardtop wouldn't keep the rain out. It was the beautiful beast about as fast as a pregnant nun goes to confession. It was replaced by a 66 Mustang GT Cpe which is still in the garage.

jrosasmc

They were all junk and had shoddy quality. Exceptions were the Alfa Duetto/Spider, Mercedes SL series, all Porsches, Volvo P1800s, and Karmann-Ghias.

andys120

they were identical mechanically to Beetles. Handled no better, went no faster. You could make the same argument about the Volvo P1800, a mechanical clone of the Volvo sedan (544? I've forgotten the number).

Mr_Shiftright

And the 190SL was a very heavy car based on an ordinary 180 sedan. But at least the 190SL looked like a sports car even if it really wasn't one. More of what we call a "boulevardier".

The Ghia was evil-handling at best.

Porsches of course acquited themselves very well on road or track, Alfas were also very competent for their time.

Volvo P1800--oh, what to make of it? Slow, heavy, steered like a truck, but a sturdy car and (some think) attractive enough. I'd call it more of a Swedish idea of a GT car, especially with the overdrive.

One of the nicest sportscars of the 60s was, of course, the MGB, especially after the five main engine and 1st gear synchro trans were introduced. These cars were cheap, plentiful, pretty darn good if you gave them any care at all, and well-built although primitive by German standards.

andys120

I got it because I thought it was prettier than an MGB but over time I've come to believe that the MGs were sturdier and tighter, I still think that the TRs are better looking. (except vs.MGB-GTs)
Your comment about being totally different from a sedan certainly applies, primitive but fun.

andys120

Jrosasmc, I was taken aback by your comments because, to be fair it is largely true (I can tell you from experience) that many sports cars of the '60s were poorly made, even for the times. I guess it's a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. If those cars failed as automobiles, they succeeded as experiences. Most of us wouldn't have missed one for the world.
Things have worked out so that we can enjoy the superiority of today's cars and yet lament that we've lost something along the way.
To me and all those who enjoyed those exasperating yet characterful
cars that's a win-win. We learned much about cars and a lot about life. That concludes today's philosophy lesson.

Mr_Shiftright

Some people have called today's cars "impersonal perfection" and that's not a bad description.
Heavy on reliability and performance, but light on "character".

Of course "character" can be annoying both in people and in cars.

Some 60s sports cars were very well built. The Mercedes 280SL is a rock solid car, the Porsches are extremely well built, and the Alfas somewhere between the Brits and the Germans.

The Corvettes were pretty sturdy, although until they got disc brakes and power steering, they were a chore to drive. Some would even challenge that those big beasts were true sportscars. I never regarded them as such, because they were too big and too overpowered. More like two seater muscle cars.

jrosasmc

I'll take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for my comments in the earlier post. Yes, they were uncalled for, and I regret it.

speedshift

Kinley's comment about a '63 Fiat Spider reminds me of my brother's '65(?) 1500 cabriolet. We found it in a junkyard, solid and complete but not running. We were told the previous owner had driven it there from across the Bay with a broken crank. We didn't know what it was but bought it anyway. My brother faithfully went through it, including a rebuilt engine with a reground cam, and got it back on the road. A pleasant cruiser but it didn't hold a candle to my MGB. Of course, after his 850 Spider it felt pretty plush. I remember the shifter had apparently been borrowed from a bus.

avalanche325

The 289 would definately be a sports car. The 427 (the car I LUST after), is really a race/muscle/sports car mix. Not enough were made to really call it a production car though. The interesting thing is the kit cars that are out there. The better quality ones are actually a better car than the original (performance and reliability). Hmmmmmmmmm. Maybe I'll have to build one.

speedshift

After reading Peter Egan's story in Road & Track I think I'd go for the small block, even in a repro. I'd go with the 289/302 over the slightly heavier 351 for better balance. 250 net horsepower should be plenty in a car like that.

Somewhere else here I told the story of my wife's experience with a 289 Cobra. She's a long way from being a gearhead and of course she's the one in the family with the Cobra story, such is life. Back in the '60s she drove her previous husband's Cobra to work one day...not knowing how to drive a stick...and with the parking brake on. She tells me it seemed to have good power.

If anyone out there has a 289 Cobra they're not using right now, I promise I'll take off the parking brake. I'll even name my first-born son after you.

andys120

were and still are the small block cars which had this incredible sleekness about them. It's amazing to me that almost none of the replicas are of the small block cars except for some with the FIA (Racing) bodywork.

