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

Mr_Shiftright

I'd say, just from photos, that it's about a $12.5K car. 1963 isn't the best year for them either.

isellhondas

Mr_Shiftright said:

I'd say, just from photos, that it's about a $12.5K car. 1963 isn't the best year for them either.

Interesting. I'm probably out of touch with the market. I know I sure wouldn't pay that much for it.

And, I agree, 1963's weren't the best of that group for a number of reasons. Not "bad" cars but the next two years were better.

isellhondas

I read this ad twice and I still can't understand what this seller was trying to accomplish!

Dr. Frankenstein, your car is waiting....

http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/cto/4821175282.html

uplanderguy

He's saying he has a rust-free GT Hawk body which will fit the frame, or you could move the '53 body over to the new frame he has. but I'd rather just restore the '53 (even though generally I like GT's better) and the '53 roof would need to be transferred to the GT Hawk body if you chose that route. Classic Enterprises makes every patch panel you could ever possibly need for a Studebaker car or truck. The '53 sure makes every other '53 domestic car look dumpy IMHO.

ab348

uplanderguy said:

The '53 sure makes every other '53 domestic car look dumpy IMHO.

Man, that;s the truth. What a shame the cars were so problematic.

uplanderguy

Not mechanically, but fit and finish supposedly left a lot to be desired. I think the decision to make the sedans and coupes two completely different cars (not a single piece of sheetmetal or glass interchangeable), was not very smart.

ab348

I read in multiple reports that the frames were thin and far too flexible, so much so that the doors would spring open on rough surfaces. I would call that problematic.

uplanderguy

Same with Ford four-door hardtops of the '56-58 era, per Iacocca's book...a district manager had his doors tied together from inside the car when new. Generally, to me 'problematic' means things keeping the car from running, like some of Packard's issues in '55 and '56.

andre1969

I remember commenting about the little exposed piece of metal between the front and back doors on a mid-50's Studebaker at a car show years ago...essentially a fully-exposed B-pillar, wondering aloud why some manufacturers did that and others didn't. Initially, I thought it had something to do with the door design and possible issues with clearances for opening. But, the owner was around, and he mentioned that they did it for added strength.

I wonder if the original design of the cars had that extra bracing, or if they had to add it late in production, to compensate for the weak frames?

uplanderguy

In '54 they added another crossmember. The gauge was increased through the run at some point, too. Although, I think the '53 styling small-details and instrument panel were more appealing than the '54 and '55. Just MHO. Supposedly Loewy had signs all around the studios saying "Weight is the enemy!".

There was reportedly some flex designed-in on that 120.5" frame, but supposedly the four-doors and two-door sedans, at 116" wb, didn't have this issue. I'd have put up with the flex to get the much-improved styling though! LOL It's funny--the coupes have a long wheelbase, but their lowness and comparative narrowness make them seem smaller than they are. The pillared coupes have much of the same appealing styling as the Starliner hardtop but with the added structural integrity of a B-pillar.

I remember that '71 and '72 Cadillac Fleetwood Sixty-Special Broughams had visible space outside, between the front and rear doors, a styling throwback I think although not objectionable to me. By the '76 run of those cars, this feature was gone but I'm not exactly sure when it changed. Lemko probably knows.

uplanderguy

I know this has nothing to do with cars, but it is from 1955, the general era we were discussing...I had read on Facebook that a time capsule from the 1790's was recently found in Boston, and someone posted underneath, "Here's what they probably found". Cracked me up, and I remember it well:

lemko

This drop-dead gorgeous 1972 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham shows this feature. This feature only lasted the 1971-1976 generation.

fintail

I recently watched an episode of CHiPs where they blew up a Caddy of that vintage, probably was a plain old DeVille though, I don't recall.

