Describe your GM, Ford or Chrysler classic muscle car

andre1969

...by dropping a New Yorker V-8 into a lighter Windsor body and calling it the Saratoga. I think this was in 1952 when they first did that. About 9 years ago, I looked at a 1960 Olds Super 88 that had the more powerful 98 394 under the hood. That thing would fly!!

Speedshift (and others) tell me that this shouldn't be, but I swear that thing only had a 2-speed automatic tranny in it! Then again, it also had the interior of a Pontiac Bonneville, so I'm sure it's possible that the tranny might not be exactly stock, either ;-)

speedshift

That's a great shot of the '55--the red car (and top!) is gorgeous against the sand. But what's with red Buick convertibles? Why are 50% of them red? It seems almost Freudian...

Andre, some people think the original Century was the first musclecar or at least the proto-musclecar. It came out in 1936 with a new 320 CID straight eight shared with the senior Buicks. Had the same 120 hp but since it was about 300 lbs. lighter it was one of the quickest cars of its day with a 10-60 time of 18-19 seconds.

What's significant about the first Century is that in those days, and in fact well into the '50s, "small" affordable cars almost always had small crummy engines. You didn't get the latest and largest engines until you got into the luxury field and of course those cars were extremely heavy. There wasn't anything like a Nova SS 396, or even an Impala 396, or even a 265 Power Pack Bel Air.

With the first Century you had a relatively small and affordable car (around $1035) with the latest big-car engine. And that sounds an awful lot like a GTO or one of the other '60s musclecars.

Just for comparison, the Buick Special started at $885 with a 233 CID 93-hp eight. A comparable Pontiac Eight sold for $795 with 87 hp. The Century cost 11% more than the Pontiac but had 38% more hp as well as a lot more torque and (probably) smoothness.

In '41 a two-carb setup called Compound Carburetion was standard on the Century. I've heard that many of these were removed during the war because of gas rationing.

The Century disappeared after 1942 but reappeared in '54, again as the "small" Buick with the big engine. Now it was the 322 nailvalve V8, one of the hotter engines of the time, with the same 200 hp as the Roadmaster. Super had the 322 but with less hp and Special had a 264 CID version of the same V8. From '55-'58 Century had the same engine and hp as Super and Roadmaster.

In '59 Century was replaced with Invicta and lost the portholes. I guess this was an attempt to freshen up Buick's image ('58 wasn't a good year) but both the Century and portholes are great memories for anyone who grew up in the '50s.

Even for Shifty :-).

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, I want one. I WILL have one. Doesn't have to be a convertible, though. A 2-door hardtop would be fine.

Trivia: Tom Waits song "Old 55" was written about a '55 Buick

wvk

"Ten- four, ten- four"

wvk

wvk

Forgot the http:

http://www.highwaypatroltv.com/MotorTrend1997/

wvk

Forgot the http:

http://www.highwaypatroltv.com/MotorTrend1997/

codylabrador

That link is great. I remember the same schedule - getting home to watch the TV in the afternoon. I loved the Olds and Buicks when they spun in the dirt!

I've not seen any recent reruns of the Highway Patrol series though - anybody know if one of the nostalgia cable stations run them?

carnut4

Highway Patrol was also one of my favorites, but here in the northwest, I haven't seen one for years. Anyone seeing them somewhere else?
By the way, saw a 55 Buick Special 2dr hardtop the other day-purple, with custom wheels. The shiny paint highlighted what looked to be a fairly ripply side surface. Oh well I guess. It was for sale, but didn,t notice the price.

codylabrador

Had a friend in 1968 that was in drama club with me. We stopped by to pick him up one evening and had to wait on the carport while his mother called him. Tommy had about three older brothers and sisters and his parents were older - 50s or early 60s.

On the carport was a black four door 1967 Plymouth Belvedere I (el cheapo) with blackwall tires. I walked around to the side and saw those rectangular 383 emblems (Commando V8 I think) and when I looked into the interior I saw a 4speed shifter sticking out of the rubber floored transmission hump!

