I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

Mr_Shiftright

andre1969 said:

Hey everybody, lemme pick your brains for a minute. A friend of mine is looking to buy an antique car, but it'll be his first, and his tastes are running all over the map. Basically, he'll see something that catches his eye, and want it. Until the next thing that catches his eye comes along. Which, admittedly, is how I came across a few of my cars over the years!

Anyway, he found a 1956 Buick Super 4-door sedan (not a hardtop). It's solid black. Looks good in the pics, but they're not that detailed. It has some aftermarket gauges mounted under the dash, and has newer thin whitewalls. It only has 20,000 miles on it, although that can be both good and bad. Anyway, I know that's not much to go on, but could anyone give me a ballpark figure on what something like that would go for? They're asking $20K. I told him I'd guess more like $12-14K, but that was just a guess. Thanks!

It would have to be magnificent for $20K, and even then, probably a poor investment. If it's a "driver" with blemishes and little issues, even though "clean" from 10-feet away, it's a $9000 car at best IMO.

You have to look at old cars up close. It could have nice paint but an old rusty engine bay or chassis; or it could say "restored" but all the weatherstripping in old and cracked and the chassis underneath is surface rusted and oily. All these kinds of things change the value considerably. Basically you need to asses the "whole car" to come up with a really accurate price.

fintail

Out on the highway today: 37 Dodge or Plymouth hot rod, bulletnose Stude sedan hot rod, ~53 Mercury convertible, ~53 Ford two door sedan, first gen Probe, I think a turbo with the extra cladding and sporty wheels.

andre1969

I had the DeSoto out today, for its first voyage since that ill-fated trip home from the mechanic three weeks ago, when it ran out of gas. I took it to BJs, about 6 miles away, for a fill-up. On the way back, I took it for a quick highway jaunt to see how it would do...pretty impressive actually, considering it's just a 2-bbl.

One thing that felt odd though, was the way it accelerated. When I punched it, to merge out onto the highway, it simply took off. If the transmission kicked down into second, I sure didn't feel it. Maybe, with the somewhat quick-ish axle ratio, it simply didn't need to downshift? It has a 3.36:1 axle ratio, whereas my other old cars are 2.56:1 (Catalina), 2.45:1 (R-bodies), and 2.41:1 (LeMans).

I did run into a few minor glitches. 1) the horn didn't always work...hopefully just a loose connection or something else simple. 2) out on the highway, when I got up to around 70, the ribbon speedometer suddenly shot up to around 90-100 and bounced around there. Once I got off the highway and slowed down, it suddenly dropped, bounced a bit, and then settled into more of a realistic range. 3) I forgot about how the automatic fuel shutoffs don't always work with older cars...got talking with another guy filling up his car, who said he learned to drive on a '58 DeSoto wagon, and kinda lost track of the pump. Oops...

Anyway, here's a few pics of it. First one is in the BJ's parking lot, and the next ones are back at home, when I washed off the area that got fuel spillage on it...

fintail

The new chrome really pops. Looks like the passenger side is good for beauty shots. Are you going to wax it, or just hold off for paint?

The fintail has the gas shut off quirk too - many years ago, I had some overflow, which I quickly treated with some of that powdery spill clean up stuff they had in a container on top of a pump. Luckily, gasoline evaporates quickly, and it wasn't busy.

andre1969

berri said:

I believe '55 was the first true Virgil Exner design at Chrysler. He was able to put a little lipstick on the 54 models.
I always liked mid 50's Buicks. A friend in college drove a 55 Buick base 4dr sedan on campus. Those doors liked to swing open without warning at times - and no, it wasn't someone needing to puke

I wonder if it might have been '53? I couldn't remember when Exner first joined Chrysler, but according to Wikipedia it was 1949. It seemed like the cars didn't evolve much from 1949-52. But suddenly in 1953, we got the truncated, slab-sided Dodges and Plymouths, and the DeSoto/Chrysler/Imperials got more modern looking rear-ends, flashier fronts, and the 4-door and pillared 2-door models got a nice looking roofline with a reverse-slant C-pillar.

I don't know why, exactly, but for some reason I always thought of the reverse-slant C-pillar, like what you'd see on a '53 DeSoto 4-door, a '58 Chevy, and other various cars, as "European". Maybe because of the '52+ Nashes, that gave their styling credit to Pininfarina? And, with Chrysler, Exner partnered with Ghia to make those early 50's show cars, some of that styling did inspire the Forward Look cars, but I guess even early on, perhaps some of that Ghia influence might have rubbed off on the '53's?