Speaking of spaces between doors, the 77-79 Fleetwood also did it in an unusual manner, with the non-parallel B-pillar, a quirk that has always caught my eye:

andre1969

I think I remember that episode of "CHiPs"...wasn't the car set up as a trap? IIRC, it was parked out in a field near the highway, and it was rigged to blow up when the door button was pressed? Somehow, John and Ponch figured out it was a trap, threw rocks at it, and eventually it blew?

I remember them blowing up a Fleetwood in an episode of "V: The Series". It was white, and a 1973 I think.

fintail

Ha, that's the episode exactly. I looked for it on imcdb, but didn't find the scene. The car at least looked nice, I cringed when they threw rocks at it - but in 1981, a thirsty 10 year old Caddy wasn't worth much.

I found this on imcdb, I remember this episode. The show is kind of hard to watch now as the plot can be dorky, but the automotive scenery is interesting:

andre1969 said:

I think I remember that episode of "CHiPs"...wasn't the car set up as a trap? IIRC, it was parked out in a field near the highway, and it was rigged to blow up when the door button was pressed? Somehow, John and Ponch figured out it was a trap, threw rocks at it, and eventually it blew?

I remember them blowing up a Fleetwood in an episode of "V: The Series". It was white, and a 1973 I think.

Mr_Shiftright

That's true. Of all the many many cars I've owned in my life, I recall that the '58 Ford was one of, if not THE, junkiest and most poorly assembled car I've ever owned---rivaled only perhaps by a Triumph Herald. Studebakers of that era were quite sturdy but not noted for the care of their assembly, say in comparison to a GM car. I think a '53 Stude coupe with a tastefully installed lightweight GM 350cid and 5-speed floor shift with suspension upgrades would be a very slick pro touring car.


Henry Kaiser was reportedly quite negative about the '53 Studebaker, and allegedly said "Who wants a car you can pee over?" (I cleaned that up a little).

uplanderguy said:

Same with Ford four-door hardtops of the '56-58 era, per Iacocca's book...a district manager had his doors tied together from inside the car when new. Generally, to me 'problematic' means things keeping the car from running, like some of Packard's issues in '55 and '56.

uplanderguy

That '72 is gorgeous, lemko. I remember some of those cars had a small vertical light on the "C" panel. I like how these were the last Fleetwoods to have the individual "F L E E T W O O D" lettering on the front fenders.

When the '77 Fleetwood came out, I thought the way they handled the "B" pillar was goofy. I've learned to like it since though. I could very-much enjoy one of those cars. I'd think they'd be easier to live with on a daily basis than a '76.

ab348

lemko said:

This drop-dead gorgeous 1972 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham shows this feature. This feature only lasted the 1971-1976 generation.

I always thought the side window treatment on these was especially attractive. Like the way each door window has its own trim line at the roofline.

ab348

fintail said:

Speaking of spaces between doors, the 77-79 Fleetwood also did it in an unusual manner, with the non-parallel B-pillar, a quirk that has always caught my eye:

Huh. I don't think I ever saw that before, or at least never noticed it. I thought my '79 Park Avenue used the same body design and it certainly didn't have that styling feature.

uplanderguy

They utilized a similar set up as on the '71-72 Fleetwood Brougham, on the '73 intermediate Colonnade sedans, but not to as dramatic an effect I think.

uplanderguy

Re.: '58 Fords--I have always liked them, but I think that's partially because my favorite, widowed aunt had one well into the sixties. Hers was a cocoa brown with white 'scoop' (like Corvette) and a white top. It was a two-door sedan but the pillars were slim and chrome-covered so it somewhat looked like a hardtop. "Normal" folks (not the car-crazy as on here, I'm sure!) I think are surprised to hear that the '57 Ford outsold the '57 Chevy when new. I think the general consensus is that Chevys held up longer as cheap used cars and that's when they became very popular.

isellhondas

Yes, Ford did outsell Chevy in 1957 especially when it cane to station wagons.

Still the Chevys were much better cars in so many ways.

