Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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

15681011791

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,873
    326 and 350 based on the Pontiac 389/400 block? I swear, I can't tell the difference in just looking at them, and honestly, the 421, 428, and 455 look the same to me as well.

     

    Is it one of those things where they basically just made a raised-deck version for the larger displacement engines? I know that's what Mopar did with their big blocks. In fact, they were designated as B- (350, 361, 383, 400) and RB- (another version of the 383 that was used only in Chryslers for '59-60, 413, 426, 440). Oldsmobile did it with their Rocket V-8 too, at least on the 403, compared to the smaller engines like the 260, 307, and 350.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    http://hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/classifieds.cardetail/id- - /2172225

     

    ....but under the skin it's the same as a first gen Mustang

    and the 302 has a little more power (305 hp?) than

    the 289 (271?). The price is nice but the Ford-O-Matic isn't.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    I wouldn't pay that much for a Falcon just out of principle, but I don't really have a problem with Ford's C4 automatic tranny. Wouldn't be my first choice, but it isn't a bad one. Might be getting a little close in power to where maybe they should have gone with a C6 tranny (if you want to go the automatic route) but I don't know.

     

    Still, for a Falcon that doesn't have the original motor, eh....I'll give him $4,500 for it if it is as nice as he says.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,873
    it might actually be overkill for that little Falcon. These things were originally designed to be lightweight economy cars, and as far as I know, no compact Falcon ever got anything bigger than a 260 or a mild 289. While the Falcon nameplate lasted through "1970 1/2", the 1966 and onward Falcons were actually based on the heavier, beefier intermediate Fairlane, a platform that could handle a big block without too much strain.

     

    Those earlier Falcons are so tiny and lightweight that it's actually scary! Some of the earlier models were as light as 2200 lb! With a gas tank about 2 inches off the rear bumper!

     

    Still, that '64's a cool little car, and depending on the condition, I'd probably go with about what Kev says. Depends too on the condition of the interior. From what I can tell, it looks like it has a high-back bucket seat in there, or someting with a headrest. That and the tinted rear windows tip me off that the interior may have been modified more than I'd care to see!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    If it's a real Falcon Sprint Futura it's worth the money. Spot on market price, although the mods might knock 10-15% off that, depending on who wants it. I'd appraise it (presuming the work is well done top and bottom) at around $6,000.

     

    Hopefully, there are some brakes and suspension under there beyond the 1936 Buick technology of an original Falcon.

     

    I agree, a C6 would have been better and a 4-speed better yet.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    even without the original motor, or even the correct displacement motor? Maybe I'm just a little bit too much a stickler on that?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 50,754
    Reminds me of that red on red 63 Sprint I wanted to get for my first car but the old guy wouldn't sell. It had a 260 IIRC, and was original, being a one owner car. It was pretty neat.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Look, it's a Falcon, not a Corvette. Nobody much cares what motor is in it except Falcon "purists" and really, how can you say that in a crowd with a straight face?

     

    However, all kidding aside, a totally original Sprint would be worth more, but not a LOT more unless it was a documented 4-speed with lots of options.

     

    You see the same phenomenon even in "common" Mustangs (the coupes) or small block Camaros. The only time an original motor really matters a lot on price is when it's either a big block or a very special motor (like the 271 in the Mustang fastback or the 302 in the Z28).

     

    But if someone puts a 350 crate in a 307 Camaro, nobody is going to assign a huge penalty, or a 289 in a 260 early Mustang coupe---these cars are so common it doesn't seem to impact the type of buyer who just wants to go fast for cheap.

     

    Look at it another way. If you want a clean, early to mid 60s V8 American coupe that's all trimmed out and ready to roll, how much cheaper do you think you're gonna get than $6K, original or not. You can't even get a beater 69 Chevelle for that anymore.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    http://hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/classifieds.cardetail/id- /2174704

     

    No price given. I wonder what's worth, and what the heck is a "rotisserie restoration?

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    It's when you put the car on a rotating frame device so that you can spin it completely around in a circle (longitudinally) and work on any part of the chassis or sheet metal.

