1960's Oldsmobiles

jrosasmc

So not all American cars in the '60s were just slapped together, as I had originally thought.

andys120

cars of the 70s and in some cases the 80s the big American cars of the 60s were quite well made. With careful driving and maintenance you could get a big Ford or GM to last nearly as long as a Mercedes and for a lot less money (not counting gas LOL!).

This statement does not apply to compacts and some intermediates but the big boats were fairly sturdy.

Mr_Shiftright

You got what you paid for back then, but remember these are mass-produced cars on an assembly line and world standards were not so high nor was there any real competition for American companies. I only use "slammed together" by modern standards. For the time, they were probably better than Japanese, Itlaian and British cars but not quite up to the standards of the Swedes and not even close to the Germans. A 1960 VW Bug was built with a lot more care than a Chevrolet, with a lot fewer leaks and rattles.

Also one shouldn't confuse quality build with reliability---those are two separate things.

andre1969

...I think GM cars nowadays are more "slammed together" than they were in the '60's! A couple weeks ago, I drove an '02 LeSabre that had fit-and-finish so poor that it would've made Ford and Chrysler's QC people cringe back way back in '57!

As for tightness, one reason a Beetle might be so tight was that they were all 2-door sedans (well, except for the convertible), which is naturally the most solid body style. Come to think of it, did the back windows on them even flip out? There's less to open and roll down, so less to break, loosen up, and rattle.

Chrysler cars were usually pretty sturdy in the '60's, even the smaller ones, mainly because unibody was still in its infancy, so when they goofed up a design, they'd just add more bracing or support into the design. Also, just comparing the Mopars from the '60's I've owned (a '67 Newport and '68 and '69 Darts) to the GM products (a '67 Catalina and '69 Bonneville), Chrysler used thicker sheetmetal. Although it didn't necessarily line up as well!

Chrysler also depended on compacts much more than Ford or General Motors, so I believe they put more effort into them, since they had more at stake. GM and Ford had their big cars to fall back on, where Chrysler's big car offerings weren't nearly as vast.

carnut4

depending on what day of the week they were made. Remember the old joke about a "Monday car" not being as well assembled as one on a Wednesday afternoon? I don't know if theis was true or not, but some of the stories I used to hear about the working condtions on some assemblylines were horrible.
And, If you ever had a chance to inspect a bunch of new cars on a dealer lot back in the 60s, you could see differences in the way doors and panels fit, and other things. GM seemed generally better than Chrysler in the 60s, and Chevrolet was pretty good for the money at the time. But there were always a few glitches-you never knew.
A friend worked on a Chrysler assemblyline in 1968, underneath cars going by at the rate of 62 a minute, and what he daid about it was horrible. Worker morale there was terrible, and that directly affected the quality of assembly.

jsylvester

Seeing how back in the 60's, almost anyone could get hired by the big 3 if they put just a little effort into it - business was very good.

I'm hoping the workers today take great pride with their work, as they should realize if they lose their job to the next Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc. plant, they will never find another paying like the UAW!

jrosasmc

I believe that on some years of the Beetle, the rear windows did flip out, but only a little bit.

And I know what you mean about that '02 LeSabre having very poor fit-and-finish. A '96 Roadmaster wagon I test-drove over the summer had that same affliction; the panel gaps were so wide it was kind of hilarious.

Mr_Shiftright

Well, in any event, American cars were "good enough" to run a lot longer than most foreign cars of the day. Perhaps the worst you can say about them is that they are rather crudely finished in chassis and engine (the parts you DON'T see) and quite acceptable otherwise.

Or to put it another way, they were built in a very cost-conscious way and if you look closely enough, it really shows.