No comparison between a Ford and a Chevy V-8 but those overhead valve Ford sixes were every bit as tough as a 235 Chevy six.

andre1969

Society tends to look back fondly on the '57 chevy, but when they were new, 1957 was definitely NOT Chevy's year. IIRC, Ford outsold it by about 100,000 units. And while Chevy and Ford usually outsold Plymouth by around 3:1, for '57 that was reduced to 2:1. However, the Fords and Plymouths were much more rust-prone than the Chevies, so more of them survived.

I think another thing that sways in Chevy's favor is that Ford and Plymouth were considered high-fashion for 1957, whereas the Chevy was just the final year of a 3-year design. And while it was glitzed up compared to '55-56, it was still a bit conservative.

But, what is fashionable one year is often tacky the next. And I think in later years, that worked in Chevy's favor. Another factor, I think, is that Ford and Plymouth "grew up" in '57 (although Plymouth was actually 2" shorter than '56), and then Chevy would "grow up" for '58. They turned into the cars your parents drove, and that would hurt Ford, Plymouth, and the '58 Chevy as they became used cars in the price range of the teen market. But the '57 Chevy, being a bit smaller, didn't have that "Mommy-car" stigma to it.

Oh, and I'd heard that too about the doors popping open on the '57 Fords if you went over a rough enough road. Was it '56 and '58 as well? I was under the impression that the '56 Fords were pretty rugged cars. However, the 4-door hardtops, being in their infancy, might have had teething problems that year.

berri

Oh, and I'd heard that too about the doors popping open on the '57 Fords if you went over a rough enough road

Funny, I had a college buddy who tooled around in a 55 Buick 4dr sedan that had that same problem. Of course it was pretty old by then. He used to rope the doors closed.

Andre, I think you hit it on the head about the 57 Chevy enduring popularity on the used car lots. The Chevy seemed to have better build quality and less tin worm. Nowadays it's still popular because Boomers recall their youth when they see it.

Uplander, I seem to recall something about engine or drivetrain problems on 58 Ford's back in those days.

Lemko, that 72 Cadillac is simply elegant.

I don't recall Studebakers being popular when I grew up in the 50's, at least as being bought new. People I knew who drove them bought them because they were cheap used. However, my views are limited by the area I grew up in and may well not be what the rest of the nation thought. But the 53/54 restyle was very nice on the coupe, but maybe not near as attractive to buyers in 4 door form, which may explain some of the sales volume? Maybe the 53's were rushed out like Mopar's 57's; combine that with a bad union problem in South Bend and it could get uglier I suppose.

uplanderguy

I was born in '58 and lived in a small town far-removed from a city, but I remember a good number of early Larks in our town. Our Studebaker dealer was small but long-established--the same family ran it from 1926 to 1968. They had also sold Packard from '41 to about '50 and then from '55 on as well, and also added Mercedes which is almost hard for me to believe, as our town didn't have even 10K population. My Dad would not have been caught dead in a Studebaker, but even as a kid I took note of their 'different' nature. For some reason, Ramblers didn't get my attention in the same positive way, though.

After the financial bloodbath of the '54-58 years, in '59 Stude made the biggest profit of their 107-year history. They made a profit in '60 too, although much, much smaller, and were back in the red in '61 with virtually every make offering compacts.

Mr_Shiftright

Independents simply could not compete on price with the Big Three. The D3 would simply keep lowering prices until the Indies bled to death.

berri

I always have a bit of fondness for the independents back then, be it Studebaker, AMC Nash, Rambler, Hudson, or Kaiser. I do recall the 59/60 Lark's being hits out of the box, perhaps because they were early into the compact game. Actually, I had a cousin who was a stewardess for United back then that bought one new. But I liked her dad's '59 black LeSabre coupe better!

BTW Uplander, I liked your Rambler as a Soviet Bloc look car comment awhile ago. It made me think of the one year 62 Rambler design update. But even though it was a bit odd, I kind of liked it anyway

isellhondas

berri said:

Oh, and I'd heard that too about the doors popping open on the '57 Fords if you went over a rough enough road

Funny, I had a college buddy who tooled around in a 55 Buick 4dr sedan that had that same problem. Of course it was pretty old by then. He used to rope the doors closed.