Worth noting-- the racing successes of the Shelby American factory racing teams were almost all achieved with 289-engined cars, roadsters and coupes.
And lets not forget that Saturday, Feb. 2 is the 40th Anniversary of the day that Shelby's team inserted the 260 Fairlane block into what had been the AC Bristol and created the Cobra.
Long live Carroll Shelby!

Mr_Shiftright

Shelby used the AC Ace. Essentially the same as an AC Bristol, but the "Bristol" part comes from the Bristol engine, so you take the engine out of an Ace-Bristol or AC Bristol, and it can't be a Bristol anymore.

andys120

I'm sure you're right but its in the back of my mind somewhere that the AC Ace was a coupe.

Mr_Shiftright

Hmmm....I thought the Aceca was the coupe. Lemme check here....

Okay, according to Mike Lawrence's A to Z of Sports Cars (great book), the Ace was the convertible, made from a knock-off of the Ferrari 166 Barchetta body. The Aceca is a fastback Ace, and the Cobra 260 is of course a 4-liter Ford V8 stuffed into an Ace by Shelby. The Mark II Shelby Cobra kept the old Ace chassis but had rack and pinion steering. The Cobra Mark III starts to change the chassis, has American design influences as well as AC people working on it, and of course offers the 289 and 427 engines.

The Ace is a very nice car in its own right, and I personally think it is most unfortunate whenever an original Ace is made into a phony Cobra.

avalanche325

I am researching Cobra kits right now. Most of them are using small blocks (302 or 351). Some people are still using the 427, 428, and 460. But most of them freely admit the small block is much better when you hit the track.

You can get an FAI 289 body. But the overwhelming amount of replicas have the 427 body.

Also Carrol Shelby is trying to sue the replica makers. This is after 30+ years. For a car he no longer produces. He didn't design the thing anyway, just modified it. Ford owns the name "Cobra". And he has stated many times over the years that he didn't care if people were copying "his" car. What a jerk he has turned out to be!!!

Mr_Shiftright

On this issue, as well as his using leftover chassis to make additional cars, he has not been popular, that is true.

jaserb

Actually, Carrol Shelby does have a company making Cobra replica kits - check them out at

http://www.shelbyamerican.com/cobra/

-Jason

andys120

I guess my knowledge of AC cars is a little vague.
Speaking of Cobras has anyone ever heard the story of the multiplying Cobra. It seems that the first true Cobra (CSX-2002?) was shown to the automotive press in a different color each time it was tested by a different magazine, they'd paint it blue for one magazine, yellow for the next and so on in an apparent effort to make it seem is if more cars had already been produced (sounds like Enron).
I don't have a Cobra, probably never will but I do have the original Road & Track and Mechanics Illustrated (Tom McCahill) road tests and the original factory sales brochure (with Shelby's secty on the cover). "Buy it or watch it go by".

avalanche325

Ahaaa!! Now the lawsuit thing seems to make a little more sense. I am still not happy though.

Andy - The first Cobra was finished in bare aluminium. Then it was painted yellow, then blue then red, and who knows what else. This was done to give the impression that the cars were being produced, when there was only one.

Here is a link to the interview:

http://www.erareplicas.com/history/mt_1999/index.htm

jrosasmc

Would any BMW 2-door made in the 60s count as a sports car?

Mr_Shiftright

Not by 1960s definitions. Back then, a sports car was most definitely a two seat open car. Now of course, the term is meaningless, but 40 years ago, when you said "sports car" people knew exactly what you meant--probably the exact image of a British two seater popped into their heads.

avalanche325

How ridiculous, a BMW ........

They are WAAAAAAAAY too reliable to be a 60s sports car ;-)

The 507 sure is nice. But they didn't make it to he 60s (55 - 59 I believe)

andys120

Was 1962 the best year ever to buy a new sports car? Consider that only in that year could you buy any one of the following brand new:
Shelby Cobra 260(first year), Mercedes 300SL Roadster (last year), Ferrari 250 GT (California spider or berlinetta), Lotus Elite,
Jaguar E-Type 3.8, Maserati 3500GT (Touring Coupe or Vignale spyder), Porsche 356B, Facel Vega and Aston Martin DB4. In each case the '62 model(s) offered is still regarded as one of the finest ever turned out by these respected makers.

andys120

Didn't anybody out there own a bugeye Sprite, a
Lotus Europa or an Alfa GTV that they remember fondly or not so fondly. Notwithstanding Shifty's comments I'd be glad to hear from owners of or those who recall sports sedans of the era especially Rover 2000TCs, Alfa Giulias and BMW 2002s. To me these were the last real sports sedans.

ghulet

An 'older' friend of mine said she had one in the '70s (she's about fifty, so when she was in her 20s). She said it was a really fun car, but it died on the side of the road once and was subsequently stolen by the police.