Consumers would not tolerate such crude cars today I don't think. Even engine bays are all dressed up now on American cars.

carnut4

at least a lot of assembly line jobs have been taken over by machines. Any figures out there comparing the number of workers for one car today compared to 40 years ago? Talk about slam-bang. It's all about a bunch of plastic panels snapped in place, roofs and bodysides spot welded together with plastic/rubber snapped in the seam to cover the crude welds. No hand-soldered bodywork anywhere. No hand-assembled dashboards or interiors-at least not nearly the hand labor involved. I suppose that's good in some ways. Machines can't get pissed off and slam through their job, causing some shoddy assembly.
When I dismantled the entire dashboard and all the painted interior window sills, etc, on my 55 Pontiac so I could have the dash and door/window sills painted, it took about an hour and a half to take it all apart, and more like 3 hours to put it all back together. I mean, all those little metal fasteners, retainers, chrome parts, etc. No way could they afford to pay a worker to do all that now. They just design a bunch of plastic and rubber stuff that all snaps together quickly, with as few humans as possible. Same with bodies.
With the engines and drivetrains, this may be a good thing, for tolerances and so on.
But overall, the hand labor that was involved in the older cars, for me anyway, is part of the appeal. And, you can redo it all yourself if you want, and make it like new.
Try that 20 years from now with a 2002 anything.

jrosasmc

I'm sure somebody 20 years from now will figure out a way to dismantle and put back together an interior from a 2002-03 car.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think so. You can kiss most modern cars goodbye when it comes restoration time. It just won't be cost effective. And the more common the modern car, the less the chance of survival. Restoration procedure will be completely out of the hands of the hobbyist, which means $100 an hour labor rates. It's not going to work and once NOS parts are gone, you won't be able to reproduce a lot of parts. Try to buy parts for old computers or VCR machines, you'll see the problem. Cost of object more than value of product? End of the line.

I believe the only modern cars you'll see in 20-30 years will be original survivors that were never restored, and of course, the occasional valuable exotic, like Ferrari, etc. that will be worth restoring (maybe).

Don't confuse modern "hot-rodding" with restoration. It's a lot different bolting parts on a new Honda than it is rebuilding the body and interior.

andre1969

...is that most cars today are of the 4-door pillared variety. If they're cars at all, that is. Considering the popularity of trucks, SUV's, and minivans, there just aren't that many cars sold anymore.

Most of the old cars that people collect and restore are hardtop coupes or convertibles, body styles that are essentially non-existent today.

Who knows...maybe things will change. Still, I can't see anybody getting anymore excited over a 2000 MY car 40 years from now than people do nowadays with 1962-era 4-door sedans.

jsylvester

While this has been covered in another discussion, in the interest of getting this thread back into the top 10.....

I believe automobiles have to meet the emission requirements of the year produced, though there may be a 25 year time limit in some states.

So, while the bodies/interior could be close to stock, one could greatly simplify the drivetrain if desired down the road.

1960's drivetrains in 2000's bodies? (Front Wheel drive excepted)

Mr_Shiftright

Uh-uh...the laws in California specifically forbid "downgrading" the engine. you can put in a newer engine than the model year but not an older engine. Since most other states model their laws after California, I suspect this prohibition exists elsewhere.

andre1969

...I don't think it matters what engine is in the car (California excepted). For example, back in '94 a kid with an '82 or so Regal wanted to buy my '69 Bonneville. I asked him what engine it had in it, since it sounded like it had some guts to it. He had a Chevy 327 under the hood.

I see RWD GM intermediates all the time from the '78-88 generation with much, much larger than stock engines in them. These cars originally came with nothing larger than a 350, yet just about any GM big block will fit under the hood!

A guy in my Mopar club has an '82 Olds 98 with a 403, which technically should not exist. When the 403 goes (it has a lot of miles on it) he wants to put in a 455. Another guy in that club awhile back was helping a friend put a 400 in a 1980 Gran Fury. Now maybe these people are doing this stuff illegally, I don't know.

In Maryland, emissions testing goes all the way back to 1977. Anything 1976 and older, they don't worry about. One thing that'll be interesting though, is to see what happens in the next year or so. In MD, you can get historic tags for anything 25 years and older, which means no inspection. I wonder then, if you get historic tags for a '77 car (which you will be able to do on Jan 1), if it'll then be exempt from emissions testing.

Maryland used to only go back 15 years. When I first had to take a car through the test, anything 1973 and older was exempt. Every year, they moved it up one year, but for some reason got hung up on 1976 as the last year for an exempt car.