Andre, I think you hit it on the head about the 57 Chevy enduring popularity on the used car lots. The Chevy seemed to have better build quality and less tin worm. Nowadays it's still popular because Boomers recall their youth when they see it.

Uplander, I seem to recall something about engine or drivetrain problems on 58 Ford's back in those days.

Lemko, that 72 Cadillac is simply elegant.

I don't recall Studebakers being popular when I grew up in the 50's, at least as being bought new. People I knew who drove them bought them because they were cheap used. However, my views are limited by the area I grew up in and may well not be what the rest of the nation thought. But the 53/54 restyle was very nice on the coupe, but maybe not near as attractive to buyers in 4 door form, which may explain some of the sales volume? Maybe the 53's were rushed out like Mopar's 57's; combine that with a bad union problem in South Bend and it could get uglier I suppose.

The Fords of that era didn't have "bad" engines. The 272-292-312 V8's just couldn't compare to the 265-283's that Chevy used. A lot of the Ford engines had upper oiling problems because of small oil passages and no doubt owners who didn't change their oil often enough.

It was common to see aftermarket oilers installed on the valve covers.

I remember seeing two or three Y blocks that had had a "crankcase explosion" and I never saw that on a Chevy. These usually didn't do a lot of damage but it sure made a mess when all of the gaskets blew out from the pressure!

Mr_Shiftright

Well the proof of all that is the continued popularity of the basic Chevy short block and the use of Ford 312 engines for boat anchors.

isellhondas

I once helped replace the blown out gaskets after a crankcase explosion on an Oldsmobile. I thought it was all fixed but when we started it up it started pouring out oil.

We hadn't noticed but when it blew, it raised up the valley cover, breaking the seal.

What a mess!

berri

So Isell, what's your personal take on the Mopars back in the mid and latter 50's?

andre1969

berri said:

Funny, I had a college buddy who tooled around in a 55 Buick 4dr sedan that had that same problem. Of course it was pretty old by then. He used to rope the doors closed.

Andre, I think you hit it on the head about the 57 Chevy enduring popularity on the used car lots. The Chevy seemed to have better build quality and less tin worm. Nowadays it's still popular because Boomers recall their youth when they see it.

Uplander, I seem to recall something about engine or drivetrain problems on 58 Ford's back in those days.

I'm curious...was that '55 Buick a 4-door hardtop, or a regular sedan? I'd imagine that the 4-door hardtops would be more prone than the pillared sedans to having the doors pop loose, but maybe not? I've heard that the locking mechanisms in those days left a lot to be desired, so the problems could have been in the latching method, regardless of whether the car had a full B-pillar or not.

I always associate transmission problems with the '58 Ford, but that's because I have a great-uncle who had one, and burned it up. But then, years later, my Granddad told me that he had gotten it stuck in the snow, and rocked it out. So that might have been a contributing factor.

Oh, one other detail I remember reading about the '57 Chevy's advantages...Consumer Reports did two different tests of the V-8 low priced cars. One test was with a smaller V-8 and 2-speed automatic. The other test was with a larger V-8 and 3-speed automatic. In both instances, the Chevy was the fastest. Now, we're not talking a huge difference here...less than two seconds from quickest to slowest in 0-60. Still, that could make a noticeable difference in the fun-to-drive factor.

I wonder how people reacted, in those days, to the comfort of the lower Ford/Plymouth, compared to the Chevy? Those lower bodies had to be harder to get into and out of, although the Plymouth's less intrusive A-pillar definitely helped. In contrast, getting into and out of a '57 Chevy is similar to getting into and out of a pickup. Well, at least a pickup like my '85 Silverado...but not my '12 Ram, which is a noticeable step up. Still, style is what sold cars in those days...comfort be damned.

isellhondas

Growing up in a Chevy town I didn't get a lot of exposure to them.