Mr_Shiftright

One thing I really miss is the affordability of USED sportscars today. Back in the 1960s, you could scrounge up all kinds of interesting cars for not a lot of money, just about everywhere you looked, but nowadays older sports cars are either all restored and expensive or so beat to hell you don't want one. There's really not much out there for the college kid or younger person on a budget except some clapped-out Miatas, an occasional Fiat 124 or X1/9, and maybe an MG midget with a dent or two. You can't touch a decent old Porsche for under $10K-12K, older Japanese cars are boring except maybe for the first CRX and the RX-7, if you can find either one of those still running, and old Corvette C4s are pretty awful cars.

You know, demand has caught up with dwindling supply.

ghulet

.......if cheap to purchase could keep you poor indefinitely on parts and repairs (older Porsches and RX7s especially).

What is your definition of 'decent old Porsche'? If you don't mind slightly underpowered, a 944 can be had fairly cheap (I'm prepared for flaming on this one).

speedshift

When we bought the '65 MGB I think we paid around $1200 for it which seemed like a good deal. Good running, straight original car with wire knockoffs and hardtop. I drove it for several years with good reliability and mostly just routine maintenance. At 6'3" I think I was about 3" too tall for it but it seemed like a small price to pay. The engine was great, smooth and torquey but willing to rev--of course, I was used to V8s that were screaming for mercy by 5500 rpm so just about anything would seem high-revving by comparison. The shifter was the other great thing, very mechanical and direct, better than the Miata I think. I finally sold it because I was doings lots of freeway commuting and without overdrive it was as comfortable as going over Niagra Falls in a barrel.

My brother had two sportscars that I drove a fair amount. The first was a Fiat 850 that was a blast to drive even without any measureable horsepower. Any loss in power was critcal. A sparkplug wire came off while he was going over the San Mateo Bridge and he made it across at 25 mph. You had to routinely rev it to 5 grand just to pull it out of its own tracks. But a great car for narrow winding roads. I remember we took it to the beach once and hit some dirt roads. At one corner the car went straight while the road went right but instead of locating a tree or cliff we skidded onto a road leading to a pasture.

He also had a Fiat 1500, predecessor to the 124(?) but without the latter's sales success, that we rescued from a wrecking yard. For an Italian it didn't have much brio, a pleasant car but nothing compared to the B.

Mr_Shiftright

944s can be decent and competent cars but they aren't (to me) very much fun. Nothing like that screamin' six behind your back. And besides, they are money pits. Buy 'em cheap, and in 6 months you are buried in it unto the grave. Same with 928s. World's most expensive cheap sports cars, the 944 / 928.

Geez, on an MBG you can take the head off with a vise grip and a screwdriver, order parts UPS delivered to your door and be on the road in two days for a couple hunnert bucks tops.

jrosasmc

I think you could get an early- to mid-80s Alfa Spider or a GTV6 for not that much money. They look to be pretty affordable these days.

c43amg7

My brother had a Datsun 2000 (I think that was the model number) as a teenager -- two-seater knockoff of an Austin Healy, but faster. The car would easily do 80 in 3rd gear, but had a horrible set of rattles -- like driving down the road with a couple of strands of tin cans tied to the rear bumper with string.

Mr_Shiftright

The Datsun 2000 had some bad problems but I can't quite recall. I think head gaskets or something. Anyway, some thought they would be highly collectible but that hasn't turned out to be the case. They are collected by a few people, and can bring a decent price, but nothing like a restored MGB. One bad thing about them is that they are very difficult to find parts for now.

jaserb

While you can't get a ragtop 240-280Z, it does fit into the "cheap sports car" mold even now. You can get a very nice one for well under 5 grand, parts aren't too hard to get, and it's a fun car to drive. Only problem is after '78 they got fat, ugly, and full of electronic gizmos to break. They didn't make another really desirable Z until '90, and those are an arm and a leg to insure as well as repair. Insurance is another reason no old Porsche will be a "cheap sports car".