As for the Forward Look, Chrysler advertised the '54 DeSoto as being "The Car with the Forward Look", although not too many people noticed. And, while it's attractive enough in its own right, I think the '54 Oldsmobile and Buick made it look old. So did the Mercury...although in those days, Mercury was a bit downscale in price, more equivalent to a Pontiac or Dodge. Still, that was about the closest competition Ford Motor Company had to something like a DeSoto.

As for Buicks, I really liked the '55 and '56 models. Even though the '54 was the same body, I just never cared for the front-end, which had kind of a droopy, "sad" look to it. But it seemed like for '55-56, they perfected the style. Then, in '57, an all-new design, it seemed like they went back to a bit of a droopy, "sad" look to the front. There's also just something about the '57, when viewed from certain angles, it seems a bit narrow and tipsy, to me. Maybe that's why they bulked up the '58 so much, because a lot of others noticed it too? I think GM also took a lot of flack for that "Suddenly It's 1954" 3-piece rear window treatment that the Special/Century used?

sda

I love the back end of the DeSoto. The bouncing speedo may be a speedometer cable that needs lubing, has a kink or just needs replacing. I had a similar issue with an older car and replacing the cable did the trick.

Mr_Shiftright

andre1969 said:

I had the DeSoto out today, for its first voyage since that ill-fated trip home from the mechanic three weeks ago, when it ran out of gas. I took it to BJs, about 6 miles away, for a fill-up. On the way back, I took it for a quick highway jaunt to see how it would do...pretty impressive actually, considering it's just a 2-bbl.

One thing that felt odd though, was the way it accelerated. When I punched it, to merge out onto the highway, it simply took off. If the transmission kicked down into second, I sure didn't feel it. Maybe, with the somewhat quick-ish axle ratio, it simply didn't need to downshift? It has a 3.36:1 axle ratio, whereas my other old cars are 2.56:1 (Catalina), 2.45:1 (R-bodies), and 2.41:1 (LeMans).

I did run into a few minor glitches. 1) the horn didn't always work...hopefully just a loose connection or something else simple. 2) out on the highway, when I got up to around 70, the ribbon speedometer suddenly shot up to around 90-100 and bounced around there. Once I got off the highway and slowed down, it suddenly dropped, bounced a bit, and then settled into more of a realistic range. 3) I forgot about how the automatic fuel shutoffs don't always work with older cars...got talking with another guy filling up his car, who said he learned to drive on a '58 DeSoto wagon, and kinda lost track of the pump. Oops...

RE: Acceleration---you should check the return spring on the carb linkage--if it's too weak, you end up pressing down further on the gas pedal than you really need to.

RE: Speedo--disconnect the cable at the speedometer head and pull out the cable and lubricate it with white grease all along its length.

ab348

andre1969 said:

As for the Forward Look, Chrysler advertised the '54 DeSoto as being "The Car with the Forward Look", although not too many people noticed. And, while it's attractive enough in its own right, I think the '54 Oldsmobile and Buick made it look old. So did the Mercury...although in those days, Mercury was a bit downscale in price, more equivalent to a Pontiac or Dodge. Still, that was about the closest competition Ford Motor Company had to something like a DeSoto.

Well, I dunno. I didn't like any of GM's '54 models very much styling-wise. They all seemed a bit off compared to how they were updated the next year. As for the '54 Merc, it still looked too much like a Ford for my liking though the rear end was not bad. The '54 DeSoto strikes me as comparable to all of them though it did still have the bulging rear quarters which was getting a bit old-fashioned, but it wasn't alone in that. Plus it had a nice dash design. It was a bit limited in model range which probably kept sales down somewhat.

Mr_Shiftright

1955 was like a threshold in styling. I'm not sure what was in the water in Detroit back then (something a lot nicer than the water in Detroit in 2018, that's for sure), but whatever it was, it spawned a Renaissance of sorts in styling and engineering.

andre1969

I think the main thing that makes the '54 DeSoto look out of date, compared to a Buick, Olds, or Mercury, is that the other cars are more flat-hooded, with taller fenders, whereas the DeSoto still has that old fashioned look with the really tall hood and low fenders. I don't know if the overall height of a '54 DeSoto was greater than a Mercury, Olds, or Buick, but I do recall there was a bit of a backlash against the style when it came out for '49. It was designed so that a man could drive the car without taking off his hat, whereas the GM and Ford cars were designed to be more stylish and low-slung. Or at least *look* low-slung. They're all kind of SUV-ish by today's standards!

