Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"

1232233235237238853

Comments

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,632
    I have seen a couple ads in Seattle for British shops, but I don't know if they would run away screaming from an oddball like that! You're pretty gutsy thinking of driving something like that cross country. How far have your others been driven?

    I have the yellow Victor only in plastic and metal wheel variations.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    It's been awhile since I've done the jack-up-the-car and spin the rear wheel trick, but IIRC, it's more involved than just spinning the rear wheel and counting how many times the driveshaft turns. I think that DOES work with a limited-slip (Posi-Traction/SureGrip/Traction-Lok/etc) rear end, but with an "open" rear-end, don't you have to divide by 2?

    Other way around: you have to multiply by 2 for an open diffy, since "half" of the gear goes to turning the other wheel.

    5.96 would be way too short for most cars, but would be in the sweet spot for an electric conversion.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Uh-uh...that part is NOS, which is the magic description for big bucks. Still, if you got even ten cents on the dollar for used parts...hell...I'd strip your car for you and split it with you.

    Problem is, that door handle is a high wear item. I always get stuck with the parts that NEVER wear out and that nobody wants. My friend bought 25 NOS early Porsche 911 windshield wiper motors some years ago and I think he still has 24 of them.

    There are those fanatics who will only restore with NOS parts, even if it takes ten years to find them. These are often the cars you see on TV selling for astro prices...there's a world of difference in value between an NOS resto and a repo parts resto. The repo parts either don't look right (wrong patterns, fasteners, etc.) or, ironically, they look way too GOOD and mess up the rest of the car that Detroit slammed together. (We also have our "restore it as they built it" fanatics, who will purposely add sloppy sound deadener and will actually airbrush in "factory overspray"!!!)

    I was looking yesterday at a bona fide ORIGINAL low miles Dodge Challenger R/T, untouched since new, and it was interesting to see how messily it was built. I loved it like that but the judges would have taken points off everywhere---which is pretty laughable when you think about it.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    NOS? What does that stand for?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh sorry...NEW OLD STOCK...that means the part is actually brand new and was never used in all these years. Often NOS parts are found in their original packing or boxes. They are considered a real treasure and people will pay as much as $5,000 for say an NOS air filter housing with decals---if it's from a rare car I mean, like a 6-pack Mopar--not a Chevy 327 2 barrel from a station wagon.

    NOS prices depend somewhat on the availability and quality of the reproduction part.

    NOS also gives you added bragging rights, if you and a competitor have cars of equal restored quality...you can then throw your trump card: "Yes yours is also a 100 pt restoration but I have NOS bumpers and yours are obviously re-chromed...I can see the file marks with my magnifying glass".
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    NOS also gives you added bragging rights, if you and a competitor have cars of equal restored quality...you can then throw your trump card: "Yes yours is also a 100 pt restoration but I have NOS bumpers and yours are obviously re-chromed...I can see the file marks with my magnifying glass".

    ON average how much would a set of NOS chrome bumpers for say a relatively rare car go for?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Hard to say---something like that is priced as "all the market will bear" because you have the potential buyer by the short hairs, so to speak.

    It's like the ideal supply and demand ratio: One part for 100 buyers probably.

    Some holders of NOS parts are obscenely greedy--whether they ever get their asking prices, I don't know.

    Personally, I find the idea of letting NOS parts rot in your garage rather than see them on a restoration, because your astronomical price isn't met, seems a bit selfish to me. One would hope that "fair enough" is "fair enough".
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Most of the time when I see NOS parts they are little things like air cleaners, door handles, trim bits etc. I don't think I have ever seen a NOS bumper or something else large. I wonder what a NOS bumper to an Eldo or some other big caddy would go for. :surprise:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Depends entirely on the car it fits on. If it were a '53 Eldo convertible, BIG bucks. If it were a late 70s or 80s car, I'm not sure you could even sell it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,103
    If it were a late 70s or 80s car, I'm not sure you could even sell it.

    A few years back I was thinking about buying a 1980 Chrysler Cordoba LS that was for sale locally. It looked good in pics, and had a mildly warmed up drivetrain with a 318 from a '75 Dart, with a 4-bbl put on, and a smallblock TF727 and 8 3/4 rear with something like a 3.23 or 3.55 suregrip out of a '70 Charger. Unfortunately, it didn't look nearly as good in person. :sick: I remember the seller telling me that he got some NOS replacements for the plastic strip that runs along the top part of the door panel, where it joins the window. These things were always cracking, and I don't think I've ever seen a Cordoba/Mirada without at least one of the strips cracked. Well, when he got the NOS replacements, one of them was cracked in the box!