     

    The "idea" is that if you say rotisserie that means you have supposedly done a very thorough job.

     

    What it's worth depends on a lot of factors we don't know----authenticity, documentation of that authenticity, and quality of workmanship. If any of those are lacking or in place, the price could vary wildly. It's the type of car you have to inspect carefully to appraise properly/

     

    The level of fraud, counterfeiting, deception, skullduggery, ignorance, greed and irresponsible hyperbole is reaching epic proportions in the old car hobby. You had better reallly know what you're doing.

     

    I hear about one heartache story a day right now.

     

    The Latest: Man buys a "restored" 1969 Porsche 911E (fairly desirable older Porsche)....so he brings it to my friends shop and we find that the front belly pan is re-inforced with welded bars from an old mattress frame....being a uni-body type of car, totally rotted out, it is not repairable and thus $12,000 worth of car is now absolute junk.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 50,754
    That Galaxie would be better as a 427. A 406 is much more common.

     

    That 911 would be a good 12K parts car eh

     

    The best old cars to buy are honest original drivers, not trailer queens or fake restorations. And buy them for the love of the car, nothing else. Investor speculation damages everything.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    That Galaxie would be better as a 427. A 406 is much more common.

     

    I don't recall 406s being that commonplace back in the day. 390s were common, 406s unusual and 427s were rare.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • fintailfintail Posts: 50,754
    Yeah, it's not a common engine per se, just in relative terms and survival rates too I am sure...and with the wording of that ad, I bet the owner is asking 427 money for it.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Could someone help me come up with a mathematical formula that can be applied to project cars. In other words, I'll provide the basic requirements of the equation and you all help me put it in mathematical terms.

     

    For instance, the numberical condition of the project car as it sits when you buy it could be CCP (class of condition presently).

     

    The condition you wish to achieve could be CCF (classic condition future)

     

    The amount of money it takes to get from the CCP to the CCF could be expressed as EI (Estimated investment)

     

    So a simple formula would be CCP + IE = CCF

     

    However, we aren't done. We need to have more variables and we may need to multiply and divide things. This is where I get stuck in math.

     

    OTHER FACTORS for the equation

     

    Once we have (CCP+IE) maybe we have to divide that by the current cost of an EXISTING car in the condition you want the project car to be (let's call that DC, or duplication cost). In other words, maybe we could come up with an INDEX to tell us that if (CCP + IE) is greater than DC.

     

    Thus, by calculating an index and giving the index results a "weight", we could decide how rational our project is.

     

    What we need to know here:

     

    1. Accurate assessment of the car's current 'class of condition, from #6 (parts car) to #1 (show car)

     

    2. Reasonable assessment of how much it will cost to get to where we want to go with the car

     

    3. Accurate market value of an already existing duplicate car in the condition we'd like our project to be.

     

    4. The base line of our index, that is 1.0 is "break even", 1.2 isn't so good, 1.5 is nuts, .8 is very good, .5 is a brilliant idea, etc.

     

    Any further ideas on this notion?

     

    If any of you math whizzes can come up with a formula, then we'll pick out a real car and apply it see how good it is. If it doesn't seem to work, we can adjust it or add other variables to the equation.

     

    But let's not get too crazy. I can't solve for three unknowns or anything and I'd like to keep to QUANTIFIABLE values, rather than "I like it". Let us presume that current market value has already determined "desirability" for most people.

     

    This formula can't work for people who want to spend $100,000 on a Pacer because they were born in the back seat of one or because it was our first car. Well, you COULD use the formula but you already know the result beforehand.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    but I doubt this Mustang is worth $4500.

     

    http://www.hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/dealers.detail/hmn_v ehicle_id/216043

     

    This Lark looks pretty rough too, same asking price...

     

    http://www.hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/classifieds.cardetai- - l/id/2174494

     

    At the other end of the scale here's a Duesenberg that might be worth

    the $850K they're asking......