After Tommy and I left I asked him about the car. He said he went with his dad to order it and convinced him that he needed the "bigger" V8 engine (instead of a 318) to haul all the family.
He also askedd wouldn't it be neat to have a 4speed rather than a 3speed for extra power? His dad replied that "yes, a shifter on the floor reminds me of when I was a young boy - I learned to drive in an old farm truck with a shifter on the floor".

Needless to say when we got to drive it we found out that the car was fast - didn't attract many girls though. I wonder what it would be worth today - pretty rare combination....

badgerpaul

A few years ago a local TV station here in Dallas/Fort Worth were running them at like 5:30 in the morning. I have to admit I would occasionally get up and watch it. That and Sky King were my favorite Saturday morning TV shows when I was a kid.

speedshift

Out of the blue of the western sky comes...Sky King!

speedshift

I saw a '49 or '50 Olds 88 sedan today and it reminded me that this car was also, along with the Century, one of the forerunners of the '60s musclecar.

The '49 Futuramic 88 was a small Olds with the Chevy body shell but instead of having an old-fashioned six or inline eight it came with the 98's new 303 CID 135-hp V8. Again, this was the later musclecar formula--a big engine in a relatively light body.

And the engine wasn't highly strung, just decent breathing (for the time) and with lots of torque. That's one of the big differences between musclecars and cars like the Chrysler 300s and Chevy 409s. Those cars came with what were called three-quarter race engines and they really didn't like being driven on the street.

With stick the 88 could do 0-60 in 12 seconds, and one did 100.28 mph at the 1950 Daytona Speed Week. Motor Trend said it was the first car they'd tested that could exceed 90 mph.

The 88 kept getting faster in the early '50s--same 303 CID but with higher CR and the new WCFB four barrel--but by 1955 other brands, especially Chevy, were catching up. From the old tests I've read though, the Olds was still known for its right now torque. And Olds sold a ton of cars. I think the '54 is remarkably handsome for the era.

The Olds V8 was revised and enlarged in '57 but according to one test I have the car lost its snap off the line. To fix that Olds came out with the J-2 option: three 2-bbl. Rochesters (same idea as Pontiac's Tri-Power) and a thinner head gasket for 10:1 CR. The Isky E-2 cam was a dealer-installed option and with the J-2 setup this was good for 312 hp. They must have sold quite a few of these because they don't appear to be uncommon these days. A 98 with the 312 did 0-60 in 8.6 seconds, so a lighter 88 with stick was probably around 8 seconds. Lee Petty won the Grand National championship in '57 with a J-2.

I think what did Olds in was the availability of cheaper lighter cars with good engines. In 1949 the 88 club coupe cost $2170. For the same money you could get a Buick Super with a 248 CID straight eight or a Pontiac Eight with 249 CID straight eight, both engines that dated from the '30s and couldn't make the power the Olds could.

But by the late '50s Pontiac's engines were as large as and at least as good as the Olds--this was when Pontiac really took off. Even the lighter 348 Chevies were as fast or faster for less money.

Lee Petty won the first Daytona 500 in '59 with an Olds but I think Olds pretty much disappeared from the performance scene until the first big block 4-4-2 in '65. I had a '63 Starfire convertible, a luxury performance version of the 88, and while the 394/345 was a strong engine that funky slim jim automatic just about ruined the car. And unlike Pontiac, if you wanted an automatic Olds all you got was the slim jim. I won't go into detail about what a lousy transmission it was, except to say that it performed like a broken Turbo 400.

badgerpaul

Just to prove that there's a web site for everything here is the link to the Sky King web site:

http://home.kscable.com/fcr/skyking.html

codylabrador

drive 57/58 Plymouth Furys or Dodges?

badgerpaul

In the early part of the series, when he was flying the "Bamboo Bomber", they drove Nashes. Later on, when they switched to a Cessna 310, they were Chrysler Station Wagons.

sebringjxi

I followed through town a rather ratty looking 70's something Torino GT...the year of the wide flat grill opening, not the later more squarish grill openings. Anyway, under the street lamps I could tell there was not much gloss to the paint and it didn't look very well cared for. So when the guy swung into the quick-stop, I followed and asked him about it. It was his dad's stone stock original (I never did get the year of it), 429, hood scoop, reflective stripes and the whole shooting match.....he said he was going to "restore it one of these days" but it'll probably languish into a rust pile waiting....sad. Cool car--lots of horses under that hood.