As for emissions testing, you Californians are probably so used to having your cars choked down, that you don't realize how lax the laws are elsewhere. Either that, or the cars just aren't as dirty as the politicians and tree huggers would have us believe. For example, I recently had my '00 Intrepid tested back in May. I compared the results to my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, which was tested about a year and a half ago. Naturally, the Intrepid ran cleaner, and the standards were much more rigid for '00 MY cars than '85 MY cars. But get this...the LeSabre, which passed by a wide margin when it was tested, would have passed by a wide margin, EVEN USING THE 2000 STANDARDS!!

That tells me that there's a lot you can do to a car to hop it up, and still have it run clean. Even my old '79 Newport, which used the tailpipe test and not the treadmill, passed by a wide margin. That was with a 318 with about 230,000 miles on it. I'm sure a much bigger, older, dirtier engine could be dropped in that car, and still pass the test.

Some areas in Maryland don't even have emissions testing. My Mom & stepdad live about 50 miles south of me, in another county, and they don't have emissions testing at all! So still, maybe it is "technically" illegal to put an older engine in a newer car, but if they test the car and it still passes, or if there is no test, how are they going to enforce it? When I had my Newport in for testing, the girl working the machine didn't even know what a Newport was , so I'm sure it's a safe bet she wouldn't know a 426 Hemi from a 2.6 "Hemi"!

andre1969

...my '89 Gran Fury has the engine from an '88 Diplomat in it. Now as far as I know there's no difference between an '88 318 and an '89, except the '89's had a run of bad camshafts. But still, if the gov't wanted to get anal about it, what kind of stuff would they try to do to me? I bought the car that way, from a dealership that put the engine in, so it's not like I did it myself.

Considering the car doesn't even have to go through emissions testing, I doubt the feds would even care. I'm guessing police cars are exempt from emissions testing? At least in my case, I've had the car over 4 years now, and "should have" gotten testing notices for it twice by now!

Mr_Shiftright

that's just idle testing or low speed testing. When you step on the gas, some big engines can pollute as much as 60 modern cars. The '85 LeSabre would never pass 2000 standards in California.

Old cars are relatively filthy running, but there aren't enough of them to create a problem, so I don't personally care. If tens of thousands of people started downgrading their cars with older engines, i might protest, however. Pollution laws should be strict enough to not be subverted. I would like to continue breathing, thank you very much, and if I'm following the law, I expect my fellow citizens to do the same or to organize and change the law, not to become outlaws.

Also, following the rules does credit to the old car hobby.

If states have lax emissions laws, that's too bad for them. it's not a wise choice in the long run.

parm

Just checked their website and Duffy's still has that '65 Olds 98 convertible listed for $21,000.

Hard to believe my well thought-out, concise and rational arguments weren't compelling enough for him to lower his price. Hmmmmmm, perhaps he's somehow related to my wife.

andre1969

...in Maryland, the LeSabre has to go on the exact same treadmill test as the Intrepid. They run the cars up to a simulated speed of something like 45-50 mph. You might be thinking of the tailpipe test, which older cars go through. In Maryland, I think they treadmill all 84 and newer cars, and do the less-realistic tailpipe test for '77-83 models. You couldn't realistically compare my '79 NYer or 'Newport to the Intrepid, because they used different testing methods, but the LeSabre and Intrepid use the same test.

Parm, the sad thing is, some poor sap with more dollars than sense may still come along and pick up that car, even at $21,000. I know a lot of people (well, okay, a few) that I'd call "noveau riche" or however you spell it. Basically they got their money quick, either from wealthy relatives or the stock market, instead of earning it over many years and appreciating all that hard work. I know one person who bought an '82 Corvette for $18,000 and turned around and traded it for a '73 or '74 Benz 450SL convertible. Got something like $12K for the 'Vette in trade, and paid about $15K+ for the Benz. Then just recently, he sold the Benz for about 1/2 of what he paid for it!

I think it's kind of the same mentality as people over-paying on real estate or buying over-valued stocks. When times are good, they figure the money will keep rolling in and prices will keep going up, so even if they overpay, they'll find someone down the road to overpay even worse!

Kind of a convoluted way to go through life, but there are people like that!

badgerpaul

Here you go. $5500 and a grinding wheel or a cutting torch and voila a '65 Olds 98 convertible.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1860489058

parm

Yeah, I saw this car already. I'm tracking it to see what it goes for. There's a couple of 1966-67 Olds 98 convertibles listed in the most recent Old Cars Weekly. Don't have it here in front of me, but one is reportedly pretty nice with an asking price of around $9,800 I believe - which means it'll sell for less than that.