     

    http://www.hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/classifieds.cardetai- l/id/2172195

     

    I can't believe they're using such a crummy picture of what is probably a gorgeous car to move something that pricey. What are they

    thinking, a ten y/o could take a more flattering picture.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • fintailfintail Posts: 50,754
    Geez, I dunno which is worse, the fat mach or the Lark. The Lark claims to be restored, I sure hope that is a pic from before it was restored. The Mustang would be more fun, I have to say.

     

    That Duesy would be something to see in person.

     

    Here's a funny little PDF document showing a basic economic model about acquiring a 6.3, and I think it translates into most cars. Kind of along the lines of Shifty's thought about a model of rationality. However...cars aren't rational to begin with.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 37,550
    I actually have a fondness for those blimpo Mach 1s. My future BIL had a red '73 when I was in middle school or so, tres cool to a 14YO motor head.

     

    Too bad it isn't a stick. Key with one of them, to me, is if it is solid, since once the rust gets ahold of it, no way. If it is truly solid, it can be saved.

     

    Funny about the Lark. There was a '64(?) featured today on My CLassic Car (with Dennis Gage). Had a s/c Avanti motor on it, worked over a bit, all factory supposedly. Called it "plain brown wrapper". Looked very tame, and was dark brown. They ran it against a Yenko Camaro, and it almost one (ran in the 12s).

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD (wife's)

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I agree. Basically the mustang isn't worth it but because you'll have something interesting at the other end you might try to buy it for $2,500.

     

    The lark is more together and perhaps worth the money but I could hardly think of a more boring thing to drive and a car that has zero potentially for appreciation. It will be worth $4,500 in the year 2050, adjusted for inflation.

     

    The Duesenberg's value is based strictly on provenance, documented history and complete authentication as to originality. Museum cars are generally a Red Flag on any collectible car. They suffer from benign neglect, no exercise and little maintenance. They are basically statues.

     

    Duesie people know every car, and every VIN #, and every bit of history on every car ever made. They know all the owners since new. They know more about each Duesenberg than they do about their own children. If the car is not fully recorded in the register and has mysterious "appeared", no one will pay that kind of money. If it is made of bits and pieces from other cars, it is anathema to the Duesey buyer and will go to a rock star or something to use as a fountain for his trophy home.

     

    Also it's not an SJ and it's not a roadster, so those are two big minuses.

     

    I'd say it is overpriced by 1/3 IMHO.

     

    RE: 6.3. The equation is easy for cars like 6.3s, or old Benzes in general or old Porsches that are beat up. Whenever a car's engine is worth more than the entire rest of the automobile, and that engine has not been rebuilt and documents in the last 50,000 miles, don't buy it.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I agree. Basically the mustang isn't worth it but because you'll have something interesting at the other end you might try to buy it for $2,500.

     

    The lark is more together and perhaps worth the money but I could hardly think of a more boring thing to drive and a car that has zero potentially for appreciation. It will be worth $4,500 in the year 2050, adjusted for inflation.

     

    The Duesenberg's value is based strictly on provenance, documented history and complete authentication as to originality. Museum cars are generally a Red Flag on any collectible car. They suffer from benign neglect, no exercise and little maintenance. They are basically statues.

     

    Duesie people know every car, and every VIN #, and every bit of history on every car ever made. They know all the owners since new. They know more about each Duesenberg than they do about their own children. If the car is not fully recorded in the register and has mysterious "appeared", no one will pay that kind of money. If it is made of bits and pieces from other cars, it is anathema to the Duesey buyer and will go to a rock star or something to use as a fountain for his trophy home.

     

    Also it's not an SJ and it's not a roadster, so those are two big minuses.

     

    I'd say it is overpriced by 1/3 IMHO.

     

    RE: 6.3. The equation is easy for cars like 6.3s, or old Benzes in general or old Porsches that are beat up. Whenever a car's engine is worth more than the entire rest of the automobile, and that engine has not been rebuilt and documented in the last 5,000 miles or 3 years, you had better pay rock bottom price and go over that car with a fanatical level of diligence.

     

    I mean, a Mustang engine you can rebuild from parts you find on the side of the road. A 6.3 engine requires things like a $1,500 water pump.