-Jason

Mr_Shiftright

280Zs are practically give-away cars, but the 240Z is much more sporty.

jaserb

the 280Z isn't a bad way to go, if you can live with (or get rid of) the huge bumpers. It's a little heavier than the 240 but it also has more power from the same block, and the '77-'78 have a 5 speed available. Also the fuel injection system is much lower maintenance and less likely to be messed up than the SUs on the 70-72 Zs. We won't mention the 73-74 carbs.

-Jason

Mr_Shiftright

SUs are simple and bulletproof. Fuel injection is complicated and expensive in comparison, if you are on a budget, and especially with an old car. An SU only has 3 moving parts!

The 280Z is one of my least favorite cars but it would be an okay beater for not a lot of money. But the "sports car" has been completely dialed out.

andys120

I have a thing for MGB-GTs. I wonder what a decent small bumper car with no rust would go for. Yeah it'd have to have overdrive.

Those Alpines were nice but never achieved the popularity of the MGs TRs or Healeys (dececent Healeys now go for more than a 280SL-$30k+). Anyone remember the hardtop Sunbeam Harrington Le Mans coupe (Very rare-some did actually run LeMans ca. 63-64).

Mr_Shiftright

I saw a very nice MGBGT sell for $4,000 last week and a Harrington for $10K some months ago.

An MGBGT with overdrive in decent condition is a helluva buy right now in vintage sports cars. Alfas are still bargains but not so cheap as that. I'd guess a decent early 60s Sprint coupe would have to cost you $8k-$10K. GTVs are less but not all that much. Alpines are an acquired taste. The tail fin styling really turns a lot of people off and it shows in the resale value.

andys120

The E-type Jaguar, '61-'67 hands down. In either roadster or coupe form. Aside from being beautiful and fast, they were great handlers, competitive in gymkhanas and slaloms with Lotus Elans and 911s.

BTW I believe it's incorrect to call them XK-Es
The factory always used E-type. It did have the same XK engine as the 120/140/150 (in 3.8 and later 4.2 form)

Mr_Shiftright

yes, that's correct. Historically, there is no such thing as an XKE.

rea98d

XKE, I beleive, was a name Jaguar's North American arm came up with, much to the disdain of Sir William, et al, to link the car (at least in marketing terms) to the XK-120's, 140's and 150's. And yes, I have seen an E-Type with an "XKE" badge on the trunk, so they were sold under that name, even if it wasn't what the mother country wanted them known by. It seems that, at the time, Jaguar Cars of North America had a certain amount of autonomy from Jaguar Cars, Ltd., and could get away with renaming models. To Coventry, there was no "XKE" anywhere, but here in N. America, that's how the cars were badged. Confusing, I know. Most of the minutia about old cars is.

Mr_Shiftright

The XKE nomenclature came from the press, I suppose, who got tired of typing "E-Type". I've never seen an "XKE" badge on a car itself, although I've seen it in plenty of ads and literature.
Myabe I need to look closer from now on.

This mis-naming happens now and then, where a car that really doesn't exist is born in the media. Another is the 1964 & 1/2 Mustang. No cars were ever made by the factory with that designation. They are all 1965s, but being introduced early that's what they got named.

It is minutiae I know. Who cares? The cars were great!

speedshift

None of us kids knew it was called an E-type. If we had, I don't think we would have liked it as much ;-).

rea98d

...We should just split the difference and call it an XK-E-type?

badtoy

my first Alfa -- a '62 Giulia Spider Veloce -- cost me $900 (that was ni late 1965). My second, in mid-1966, was a '64 Sprint, and that cost me $2500 (from a dealer). My third, in 1967, was a '59 Giulietta Spider Normale, for $675. I purchased my fourth, a '69 1750 Berlina, in 1971, and it cost me $2700.

Of course, cheap as they sound, wages were a tenth of what they are today, so it all evens out. New Alfas ran around $3500 back then, Corvettes about $5500, and E-types about $6500.

andys120

Big Healeys cost about $4,000 a new Cobra went about $7,000 and a Ferrari 250GT was the incredible sum of $12,000 which sounds cheap but would have bought a small house in the midwest or South back then.

andys120

The Mercedes 230/250/280SL. It wasn't the performer it's predecessor 300SL was but it was a real sports car, unlike the wimpy 190SL. They are still available at reasonable prices ...$22-27k (Gets you thinkin').

jrosasmc

How about the Volvo 1800ES sport wagon?