But yeah, style-wise, I don't think there's really any '54 out there that really does it for me, at least compared to the '55's. I do like the '54 DeSoto, partly for nostalgia, as my Granddad had a '53, which is very similar, when I was a kid. But if given the choice I'd take a '55.

berri

I think you are right about Exner and the 53's. The focus is more on 54 because that is considered by some as the prep work for the all new 55's (and I think the 55 DeSoto and Didge particularly stood out). Then the 56 models started the fins that would make the 57 design famous. The big fins faded quickly as seen by their truncation in 59. He experimented with things like inverted and canted fins after that with mixed results.

There is a lot more to Virgil Exner as a designer though. He actually got into the design business at GM under Harley Earl. Then went to Raymond Loewy Associates, but the two of them clashed. He was canned and promptly picked up by Studebaker who knew him through their Loewy studios work. Exner is considered a large part of the postwar Studebaker design that beat the big 3 designers. I always thought his mid 50's Mopar exhibition vehicles were often standouts for the times. Exner, Bill Mitchell and Brooks Stevens are some of my favorite postwar designers.

berri

I always thought the 54 DeSoto had a simple, attractive dash and interior more than the exterior that was kind of just cleaned up a bit from the 53. But that's just my personal take on it. If I had to pick a big car 54 design it would be between the Chrysler, Mercury or Buick (probably in that order). But overall, I'd lean toward the independents like Studebaker and Nash that year personally.

berri

I think 55 was not just styling , but engineering as well. For me, styling wise 57 was a big year for Chrysler and Fomoco, while 59 was a big styling change for GM (not necessarily well received by many). 61 toned things down at GM and Ford, then Engel came over to Chrysler from Ford and toned them down for 65 at the same time GM and Ford put out some very nice new lookers. Exciting times back then.

andre1969

There's something about the '54 DeSoto dash that always caught my eye, as well. It almost seems a bit modern and futuristic, compared to the rest of the car. In contrast, the '53 dash just seemed a bit old fashioned. Maybe, it's because the '53 was more rounded, and less obtrusive, whereas the '54 was more squared-off, and seemed larger?

berri

That might have been how the dash kind of segmented in two between the driver and passenger. Ford did something similar in 56. The radio splits them.

andre1969

berri said:

I think 55 was not just styling , but engineering as well. For me, styling wise 57 was a big year for Chrysler and Fomoco, while 59 was a big styling change for GM (not necessarily well received by many). 61 toned things down at GM and Ford, then Engel came over to Chrysler from Ford and toned them down for 65 at the same time GM and Ford put out some very nice new lookers. Exciting times back then.

Yeah, it's a shame times like that will never be repeated, it seems. These days, I think cars are just about as advanced as it's going to feasibly get. Things will improve as time goes on, but not by the leaps and bounds we used to have.

For instance, using DeSoto as an example (just because I have a few stats memorized), look at how much performance changed in just a few years. When the Firedome Hemi came out for '52, a 276.1 unit with 160 hp gross, it cut the 0-60 time from around 21.6 seconds to 17.6 seconds, according to Motortrend, I think it was. By 1955, the Fireflite with a 200 hp 291-4bbl was good for around 13 seconds, according to Consumer Reports. Motortrend got 12.8. I think the '55-56 models got it down to 11-12 seconds. They used a 330.4 with 230 hp in the Firedome, 255 in the Fireflite. They probably could have been quicker, but no doubt the 2-speed held them back, as first gear was somewhere between what 1st and 2nd would be on a "proper" 3-speed.

I forget who did the test, but I saw a test of a '57 Firedome convertible, with the 270 hp 341.1 2-bbl and Torqueflite, that did 0-60 in something like 9.7 seconds. I do remember seeing a test of a 1957 Dodge Royal with the 325 2-bbl poly-head and a 2-speed automatic, essentially what the entry level DeSoto Firesweep would have been, and it did 0-60 in around 13.3 seconds. That seems a bit slow to me, considering it had 245 hp, and would have been lighter than the '55 DeSoto was. Plus I'm sure the 325 would be a lot torquier, in addition to the extra hp. But, who knows? Maybe they were inflating hp numbers by that time? Plus, the '55's 291 had a 4-bbl, versus a 2-bbl for the '57 325, so maybe that helped it rev up better?