During the late 50's they really improved things and they weren't Grandpa's car anymore.

I never thought workmanship was up to snuff compared to GM in that era.

Things got better in the 60's for Mopar and they built some good stuff.

A lowly base 1964 Plymouth with a 383 Torqueflight was a real sleeper!

Slant sixes were bulletproof and the 318/361/383/413/426 engines were pretty good too!

berri

It actually was a pillared sedan. Those were the Sputnik days, so just like putting weird colored appliances in their kitchens, many people gravitated to what was "in" when purchasing cars. Lack of common sense is certainly not unique to the current generation!

berri

The 383 definitely was a sleeper. Chrysler was notorious back in the 60's and 70's for building ahead of demand. The father of a friend of mine was a Chrysler fan. He got a heck of a deal on a late 60's Newport with one of those big block police car wedge engines because some state patrol did not place an order Chrysler was expecting. So the company dropped them into Newport's for the consumer market with good pricing.

fintail

Funny thing, at Christmas, was talking with my uncle about cars, and as usual, my grandpa's 65 Chrysler with a 383 was mentioned, about how good of a car it was - and that the fuselage model that replaced it wasn't nearly as reliable. I think the 65 was my grandpa's favorite car, although he had a thing for the green on green fuselage Newport HT, too.

uplanderguy

A '65 300L is probably my favorite Chrysler, followed by a '66 Imperial (I know, technically it's not a 'Chrysler'!). I also think the '68 Satellite two-door hardtop is about perfect in the way I think a '65 Impala Sport Coupe is about perfect--proportions, cleanness of line, emblem placement, the works.

andre1969

uplanderguy said:

A '65 300L is probably my favorite Chrysler, followed by a '66 Imperial (I know, technically it's not a 'Chrysler'!). I also think the '68 Satellite two-door hardtop is about perfect in the way I think a '65 Impala Sport Coupe is about perfect--proportions, cleanness of line, emblem placement, the works.

I always considered the '68-70 the "55-57 Chevy" of Mopar intermediates. The earlier models were either too off-the-wall or too appliance like, while the '71-79 models just got too fat. Although, I do think a '78-79 Magnum is a great looking car. Only problem is, by that time, performance was just about gone. If you got a '79 with the 195 hp 360, I think 0-60 came up in about 9.5 seconds. That was good for 1979, but a joke compared to the heyday of musclecars.

I like the big '65 Chryslers, too. I had a '67 Newport for a few months...didn't really care for it, but it was 32 years old, and free, so I couldn't complain. It had a 383-2bbl, but wasn't very quick. The 383 started off as a pretty powerful engine, when it was introduced for 1959. It had 305 hp with a 2-bbl, 325 with a 4-bbl. Dodge got 345 hp with a dual quad for the D-500 package, and DeSoto got it to 350 in the Adventurer.

My '67 only had 270 hp though. It was adequate, but no great shakes. The vast majority of 383s were only the 2-bbl, or the milder 4-bbl, which put out 315-325 hp in most years, so that's probably why they get overlooked. And, naturally, they're going to be a LOT quicker in a midsize, than it would have been in my ~2 ton Newport. Plus, there were still some high output models that went in the musclecars, police cars, etc. But, I think they simply got overshadowed by the 413/426/440 Wedge and, naturally, the 426 Hemi. I think a '68-70 intermediate with a 383 would be a nice car though...decently quick, but not so unwieldy that it would be a pain to drive.

For some reason, I kind of have a thing for the '62-64 Dodge 880, and the big '65-66 Dodges. They were conservative, and dull compared to the flashy, sportier Pontiacs, but I thought they were still handsome looking cars.

fintail

Don't find em like this much anymore - yeah BIN is a little silly, but good luck making a heap this nice for anything close to the money.

ab348

isellhondas said:

The Fords of that era didn't have "bad" engines. The 272-292-312 V8's just couldn't compare to the 265-283's that Chevy used. A lot of the Ford engines had upper oiling problems because of small oil passages and no doubt owners who didn't change their oil often enough.