    That was back in 2004 when I looked at that car. Last I heard, the guy was still trying to sell it.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,632
    I've seen comments in 'Sports Car Market' to the effect of 'panel gaps and paint to factory specs', which can't mean something very precise on a 1970 Plymouth.

    Speaking of NOS parts, I have seen NOS bumper sets for W111 fintails with prices well into the several thousands, but I think these fit the coupes as well.
  • im_brentwoodim_brentwood Member Posts: 4,883
    Oh boy do they ever pay... one of the scarcest pieces on my beloved Vauxhalls is the chrome strip at the edge of the hood.. fragile, almost impossible to find used and forget about NOS. It's also thin sheet metal and almost impossible to rechrome without ruining it.

    Well an NOS one showed up on eBay UK not terribly long ago.. I was bidding on it but last I saw it was way over my head.. if memory serves it sold for over 1,000 UK Pounds.

    A Cherry Vauxhall PA in England is only worth $20-30,000US and this was over $2,000 for just the trim strip on the hood and these cars are covered in chrome!
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Geeze, at that point I'd probably try to fabricate a superior piece on my own or get somebody who's good at it to make one for me.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    A good panel gap on a 70 Plymouth is if you can stick your thumb in the door opening when its locked, and maybe it will pinch a little.

    I'd imagine that NOS bumpers for a 60s MB convertible would bring big bucks. I'm surprised anyone is restoring 60s coupes given how little you get in return. I could see maybe restoring a 220SE coupe (ponton).

    Oddly enough, 50s era British chrome was excellent. Italian chrome was typical Italian TV dinner-tray quality. I thought Benz chrome was rather soft, always seemed to dent easily.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    I wonder what surplus war materials were being recycled to get the British chrome. Wasn't just about all of the metals used for industry around Britain at that time recycled WWII material?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,632
    I think the bumpers are the same on all of the early W111 coupes, sedans, and convertibles.

    I do see a lot of fintails with dinged up bumpers. My front bumpers are pretty perfect, but I have a couple bumps in the back - one from when I was in school and I was apparently backed into. But it's hard to see, not worth fixing. I could sink 25K into the fintail and do a restoration, and be lucky to get 10K at the end. Sounds good!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,632
    What has happened with the Vauxhall out here anyway? Was it already gone?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,103
    that if I ever talk about doing this to my '76 LeMans, you guys will smack some sense into me? :surprise: although I gotta admit, I like the idea of a power sunroof...wonder how professionally it was really done?
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,156
    That 560SL is the car all those "What about this 1974 450SL" folks need to buy instead.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    I actually like that S320, fin. Yeah, it's probably not the fastest thing on the road - that 3.2 has, what, 215HP?

    But, for chewing up the miles in comfort, you can't go wrong.

    That LeMans is pimp, andre! Although the 22's are a bit much -- 18's or 20's would have been just fine.

    :P
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 17,777
    Speaking of 22's, I saw a gold-colored 90's Chevy Caprice sedan last week with 22" rims on it and almost no rubber. That looked ridiculous by itself, but to take the cake, 22" was painted in "chrome" or mirrored paint on the rear fenders, about 18" tall, in order to leave spectators in no doubt as to the size of the rims. It was truly a pathetic display. :sick:
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Wow, what a way to ruin a car with those hideous wheels. At least they're easily removable.

    But who's gonna buy at that price?
  • im_brentwoodim_brentwood Member Posts: 4,883
    Ahh I'm in the middle of moving the repair shop and was supposed to call him t0onight.

    I got more pics, wanna make sure it isnt a pig. It's cheap but has a decent amount of rust. I'll call TJ tomorrow and let ya know.

    Here's to me maybe buying it! :)
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,632
    Good luck. It deserves to be saved in some way, if not just for parts.

    Being British and of that age, I imagine nothing electrical works, it has no floors, the rocker panels are cardboard duct taped to the car and spray painted white, and the shock towers/mounts vanished about 20 years ago.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,156
    The Solara - I particularly like "Not looking for lesser offers please" at $25k? This is a great joke!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    "wishing does not make it so"
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,103
    I've never ridden in one, but I hear that Solaras actually make horrible convertibles. Supposedly the body shake is on par with 70's Eldorados and chop-top Miradas (something I HAVE driven...and it was pretty bad).