Only two things attracted me to this Olds at Duffy's in the first place. One was it's original, unmolested and well-preserved condition.

The other (and I know this is a flimsy reason) is the cool Sport Disc magnesium wheels which I've heard are actually pretty expense to replace. Someone on the Olds Club of America website said a nice set of 4 generally goes for around $1,000! Actually, take off those wheels, slap on the standard dish-style hub caps and the appearance and visual appeal of this car is a real yawner.

The originality of a car like this carries only so much of a premium in my opinion.

In the meantime, there are a few 63-64 Cadillac convertibles I'm going to look into. Some of these have been on the market for a while now so hopefully the owners may now be willing to sell at a reasonable price.

Mr_Shiftright

Old car buyers are not as naive as they were 10 years ago. I can't see anyone paying double what a car is worth.

The fact that it is original and low miles is a liability in my book, not an asset, because after over paying by 100%, what are your options for use? Nothing good. If you drive it, you lose the very thing you paid double for (low miles). If you don't drive it, you lock it in your garage and all you have is an overpriced car that doesn't go anywhere. Trailer it around? A '65 Olds 98? That's a stretch.

isellhondas

We used to have collector car auctions at least four or five times a year. These have all but disappeared and the largest of the auction companies went out of business several years ago.

I think with the collapse of the stock market, the "extra" dollars to spend on a whim are gone for many people, myself included.

I can remember an auctioneer telling the bidders..."watch your investment grow by 15 pecent a year!"

Not sure that was true at the time but now, we all know this isn't the case.

Mr_Shiftright

The collector car market is still healthy but only for nice cars. People will still pay for the best, but they will rarely overpay. They are much better educated about what's collectible and what isn't and how much one should pay for them. Project cars are dead unless they are extremely rare and valuable models. Also, more and more people want to use their "classics", not shut them up or trailer them from one static car show to another. That DOES get old.

parm

Guess what? The price has come down on that '65 Olds 98 in Iowa. Price went from $21,000 down to $19,000. Not a big drop, but it's a start.

He's got about $9,000 to go before I'll get too excited.

http://www.duffys.com/duffys/results.asp?stocknum=206041

parm

http://www.duffys.com/duffys/results.asp?stocknum=206041

Mr_Shiftright

This is like one of those old Airport movies....

"We're losing altitude! 21,000, .....19,000.....15,000.....I can't hold her"

grbeck

This dealer isn't the only whose asking prices are way out of line. This past weekend Andre1969 and I went to Fall Carlisle...several of the sellers complained that "nobody is buying anything." Of course, when I saw the prices being asked, it was no surprise cars weren't moving! My favorite was the guy with the badly worn 1972 Plymouth Gran Fury hardtop sedan who wanted $2,000 for it. I might have given him $400 to use it as a beater, but the interior smelled so bad I'd be afraid to sit in in for any length of time.

Mr_Shiftright

Vendors have to realize that it is not the obligation of the public to bail them out of bad deals they made on their end.

andre1969

...and given the guy $5-600 for it! But $2,000, hell no!

There were a lot of funny people up there, though! This one guy had a pair of early '80's Eldorados for sale. One was a convertible. He caught us looking at it, and then started talking to us. He called the 'vert "An investment you can use!" I think he wanted $12,000 for this "investment". Well, if I paid $12K for it, and sold it for $8-9K, I'd still be doing better than my 401k's return this past year!

Then there were these two guys side by side, trying to pawn their Caddies. One had a '72 Coupe DeVille that he wanted something like $6-7K for. I think the guy was actually selling it for someone else, and Greg heard him talking, saying the owner refused an offer of $4500.

The other Caddy was a '79 Eldorado. I guess it caught my eye because it was probably the only Eldo of the '79-85 generation with any guts to it, thanks to its non-Diesel Olds 350. Well, I forget what it had originally been marked at, but that price was stricken through, and $2500 was marked on it. The guy with the '72 says to the other guy "Wow, I can't believe you marked it that low. You'll definitely sell it at that price!" Most likely, said for our benefit!