It was common to see aftermarket oilers installed on the valve covers.

I remember seeing two or three Y blocks that had had a "crankcase explosion" and I never saw that on a Chevy. These usually didn't do a lot of damage but it sure made a mess when all of the gaskets blew out from the pressure!

That reminded me of a childhood memory I hadn't thought of in years. I think I would have been no older than 12 since my brother was with us on vacation and he stopped joining us in '68 (the year I was 12) when girlfriends took priority.

We were on our annual summer trip to New England and (amazed I still recall this) were on Maine I-95 headed south somewhere between Bangor and Augusta. A couple of (as Jim Rockford would say) local Leroys blew past us at high speed in a '60 Ford that was rather ratty-looking and trailing some fumes. I remember my dad commenting in a sour tone that those guys were going way too fast since he was already doing 65 and that they must be trying to wreck their car.

About 10-15 minutes later we approached a car pulled over on the left shoulder surrounded by a cloud of smoke. The hood was up and you could see some shrapnel dents in it from the underside. It was the '60 Ford and the Leroys were peering at it looking sad. Dad gestured to them as we rolled past and my brother and I were in the backseat laughing our heads off. We found it hilarious that their engine had indeed blown up. From that moment I grew up to believe that the Ford engines of that era were not very good (unfair and probably ungrounded, I know).

andre1969

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well the proof of all that is the continued popularity of the basic Chevy short block and the use of Ford 312 engines for boat anchors.

I think the Ford Y-block had a few design limitations, didn't it? Like, it could only be bored and stroked so far? I think it was also a fairly large engine, physically. That's a similar problem with the original Mopar "A" poly-head engine. They're so big that people often mistake them for big-blocks, and they're earned the nickname "wide block".

In contrast, the Chevy smallblock is a tiny little thing, although it's not particularly lightweight. It's also cheap to manufacture, which is why it was in production longer than the Olds, Buick, and Pontiac V-8's. I think it was emissions controls that ultimately doomed the Buick and Pontiac engines. They couldn't meet California emissions requirements, so in stricter areas, Olds engines were substituted. The Pontiac engine in particular liked to run cool, and, like Mopar's slant six, didn't adapt well to emissions controls. In typical GM fashion though, for 1981 Pontiac got a lot of the bugs worked out of its 301, to where its emissions were better. The 4-bbl version, offered in the Firebird/Trans Am, was officially rated at 150 hp, but rumors abound that it actually put out 170 hp.

But, Pontiac itself was on the ropes at that time, suffering a bigger downturn than Olds, Buick, or Chevy. And the types of cars that other versions of the 301 went into were rapidly disappearing. In '81, the 2-bbl version was only offered in the Catalina/Bonneville and the LeMans wagon. And, by '81, a good deal of the big Pontiacs had Olds 307s. So, for '82 it went away, along with its 265 variant.

I think it's kinda cool that GM at least kept the Olds 307 around for awhile.

andre1969

Oh, on the subject of that Caddy on "CHiPs", it was a regular Sedan DeVille, and not a Fleetwood.

I'm guessing it was a '73?


Yes, I'll confess, I have "CHiPs" on the DVR. It's set to hold the last five episodes, and I just looked...that one was recent enough that I still had it.

Oh, how's this for a continuity error? In the establishing shot, all the windows are up. But then Ponch goes up to the car, and all windows are down. He even reaches in the car to pull up the lock button! But then just as he's about to press the button on the door handle to open it, he stops and thinks the better of it.

Oh, nice looking '73 LeSabre 4-door hardtop that the lady's driving, who leads them to the trap!

Mr_Shiftright

I wonder if his claim that the car "will go a million miles" is backed by a warranty?