Hal

speedshift

Hal that was a '70 or '71, probably a '70 since they sold better than the '71s. 360-375 horsepower.

Getting back to the Olds J-2, I was thinking that it must have been a seriously quick car. I had the same body shell, a '57 Special coupe, with stick and the 364/250, and that was a lively car. With 62 more horsepower a J-2 with the Isky cam must have got up and went.

A guy I used to know whose first new car was a '58 Bonneville told me that in the late '50s Detroit's three speed sticks were a disaster. Apparently they were still using trannys from the early and mid '50s but the engines had gotten almost exponentially bigger and torquey-er so the stick shifts would grenade if you tried to use the power.

The manufacturers didn't have much incentive to build a beefier tranny because the trend was to automatics and, a little later, the Borg Warner T-10 four speed. It wasn't until '64 or so that Ford developed a HD three speed. GM just bought these transmissions from Ford instead of going to the expense of developing their own.

He's probably right but I suspect the three speed in my '57 Buick was a modern design. It was a close ratio box with a 2.32 first gear (and a 3.64 rear end!) which suggests it was designed for a car with a good weight-to-horsepower ratio.

It was definitely a different box than the one in my '54 Special, which had the low first gear you'd expect in an underpowered car. And as I recall the '54 had a 3.90 rear end.

andys120

In an earlier post I mentioned an extraordinary price fetched at auction by a '70 Malibu SS Convertible. I was off by $100,000 (finance and math was never my strength)! Friday's NY Times has an article about the increasing prices for classic muscle cars quoting the record price brought in this January's Barrett-Jackson Auction.
A pristine '70 Malibu SS/454 with the LS6 Option went for $172k!.

Of course this doesn't mean that the old 383 Duster or 289 Falcon Ranchero you're sitting on is worth the price of a nice house. If any Muscle Car deserves the big bucks it's the '70 Malibu SS. It's got everything..Power(400hp), looks (IMO the best-looking Chevy ever), rarity (only a hand full of 454/LS6s were made, a few were 'verts).

We'd probably need a separate board to discuss the implications of muscle cars beginning to fetch exoticar prices at auction.

Perhaps Mr. Shiftright could give us a short list of some of the exotics that could be had for $170k or so.

Mr_Shiftright

Also keep in mind that one auction price for one pristine, very rare, very low mileage (Time Capsule) car does not set the market by a long shot.

The Chevelle LS6 is still worth around $80K in the real world, but there are always some cars of such incredible condition and rarity that a premium price can be obtained.

Personally, I think $172K for a Chevrolet is completely nuts and will not be justified or repeated.

These are, after all, mass produced and rather slammed together cars and despite the rarity there is a limit to what the market will bare for what is essentially a taxi cab with a rare set of options.

Still, there is no doubting that very rare muscle cars are very strong in the market right now, and that Supply and Demand drive prices as much as aesthetics.

If people want to pay Ferrari prices for a Chevrolet, it's their business, their money and their right.

speedshift

I wonder if anyone who paid $172k for a Chevy is Ferrari material. Two completely different markets without any cross-over, I'd guess. Unless it was someone who was into trophy cars just for the ego gratification, not because he appreciated their engineering.

andys120

speedshift

To quote from some Humphrey Bogart film, "it's the stuff dreams are made of".

andys120

cross an ocean. Or they're sleek low and Italian
and scream like the hounds of hell when provoked.

Mr_Shiftright

I think with muscle cars that there is a great satisfaction in having the "rarest of the rare", or having something that everyone in your arena of interest would envy. So "trophy" collecting is a powerful incentive to pay a market-busting price.

But still, one always has to pause, when collecting ANYTHING, to look at the object itself and decide if it is really worth it or not.

I have seen some amazing prices for, say, special American factory prototypes (show cars) but somehow that strikes me as a part of history, a "one of a kind", whereas a Chevelle with special options is not one of a kind, but a common car with uncommon options.