When the wedge head started replacing the Hemi, there were rumors going on about how it didn't have the same performance. I think usually those arguments related to the 300 Letter Series, and were supposedly false, but further down the ranks, there might have been some truth. I recall one test of a 1958 DeSoto Firesweep, which had a 350-2bbl Wedge and a torqueflite, and 280 hp, and 0-60 was around 11 seconds. That's 10 hp more than the 341-2bbl Hemi of the '57 Firedome, which was also a heavier car (Firesweep was Dodge-based). So, it would indicate the Wedge didn't perform like the Hemi. But, I don't know if they changed axle ratios or not.

By 1959, they were offering the 350 hp Adventurer 383-dual quad as an option across the whole lineup. I've heard that in the lightweight Firesweep, 0-60 was in the low 8-second range. So, in just 8 years, we had 0-60 times dropping from 21.6 seconds to the low 8's. And while a 383-dual quad is a bit extreme, even in the more mainstream DeSotos, where it was mainly 361s and 383s putting out around 295-325 hp, I'm sure they were all still good for 0-60 in the 9-10 second range.

After that, it seemed like performance started taking a back seat to economy, for a few years at least. In DeSoto's final year, 1961, the 361 was de-tuned to run on low octane fuel And then, DeSoto went away. In later years, performance did make a comeback in the industry, but it seemed like it took bigger and bigger engines to do it, as the cars got heavier, and even then, it seems like the focus was more on small and midsized cars when it came to performance.

I guess there was sort of a second coming of performance in the 1980s. The 70's were bad for the most part, and that malaise era seemed to hit its worst around 1979-82. But the, for 1983 it seemed like there was a fast turnaround, and it's been nothing but improvement, since.

explorerx4

My friend up the street let me drive this a few minutes ago.
Crappy picture I took a while back.


With custom exhaust, it sounds great.

berri

Porsche is a great car, but I bet your F-150 is a nicer ride.

Andre, I think there may have been two components to the wedge switch at Chrysler. Cost to produce obviously, but also the wedge was probably a better day to day driver.

explorerx4

@berri,
I only took it on smooth local roads, trying to be careful. It only has 19k on it.
Did stall it(in 3rd instead of 1st) at a 4 way stop with a police vehicle facing me.

andre1969

berri said:

Porsche is a great car, but I bet your F-150 is a nicer ride.

Andre, I think there may have been two components to the wedge switch at Chrysler. Cost to produce obviously, but also the wedge was probably a better day to day driver.

Yeah, I heard the main factor was cost. The Wedge was also lighter than the Hemi. It was more noticeable when comparing a Chrysler Hemi to a Wedge, but even with the DeSoto Hemi, there was a noticeable difference. I think the Dodge Hemi was gone for '57. There was a D-501 option, that would make the Dodge the equivalent of a Fury, Adventurer, or 300-C, just without the model name, but it used a 354 Chrysler Hemi, and not a Dodge Hemi.

I know the 426 Hemi was not a good engine for driveability, as it was essentially a racecar engine. And, from what I've heard, the 355 hp version of the '56 300B's 354, and the 390 hp version of the 300C/Ds 392, were considered "race only" versions, and not suited for street use. Every single 1957 Adventurer though, had a 345 CID putting out 345 hp, so apparently it was "streetable". I couldn't imagine them selling a car like that for only racing.

I never had to use my DeSoto as a daily driver, so I don't know how they did on a regular basis. It never gave me too much trouble back in the day, although I do remember it stalling out on two separate occasions, and leaving me stranded...until it decided to fire up again. But, that was more "old car" than "Hemi" issues... I'd imagine the Wedge Head might have run cooler than the Hemi?

Oh, I found a few more data points on my little 0-60 trip down memory lane. Motortrend, who got a '56 Fireflite with a 200 hp 291-4bbl to do 0-60 in 12.8 seconds, got a '56 with the 255 hp 330.4-4bbl to do it in 10.9.

And, the '58 Firesweep I mentioned, was 10.8 seconds in 0-60. And it did indeed have a slightly taller axle...3.15:1 versus 3.36:1 for the '57 Firedome. As for test weight, they had the '57 listed at 4100 lb, and 3900 lb for the Firesweep...so really not a *huge* difference, IMO. Basically the weight of a decent-sized passenger.