Actually I wouldn't mind owning that car or one like it---but for $5,000.

fintail said:

Don't find em like this much anymore - yeah BIN is a little silly, but good luck making a heap this nice for anything close to the money.

isellhondas

It's bringing strong bids but still short of reserve.

It's in Ohio which is a bit scary.

Probably my last color choice but it would be very hard I would think to find a nicer one!

The interior looks unused!

fintail

I was thinking it might be a $10-12K car. I think MB sedans of that era can wear brown pretty well. If someone has a mint 50K mile one to sell me for $5K, let me know, I'll buy as many as I can get.

Location doesn't scare me, if the car was stored inside and didn't do winters. A good inspection would stop any worries.

Anything will go a million miles if you shovel enough money into it

fintail

Nice, that's it. Looked pretty clean on the show, but who knows. Wasn't even 10 years old - the oil crises really killed longterm value of those kind of cars.

andre1969 said:

Oh, on the subject of that Caddy on "CHiPs", it was a regular Sedan DeVille, and not a Fleetwood.

andre1969

incidentally, here's that Caddy Fleetwood that they blew up in "V: The Series" back in 1984...


Interestingly, in the "V: The Final Battle" miniseries, the Visitors were parading around in '77-79 era stretch Lincoln limos.




I guess these were still too pricey by 1984, to sacrifice.

gsemike

New Years Deal on Long Island

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4793361855.html Looks extremely nice but is this what a restored Triumph goes for?

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4796115995.html Benz looks quite nice, but again I will defer to others on the price

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4789712622.html I assume the same seller has a family hauler to sell

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4823626385.html If you've got the engine, I guess this could be OK for 4 grand. Don't like what he's done with the interior however

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4821004915.html Survivor Trans Am

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4820821543.html Lotta work here. Someone should have stopped him

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4804589338.html This Vette is more like it

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4804530663.html ' sexy three on the tree' Never heard that before. I guess for the money if it's your thing....

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4787353956.html For the Caddy fans. I know a lot of you won't like the wheels, but I kind of dig them

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4822747394.html Different. Broken crankshaft btw

http://longisland.craigslist.org/cto/4795404335.html The third pic brings back good memories. You have to wonder why a a car with a rebuilt engine is being sold with a bad carb. hhhmmmmm

Mr_Shiftright

$5K is all it's worth to me, is what I meant, because I've owned quite a few older Mercedes and I know what it costs per month to keep them in top shape.

fintail said:

I was thinking it might be a $10-12K car. I think MB sedans of that era can wear brown pretty well. If someone has a mint 50K mile one to sell me for $5K, let me know, I'll buy as many as I can get.

Location doesn't scare me, if the car was stored inside and didn't do winters. A good inspection would stop any worries.

Anything will go a million miles if you shovel enough money into it

Mr_Shiftright

73 Triumph TR6 --- pretty damn poor "full restoration" from the photos. I'd say seller is dreaming big time on this one. I'd say $22,000 maximum on a lucky day and more like $18K to a savvy buyer.

79 Mercedes 450SLC -- vastly overpriced. If it's as nice as nice can be, maybe $8000. These cars are practically sale proof unless you sell to the "look rich for cheap' crowd. All the problems of a 450SL but without the fun and panache of the convertible for similar money.

74 Charger--the interior shots are not encouraging. Worth a look I guess.

76 Trans Am ---- asking $12.9---offer $9K if it runs well and nothing important is missing. Future potential is there.

61 Cadillac series 62 4DHT --- hmmm...no interior shots, but presuming it's good, and given that it's a modified car, I think Fair Market is about $14K on this one.

74 Ford Hotrod Truck --might actually be worth the money. You'll get a lot of eyeballs for not much money.

76 Skylark -- hmmmm....my alarm system is going off here....so, you spend $3K to rebuild a motor and then try to sell the car running badly because it needs a $150 carburetor? Or, more likely, did you or the machine shop do something horribly wrong? Could be worth the money pending a running of the engine with compression test and oil pressure test.