Sellers and vendors up there are hysterical, sometimes!

parm

When, or if, Duffy's gets low enough on this '65 Olds 98 to where they can actually see the landing lights, I'll get interested.

grbeck

Hershey should be interesting. Many of the cars that don't sell at Carlisle turn up at the Hershey swap meet. We'll have to see if any of the prices at Hershey have dropped since Carlisle.

parm

I'd like to go to Hershey some day, but it's too far of a drive (from Indiana) to do a daily commute. And, I imagine area hotels are booked up years in advance.

Plus, this multi-day event makes it tough for a working/family guy to drop everything for nearly a week. Guess that's why there's a high percentage of retirees in the collector car hobby - because they generally have the time and discretionary income to attend events like this. At least, now I have something to look forward to in my twilight years. ;-)

grbeck

Yesterday Andre and I went to the big fall Hershey meet. Lots of beautiful and interesting cars. We also wanted to see if vendors who couldn't sell their cars at Carlisle had lowered the prices for Hershey.

One man had a 1973 Impala four-door hardtop with about 7,000 miles...he asked $8,250 at Carlisle. (It was in excellent condition.) Not surprisingly, he didn't sell it. He brought it to Hershey, and asked...$9,250! We almost doubled over with laughter right there in the parking lot. It was still there at 5:30 p.m. on Saturday (the show ends Saturday), so I don't think he had any better luck at Hershey than he did at Carlisle.

There was a 1959 Thunderbird coupe at Carlisle with an asking price of $14,900. It was a very nice car, and I've always liked 1958-1960 Thunderbirds. It was at Hershey, but there wasn't a price on the car. Maybe he sold it, but there wasn't a "sold" sign on the car. I would like to have it, but not for $14,900.

Parm, if you get the chance, the Hershey meet is worth the trip.

Mr_Shiftright

A '59 T-Bird coupe at $14.9K is a preposterous price. Try HALF that if it's a car he actually drove there. Don't people even care to LOOK at price guides for a shred of a speck of a clue about pricing? And a nod toward a sluggish economy is in order, too.

Was it raining at Hershey? It often does turn into a mud pit there.

grbeck

I thought the price was out of line...but since I'm only window shopping at this point, I didn't bother to bring along a price guide to see just HOW far out of line it really was.

It rained this year (which we sorely need - Pennsylvania has been suffering through a nasty drought all summer). Much has changed around Hershey in the last few years. One part of the old showfield has been taken over by Hersheypark. A new entertainment complex (called the Giant Center, after a local chain of grocery stores!) just opened about 1/2 mile south of the old stadium. The car show is now held in this parking lot. The car corral is held at a shopping center about 1/2 mile north of the old show field. Much of the former swap meet area has now been paved over for parking, which greatly reduces the mud problem. Some of the vendor fields across from the old stadium have not yet been paved, but, overall, Hershey is not nearly the mud pit it used to be.

Mr_Shiftright

That's good. It used to be really awful.

grbeck

You can still find muddy areas if you want to. But it is much better.

One interesting thing about both Hershey and Carlisle was the condition of cars offered for sale. Both shows had more cars in good condition. For a few years it seemed as though all of the cars were either unrestored cars in lousy shape, or cars in lousy shape with a cheap, poorly done paint job thrown on to mask the defects.

Mr_Shiftright

That is highly indicative of a shift in the collector car market.

Project cars are OUT! All the junk is going to the recyclers or for parts, since parts and labor prices do not justify the restoration of cars that are both rather common and rather shabby.

grbeck

The dealer who had that 1972 Plymouth Fury at Carlisle is located very close to my place...he still has the Fury marked at $2,000 on the lot! Either he really doesn't want to sell the car, or he is waiting for a real sucker.

I'm curious as to how to even make an offer on these wildly overpriced cars. There wasn't one car at Hershey or Carlisle that wasn't double the price at which negotiations should BEGIN! The 1959 Thunderbird coupe I saw at Carlisle and Hershey for $14,900 lists at $6,000 in #2 condition (the name of the price guide escapes me, but it wasn't the one published by Krause Publications.)