I found a 1959 DeSoto Fireflite test with a 383-4bbl, 325 hp...0-60 in 8.9 seconds. It used a 3.31:1 axle, and the test weight was 4300 lb.

uplanderguy

A couple outliers to our local club's Studebaker/Packard/Independents show yesterday at Summit Racing's retail store in Tallmadge, OH--a Facel Vega and an Eldorado Brougham, both snapped by me as they were leaving.

uplanderguy

fintail

Just saw a completely unmodified S2000 with a hardtop, not an accessory seen every day.

ab348

I always thought the Facel-Vega was an incredible car.

explorerx4

I remember my grandmother's next door neighbor bought one of those Eldorado's some time in the 60's, although a burgundy color. It was immaculate. Loved all that shiny trim.

omarman

Wow, both cars are beautiful.
When I look at the Eldorado Brougham the whitewalls seem a bit narrow. And the Facel Vega would look great with blackwall tires.

andre1969

I wonder how many of those '57-58 Eldorado Broughams are left in existence? From the stats I could find, they only built 400 for 1957 and 304 for 1958. But, at $13K+ apiece, only the truly wealthy could afford them, and they tend to take care of their cars. I guess the problems start though, once these cars are no longer fashionable, get traded, become used cars, and fall into the hands of people who can't afford to keep them up, or, simply, don't care.

The Eldorado Brougham, like the '56-57 Continental Mark II, might have been somewhat immune to that phenomenon because of that lofty price, but I imagine that fate still befell enough of them. And, in those days, I don't think there was any honor into holding onto a car for posterity/"investment", like how people started doing in the 70's with cars like the "last convertible" '76 Eldorados, and other mastodon-class cars that people rushed out to buy, and hold onto, once word of downsizing got out.

andre1969

The Facel Vega is a car that I only discovered, somewhat recently, but I think they're pretty cool. For some reason, I find the 4-door to be really attractive. It's like a combination of Cadillac, Lincoln, Imperial, and Mercedes Benz, all rolled into one, and somehow, the style manages to work!

And, I like the fact they used Mopar engines!

Anybody know what one of these beasts would have cost, back when they were new?

fintail

I think the Eldo Brougham was the first car marketed with narrower whitewalls. That one looks great in blue rather than the more frequent grey or black.

This site lists a Facel Vega HK500 at nearly $10K but no source, and maybe via the short life of the firm, that price wasn't running in the black. For reference, a new Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud (standard) was under $15K.

Mr_Shiftright

andre1969 said:

The Facel Vega is a car that I only discovered, somewhat recently, but I think they're pretty cool. For some reason, I find the 4-door to be really attractive. It's like a combination of Cadillac, Lincoln, Imperial, and Mercedes Benz, all rolled into one, and somehow, the style manages to work!

And, I like the fact they used Mopar engines!

Anybody know what one of these beasts would have cost, back when they were new?

They were quite expensive, depending on model and year, but generally they fell into Rolls Royce territory--around $15,000 in 1964---that was a lot of money for a car.

They have lovely interiors and of course a bullet-proof American drivetrain. Perhaps the only downside is that they are all coachbuilt, in the old world method, so they can turn into rattle traps over time--like just about any hand-built car will.

PF_Flyer

A photographer friend of mine found a bunch of old cars and trucks rusting away in the woods. Here's an oddball

berri

I think they made those Willy's Aero's from around 52-55?

fintail

Maybe best known as the Western Union guy's car at the end of Back to the Future Part II

kyfdx

Saab 9-3X wagon

AWD.. .looked new. Had to be one of the last ones

andre1969

There used to be an early 50's Willys that resided near my home. IIRC, it was a 2-door sedan, and sort of a faded dark bluish green color, perhaps similar to the junkyard Willys above. I tried looking it up on the Google street view...it was there in 2008, although because of the bad resolution back then, you can't really tell what it is, under the carport. In the 2012 street view, it's gone. And now, the place is subdivided, for sale, and awaiting potential destruction... https://www.redfin.com/MD/Glenn-Dale/6516-Bell-Station-Rd-20769/home/10898579

uplanderguy

There was a nice Willys hardtop of that '52-55 vintage at our club's Studebaker/Packard/Independents meet last Saturday at Summit Racing. Built in Toledo, OH. Neat, different car.

andre1969

Those final Willys models to have a charm about them. To me, they look a bit like a cross between a Ford and a Hudson, just on a small scale.

I wonder how much interior room they gave up, compared to something like a Ford, Chevy, or Plymouth in those days? Those Big Three cars were usually on a wheelbase of around 115", compared to 108" for the Aero. But, cars in those days weren't really built for space efficiency. Often the added wheelbase was just there to give the car a more impressive, upscale look. Also, moving the axles further from the passenger cabin did give the car a smoother, more stable ride.