One thing we do know, that even in very recent history people have paid a lot of money for cars, like Ferraris, while in a bidding frenzy, only to lose up to 90% of their money in a few years.

speedshift

It just may be that the idea of value is extremely subjective--and it can also be extremely elastic.

Maybe those Ferraris really were "worth" their prices at the peak of the market but the market changed. Maybe the determinant of value is "could that price be replicated in a substantially similar market?".

Then again, for cars that represent the top tenth of one percent of their field, maybe value becomes even more elastic--but to a very rarified group of collectors. As you say, maybe ego is the determinant of value in these cases.

Mr_Shiftright

I think value is subjective but also relative, which is somewhat objective. In other words, yes, your opinion and the opinion of others counts a lot, but also the object itself must have beauty, workmanship, power, SOMETHING other than just some speculative, subjective, emotional quality. If it's only subjective and nothing else, there's danger in that, because....

how long does it take for a human thought to switch from yes to no?

speedshift

Sure, there's got to be some underlying value relative to the alternatives or it's just a bubble.

Like the run-up in tech stocks...there's a huge market with hundreds of thousands of participants and the vast majority of them changed their mind almost overnight. Peak one month, crater the next.

Mr_Shiftright

Real genuine "muscle cars" though, seem to have "legs" right now.

People need to keep in mind, though, that a "muscle car" without thorough documentation and evidence is not going to sell for a lot of money. There is massive cloning and counterfeiting going on right now.

speedshift

How much value does documentation add as a general rule? Would the premium go up proportionally for the ultra-desirable musclecars like an LS-6, not just in dollars but in percentage? Would that explain the $172k Chevelle, at least to a point? I'll bet those are especially prone to counterfeiting. Knowing he had a real one might be worth a substantial premium to an astute collector, as opposed to a guy who just wants a hairy ride.

blh7068

"There is massive cloning and counterfeiting going on right now. "

Actually, I'd be willing to bet thats its been going on longer than we think, and lately(last few years) the response has been the honest ones in the hobby are becoming more educated on how determine a real from a fake.

Mr_Shiftright

I suspect you are right.

Documentation doesn't "add" to the value. A lack of documentation subtracts from the value.

I don't know why that Chevelle sold for $172K. It could have been a Time Capsule car (one with zero miles on it), it could have been celebrity owned--all those things change the "book value".

But it is double market price, so it's not going to change the market price. That's just too absurd a jump in value.

There are, after all, around 4,400 of the LS6 made in 1970, so they aren't all that rare.

jrosasmc

In your opinion, do you think 1973 'Cudas, Z28s, Mach 1s and the like will ever command the same higher prices as their older brethren? When I did some research on those, their top optional V-8s seemed to be rated lower in power than their 1969 equivalents. I've also read that '73-'78 American cars in general seemed to run like dog dirt in those days, thanks to bad smog controls.

Mr_Shiftright

The collector car market seems very clear on this, that a domestic '73 car will never command the prices of the 60s and very early 70s cars. You can actually graph it and see the values drop right around 1973. By the time we hit the late 70s, the cars produced then are greatly devalued. There are a few late 70s cars worth a modest amount, like say a 75-76 Trans Am 455 ( the earlier SDs are worth more), and even the Trans Am 15 th anniversary car of 1984 can bring $7-8K. But that's 1/3 the value of a 69 Trans Am.

Maybe as the earlier cars get restored an put away, or destroyed and parted out, the later 70s cars will become more attractive as the only cars beginners can afford. Also many people will continue to modify the late 70s cars and just take those hopeless engines out of them altogether, and build themselves a really strong modified car.

speedshift

True Believers make a clear distinction between musclecars up to 1970 (good), 1971-2 (not so good) and 1973-up (bad).

Part of the distinction is based on the almost universally lowered compression ratios (except the Boss 351 IIRC) in 1971. 9:1 just doesn't have as much credibility in BS sessions as 11:1. Horsepower started declining in '71.

1972 gets even stickier because manufacturers went from gross to net horsepower ratings, which by itself had no impact on performance but had a huge psychological impact. '72 is also the first year that California cars had Exhaust Gas Recirculation, so it hit the other 49 states in 1973.