    I think the problem is that they just take a Solara coupe and send it out for conversion after the fact, rather than build it from the ground up AS a convertible. I think that's one area that Chrysler, of all brands, actually excelled. Starting in 1983, their convertibles (LeBaron/400/600, and later Sebring) were built from the factory to be convertibles. They actually started offering them in 1982, but these first-year models were sent out for conversion, and much more shaky.

    Just out of curiosity, how does the new Mustang hold up as a convertible?
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,432
    My friend just got the Mustang. He said that he was concerned because he's heard that the top could leak but he hasn't experienced that and says that it feels acceptably rigid.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I'd advise him to put on a strut brace and frame stiffeners (weld them in, not bolt them in).
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,103
    that 40 years ago, they could make a fairly solid convertible, but they can't today? And I'm not going on ancient, foggy memories here...it wasn't THAT long since I drove my '67 Catalina! Sure, sometimes it'll flex and you can see the part of the body aft of where the B-pillar would be resonate out of phase with the front part of the car, but I've seen modern convertibles that are worse. Hell, I've seen some modern closed cars that are worse!

    Is it simply because my Catalina rolled off the assembly line as a convertible and that outsourced jobs, no matter how good, just generally aren't as good as factory?

    Seriously, with cars being smaller these days and unitized, I'd think they'd be stiffer, not looser, than a 40 year old body-on-frame dinosaur.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Back in the bad old days, the roof on those BOF cars was basically there to keep the weather out and barely add any structural rigidity to the body, so the convertible versions were only a bit more flexy than the fixed-roof versions. Unibody cars, on the other hand, gain a lot of their rigidity from the roof and the side pillars. Removing the roof without compensating for it greatly reduces the strength of the unibody structure. Honda used all kinds of chassis bracing on the S2000 to make it nice and stiff without a roof.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,156
    One other (lesser) reason - the suspensions on moders cars put more load into the bodies, what with low profile tires, etc., so that'll also twist them more.
  • sthrnrockersthrnrocker Member Posts: 1
    Hi Ann,

    I have read a few replys that are negative sounding from looking at a few photos. Don't get discouraged. Just because it isn't a GTO or a Firebird doesn't mean that the car isn't worth restoring to a fun drivable condition. I have a couple "undesirable" cars, one being a 68 LeMans 350 2 barrel two speed automatic, the other is a 1969 Olds Cutlass Supreme, the LeMans is my project now, and the Cutlass is driving every day it's not raining or snowing..

    The fact that that car is a convertible is desirable, it also make the structure more vulnerable to rust, which isn't always the kiss of death. These late 60's GM A-body cars have a large aftermarket parts supply network, you can buy almost anything but the frame. It all depends how much time, effort and $$ you want to invest. Remember, you won't recoup what you put into something like this in $$ unless you are a professional restoration house, or the car is hot on the market. The plain janes, like the Tempest-Lemans, Chevelle-Malibu, Skylark and Cutlass will rise in value after all the "investor rich guys with their credit card cars" have made the GTO's, Super Sports, Gran Sports and 442's unavailable to the rest of us.

    Tom
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,103
    I'd have to read back on those posts (and I'm too lazy to do it now) but I think the general gist of them was that from a purely financial standpoint, you'd never get your money back from restoring a car like that. But if it's something that you really like, has sentimental value, etc, then go for it.

    If nothing else, a 350-2bbl would make for a great daily driver. Fast enough for modern traffic, but not so brutal like some musclecar engines that rattle you to death, almost demand you run them full-throttle, and go out of tune every other week. Also, didn't that LeMans in question have a 4-on-the-floor? Seems like that might make it a bit more desireable than your typical 350-2bbl/THM350 setup.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    My 1968 Buick Special Deluxe station wagon had a 350 V-8 w/2bbl carb and I'd be comfortable driving it today. It also was rather fuel-efficient as I remember. The only problem would be stocking up on lead additives.

    I hate the whole idea of rich dudes buying muscle cars as investments. I think the whole concept is rather mercenary. I'd rather own the car because I like it not that it's going to make me rich. The only reason I'd ever sell something like a '60s muscle car is if I was terminally ill or facing serious financial hardship.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Would a plain old midsize engine from that era need the lead? My understanding was that only the hot-dog, high-compression engines need the additive.

    If you live long enough, the muscle cars will become affordable again as the collector car money drives unmolested MkIV Supras and ITRs into the stratosphere.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,632
    I have read comments by those who examine the hobby (or business of speculation) that the muscle car market is beginning to soften already. These things are like Ferraris in 1988. We all know what happened to those.