For instance, you could probably take my '57 DeSoto and chop about 10" off of the wheelbase, without sacrificing passenger room one bit, and the only trunk space you'd lose would be that hard-to-reach area ahead of the rear axle hump. Actually, the Dodges and Plymouths had 4" less wheelbase ahead of the cowl, than a Chrysler or the bigger DeSotos in 1957. Plymouth shaved an additional 4" in back (with the exception of wagons), but as far as I know, the passenger cabins all had the same amount of interior room.

In my DeSoto, it looks like there's about a 6" gap ahead of the rear axle hump, and behind the rear seat, that could be eliminated without even having the wheel wells go into the seat area itself, so you could do this without even having the wheel well intrusion back there that cars started getting more and more of when downsizing started. But, I have a feeling putting my car on a 116" wb, and having it only be about 208" long overall, would mess up its proportioning.

Still, I'd imagine an early/mid 50's Ford/Chevy/Plymouth still had a lot of wasted space that could be eliminated, getting it closer to Willys Aero size, with no loss in interior room. My guess is the Aero gave up the most in shoulder room, compared to those bigger cars. IIRC, that's where Studebakers of the era came up a bit short, as well.

Of course, in the classic car world, people don't care about space efficiency, sensibility, and stuff like that. It's more style, history, nostalgia, and folklore. But, I'm just thinking about when the cars were new. I'd also imagine though, that the Aero was using outmoded mechanicals by then, and being sold on a much smaller volume, it was harder to compete on low price.

berri

Postwar America Populuxe generally meant bigger is better back then

ab348

The bidding on this auction for an unrestored '64 Austin Cooper is wild:

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1964-austin-cooper-s-2/?utm_source=dailymail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-09-04

I found these pics particularly interesting. Clearly, only one of these cars is actually deserving of the term "mini".

stickguy

Landcrab is certainly mini by today’s standards though. It’s all relative.

Can you imagine the original with 5 MPH bumpers?

Mr_Shiftright

Bid does seem a bit high. I would have thought $35K or so. In any event, just about the most fun you can have driving a car IMO.

ab348

stickguy said:

Landcrab is certainly mini by today’s standards though. It’s all relative.

Can you imagine the original with 5 MPH bumpers?

I can. My brother owned one, which were sold in Canada in the mid-70s.



Details of the changes made are here:

https://www.aronline.co.uk/cars/mini/mini-international-variations/canadian-minis/

andre1969

I could have used one of the original Minis the other week. My wheelbarrow popped a tire!

fintail

62K on the Mini now, LOL!

I like the pic of the white car, with its apparent lack of underbody protection. I am sure it would last several hours on a salted road during a snowy climate winter.

And of course the BaT MB rabbit hole, where bargains are hen's teeth, but there are often nice looking cars:

Looks like these are finally finding fans

Great colors

Pretty

Preservation piece

Join the cult

Mr_Shiftright

Mini bids are crazy. What are people thinking here? Have they actually look at the photos? Did I miss some celebrity ownership status?

There have always been fans for the Mercedes 2.3-16 and 2.5 - 16, although I think fair market is more like $25K for that car at the moment. I'd peg this one as not a good investment at this time.

The G500 is so preposterously ugly that the allure really escapes me. I need to drink the Kool-Aid on that one I guess. I'll take it in a sippy cup, just a little at a time, please.

fintail

The Mini ended at 80K. Eighty Thousand US Dollars. This is wacky even for BaT.

I could build a nice little collection for 80K, although admittedly I am not addicted to high dollar cars.

I think a G is like "It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand", but auf Deutsch.

ab348

Jeebus. $80K for a Mini Cooper. I feel the Earth wobbling on its axis. 

explorerx4

That person who sold the 33k Pinto is saying I should have bought a Mini to resell.

Mr_Shiftright

fintail said:

The Mini ended at 80K. Eighty Thousand US Dollars. This is wacky even for BaT.

I could build a nice little collection for 80K, although admittedly I am not addicted to high dollar cars.

I think a G is like "It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand", but auf Deutsch.

Some bidder is going to have a real hangover in the morning or we must have missed some clue as to why this happened.

I mean, Ringo Starr's Mini Cooper S sold for $138K, but, you know, that's the Beatles, with a name on the registration.

I did a survey of all Mini Cooper Ss sold at major auctions around the world in the last 3 years and the going price for the best ones seems to be in the mid to high $40Ks. The only exceptions I saw were race-built Mini Coopers with an historical race history and all the "Swiftune" goodies, which are worth about $40K (just for the mods).

fintail

Apparently the winner has won other cars there, including a 160K Porsche, so someone has the money to act emotionally