There's no doubt that performance started declining in 1971 and by 1972 the decline was really apparent. The same engines were being offered in the same body styles but these were just pale imitations of the real thing.

By '73 the only bright lights were the 340 'Cuda/Challenger and the Trans Am SD.

It wasn't just smog controls that killed musclecars. Insurance companies had started targeting them in the late '60s. The first energy crisis had us waiting in long lines for overpriced gas. And the market had shifted to "personal luxury" cars built on the same chassis as the intermediate musclecars.

speedshift

that the '71-up (and especially the '73-up) musclecars don't have the uncompromised performance image a musclecar needs to be highly sought after, at least not by the people who remember those days. There's one exception--the '73-74 Trans Am Super Duty--but that's all I can think of. Of course when people start talking about Celica GTs as collectibles then '76 Camaros start looking better.

andys120

The market thinks a nice '70 Malibu SS LS-6 is worth $85 grand or so?? Even that seems high to me (barring extenuating circumstances e.g. Elvis ownership).

speedshift

1. Chevy.
2. Chevelle.
3. Big block.
4. Chevy big block.
5. Biggest Chevy big block.
6. Awesome reputation although this is based partly on potential--the low-rise intake manifold is the limiting factor.

I'm not saying any of this makes sense. I'm just saying it all adds up.

Mr_Shiftright

We are also talking about the convertible LS6, not the coupe, so that's another level of rarity to speedshift's list.

ALSO, it would have to be among the best LS6s in the world. It would have to be perfect, and much better than GM ever built it.

jrosasmc

So almost all cars can be restored to specs that are better than any factory job, right?

gshumway1

Certainly with the domestics they can be, and most times, are better than the originals. I had a chance several years ago to see a few "time capsule" cars in a show with the same model cars that had been restored, restified or daily drivers.
The restored cars were all overspray free. Panel fit and allingment near perfect and symetrical. Paint flawless and no body waves. Couldn't say anything like that about the assembly line versions which sat there in all their original glory. What a testiment to the Big Three's mantra of the time. "There is a sucker born every minute"

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, 60s era fit and finish was pretty bad.

andys120

an original "hand-built" Ferrari or Aston would likely be inferior to some of the restorations,
likewise with the more popular sports.

I never saw a Healey 300 back then that was as nice as some of rthe restorations at a typical car show.

jrosasmc

1960s-era fit/finish: that goes for both domestics and imported cars, right?

Mr_Shiftright

Well, generally yes but there are exceptions. German fit and finish was extremely good in the 60s, far better than anyone else. Also, Rolls Royce was a very nicely put together car, as you might expect. A VW bug had excellent fit and finish, far above its modest price.

andre1969

One thing I'll say good about it is that it's light years ahead of '70's fit and finish, and a good deal of the 80's, as well. Finally, they did start improving the cars again, but they'd been building them sloppy for so long, that it's hard to tell when we finally got back up to '60's quality!

corsicachevy

"an original "hand-built" Ferrari or Aston would likely be inferior to some of the restorations,
likewise with the more popular sports." - andys120

That's the problem with some restorations - they're too good. The owner hasn't actually restored the car, but rather enhanced its original appearance and quality.

A neighbor of mine has a "restored" 1957 Chevrolet. Not one 57' Chevy rolled off the assembly line looking THAT good.

jrosasmc

We musn't forget Saab and Volvo as well. Their fit and finish were good, way above British, French and Italian cars of the era.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think Swedish cars of the time were even close to Benz or VW or Jaguar, and in terms of paint, interior fitments, fabrics, plastic, etc., not even as good as American domestics. The 140 Volvo series especially was pretty junky. Tough, crude cars is the best you can say about them.

A 1968 Chevy would put them to shame in fit and finish.

They were about as good as an MGB or a Fiat in F&F.

jrosasmc

I was at a car show some years ago where there were all sorts of makes around. I sat in a '66 Saab 96, then got into a '68 Volvo P1800, and a '69 Mustang Grande. Take my word for it, the interior fitments in that Mustang easily outclassed those of the two Swedes.