In June, I attended a small AMC/Nash/Rambler show put on by a former dealer. He had several very clean cars for sale. He wanted $12,000 for a 1958 Ambassador wagon (in #2 condition)...one AMC club member told me it's not worth more than $6,000, if that, while the same price guide I referenced earlier has it listed at $5,000.

Mr_Shiftright

Making an offer on a grossly overpriced car is easy really. First, you decide that yes, you really want this car; second, you walk up to the guy with your checkbook open, pen in hand, state your price and say "How about it? Let's go!"

If he starts his drama about being offended, etc., you just slowly, VERY slowly, close your checkbook, dally around a while, very carefully put the top back on your pen, maybe even drop the checkbook at his feet so he notices it. Then turn your back on him, look up at the sky, or maybe tell your friend "C'mon, let's look at that other one I liked".

A person who is SERIOUSLY interested in selling the car, and not just playing some bizarre game about his car or his car's self-importance, will NOT let you walk away. He may not agree to your price, but if he does not stop you from walking, he is NOT a seller, he's just jerking everyone's chain.

grbeck

Thank you for the advice...sounds like a good way to not only get a good deal, but also add a little drama to the car-buying process.

You'd think that with all of the complaints Andre and I heard at Carlisle that "no one is buying anything," some bright vendor would get the idea that the old car market is soft and it might be a good time to start lowering prices.

Mr_Shiftright

yeah, isn't that a funny comment---"no one is buying anything". As if it were solely the buyers' fault!

Hey, the "drama" is part of the fun. It's a game, like Halloween. You might as well enjoy it.

parm

http://www.duffys.com/duffys/results.asp?stocknum=206041

http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/3/7/1760637.htm

For the $8,500 difference between these two, I could almost buy a third. So which one would be better? The maroon outrageously expensive unrestored original, or the blue one with recent cosmetics at a more reasonable price?

carnut4

For me, the choice would be clear, if the blue one is everything it says it is. A car that old with mileage that low has to have been pampered, so I would go for the blue one-if in fact it's everything it says it is in the ad. But of course, I'd buy neither without a close inspection. The red one, even though I like the color better, just isn't worth the extra dough-at least not to me.
By the way, I meant to mention to you-I was looking through the latest issue [Nov] of Hemmings the other day, and saw two Cad convertibles that looked interesting. One was a 62, looked good [in the ad anyway] for $12,000, I believe-the other was a 63, with low original mileage, for under 10-I think 9 something, as I recall. Anyway, if you haven't already seen those ads, you might want to check 'em out. Also, I think they were both on your side of the country.

Happy hunting, and keep us posted.

andre1969

I'm just going on the styling, though. The '66 looks kinda chunky and bloated, while the '65 has more of a clean, chiseled look. Still, that $8500 difference would be enough to sway me towards the chunky!

grbeck

I like the fender "blades" on the front of the 1966, along with the slimmer grille. Those blades give it a "Toronado" flavor, which was probably the intention.

The big question with the 1966 is the quality of the repaint. So many cars at Carlisle and Hershey look good from a distance, but a close inspection quickly reveals just how cheap and sloppy some of the repaints really are. And then there are the cars with new paint...and dull, pitted chrome.

speedshift

It was always my rule of thumb that the best paint job 99.9% of all cars ever get is the one they get at the factory. Might not always be true, given the variability of assembly quality, but true often enough.

parm

I'm opening my "vault" and posting some more photos of 1965 98 convertibles.

To me, the Oldsmobile "Sport Disc" wheels dramatically change the personality of these otherwise mundane cars. Without the sport disc wheels, the car at Duffy's wouldn't be worth a second look.

http://www.thefreewheelers.org/images/Marque/0101/large/1965_Oldsmobile_98_Holiday.jpg

http://www.bluemoongear.com/ArchCarPics/65Olds98Conv.jpg

http://www.motor-life.com/americanmotors/oldsmobile/1965_iz1802/index01.htm

grbeck

The Oldsmobile sport wheels seem to be much rarer than the optional Buick and Pontiac wheels. Almost every full-size Pontiac featured at car shows has the eight-lug-nut wheels, which really add to the looks of the car. People can be forgiven for thinking that those wheels were standard on Bonnevilles and Catalinas during the 1960s!