    About lead...I have never added lead additive to my fintail, and I bought the car when leaded fuel had just vanished around here. I don't know if it causing any problems.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...that not using leaded fuel or an additive in a car that used leaded fuel would ruin the valves.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,103
    they started phasing in engines with hardened valves sometime in the late 60's, in anticipation of unleaded fuel. However, I don't think all new cars had them until something like 1974.

    I dunno if my '69 Dart GT slant six had hardened valve seals or not, but I ran it for about 27,000 miles on unleaded fuel, with never any problems. I'd put in a lead substitute every once in awhile, but it was never often enough to make a difference.

    My '68 Dart 318 and '67 Catalina 400 both have rebuilt engines, and I'd presume they were smart enough to put hardened valve seals in when they were rebuilt. My '57 DeSoto is on its original Hemi, and I always put a lead substitute in it, just to be safe.

    I also had a '69 Bonneville with a 400 and a '67 Newport with a 383, and AFAIK they were still on their original engines. I didn't have either one long enough to find out if running unleaded fuel hurt them.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    I believe they started phasing in hardened valves in the '71 model year. Catalytic converters followed on most domestics in '75.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,103
    My 1968 Buick Special Deluxe station wagon had a 350 V-8 w/2bbl carb and I'd be comfortable driving it today. It also was rather fuel-efficient as I remember.

    In 1968 or 1969, Consumer Reports did a road test on midsized V-8 sedans. I remember one of them was a Buick Special with the 350-2bbl/2-speed automatic. It did 0-60 in around 11.5 seconds, IIRC. I'm sure it was handicapped by the tranny only having 2 speeds. 11.5 seconds is nothing to get excited over, but I'd find it adequate for most driving situations. My '76 LeMans isn't that fast, and I doubt if my '85 Silverado is, either. My '79 New Yorkers might be. Oddly, the 360-2bbl has the least hp of any of those engines...150. The LeMans has something like 160-170, and the pickup has 165. I think the NYers might actually be lighter than the LeMans though. They're definitely lighter than the pickup.

    I remember the quickest car in that CR test was a Mopar. I think it was a Coronet. It had a 318-2bbl with the Torqueflite, and did 0-60 in 10 seconds flat. They also tested a Ford/Mercury intermediate, but I forget which model it was, or which drivetrain it had. There was also another GM model in that mix, but I forget now what it was.

    I hate the whole idea of rich dudes buying muscle cars as investments. I think the whole concept is rather mercenary. I'd rather own the car because I like it not that it's going to make me rich. The only reason I'd ever sell something like a '60s muscle car is if I was terminally ill or facing serious financial hardship.

    That's pretty much how I feel. I'm going to buy a car because I like it, not because I'm going to get rich off of it. Honestly, I wouldn't have the business savvy to get rich off of old cars, anyway. Besides, I have a bad habit of getting attached to cars.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,156
    I hate the whole idea of rich dudes buying muscle cars as investments.

    You know it's a bad sign when there's an article in the Wall Street Journal advising people to consider doing exactly that - like a stock. It was some months ago. I use those kinds of articles as a sign that the topic has 'jumped the shark'. They had a similar article about the trading card craze, right as it peaked. We'll just have to see about the muscle cars.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think it's hysterical that someone pays $500,000 for a Dodge.

    Take out the engine and what have you got? Just a very ordinary old car. Is an engine and VIN tag worth $500K?

    Seems to me that all valuable cars of the past had more going for them.

    We'll have to wait and see if the bubble has steel walls or is really just a bubble.

    Speaking of projects, now I'm seeing muscle cars being pieced together from 2 or 3 cars. Nothing wrong with welding two or three cars together, as long as the price reflects that and the disclosure is full on.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 11,156
    Nothing wrong with welding two or three cars together, as long as the price reflects that and the disclosure is full on.

    That was the most amazing thing about the WSJ article - next to no discussion of fakes. So here's an article read by lots of wealthy people, most with no real car knowledge, and it skips over the most important part of car 'investing'. :sick:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Fakery is running rampant. I won't even attempt to authenticate a muscle car with my signature anymore--I put in disclosures that aside from what I stated in the appraisal, that any other claims of authenticity are those of the seller, not mine.

    It would take DAYS to completely date-code and number check an entire car and all its components. And even then, without a build sheet, window sticker, protect-o-plate, bill of sale, etc....you still aren't 100% sure.

    Some crooks are very VERY clever people. The stakes after all are so much higher for a rare Hemi Cuda than for a common Camaro SS 350.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.