     
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    http://hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/dealers.detail/hmn_vehic- - - le_id/216083

     

    It happens to be near me and I've always loved the Mustang 'verts of the first gen. I'm suspicious of the low, low price though. That's about half of what a good 289 Convertible should cost, especially one with nice options (note styled wheels) and a good (?) interior.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,873
    is a nice little car. Is $16,900 a fair price for it? That 289 2-bbl probably only had about 200 hp stock, but that was more than enough engine for a car that light.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    Well I guess the big thing is, are you looking for an investment that you'll enjoy, or are you looking for a car you'll love that, at worst, you might put a little more money into than it is worth?

     

    I'm in the second group. No I don't want to lose my shirt, but if I make money, break even, or even spend a little more than I could get back out of it, I'm ok with that. So when I look at these Ebay cars, really I'm just looking to avoid money pits, rather than seeking a future windfall. As long as it is a car I'd like, and it won't eat me alive with serious issues, I'm ok.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 37,550
    Basic '66 converts are 32K cars now? Even with an automatic?

     

    I've never been a big fan of them anyway, but then again, I've never driven a real nice V8 model.

     

    For that money, it should be a complete driver, not a project car, but I suppose you couldn't take a rust bucket and do all the work to bring it up to this condition (as presented) for that much money.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD (wife's)

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    RE: Mustang convertibles.

     

    1st gen Mustang convertibles can bring big money if they are really REALLY nice and not messed with. I'd say the "active range" for #2s is in the low $20Ks. A price of $32K sounds high and a one-time thing.

     

    The car in question for $16.5 is a bit doubtful. If you read the ad carefully you will see that what the dealer is saying is that the car has been "clipped", that is, an entire rear clip from another car has been welded on (at least this is what I think). Also, we have "nice paint" but "worn carpets". What's with that?

     

    What I see here is a make-over and budget resto of a tired car. I could be wrong but that's what I "smell" from years of "smelling".

     

    I'd say true value is much closer to $12K if the car looks really good and runs out great and has no needs. A driver. Rev it up, bang it up, have a good time. This is not one to save in the wine cellar.

     

    As seminole says, an old Mustang can't really eat you alive. They are simple cars, basically just a Falcon with another body, and a Falcon is basically just a 1936 Buick with a few improvements. So you can't go too wrong, and parts are available everywhere.

     

    Only downside is that you might end up with a "bitsa" car, with pieces bought from all over, ,and it will drive like a kit car rather than one that was "all of a piece" from the factory.

     

    Old Mustangs of the mid 60s are fun to drive and plenty adequate for modern roads. Just don't think you are in a "sports car".
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    well I was talking in general, not specifically in regards to that Mustang. Really convertibles aren't my thing. I prefer coupes, hatches and sedans. In the case of that model Mustang, I'd much rather have a coupe, or ideally, a fastback.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    I owned a '65 289 2-bbl with 4-speed manual and, yes, it had enough grunt. The 225 hp 4-bbl required premium fuel, while the 2-bbl ran on regular.
  • gsemikegsemike Long Island, NYPosts: 2,097
    the description says that the carpet could use a dye and is not worn and that the cars has new quarters, not that the entire rear has been clipped.

     

    Of course, it's entirely correct to take any description offered by a seller of used cars with a grain of salt and be suspicious, but this car looks like a nice driver at a fair price. I could enjoy it alot pending a thorough inspection.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 37,550
    Now, I wouldn't mind having a decent '66 fastback that could be done up as a mild GT350 clone (or look laike I guess would be a better description). Those I like.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD (wife's)

  • jaserbjaserb Posts: 858
    My stepdad has a very nice '67 Mustang GTA coupe - regular style, not fastback or convert. All original, red with black interior, very well kept car. 289 2V engine, auto trans (that's the "A" in GTA, right?. I don't know much about these, but he's talking about selling "Sally" and getting a new '05. Any thoughts on value for a good, no excuses, ready to go GTA?

     

    ps. I think he's nuts, since Sally ain't gonna depreciate like that '05.

     

    -Jason
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    I'd also keep Sally, if I could afford to keep her as an extra car, and make the '05 my daily driver. Not that Sally couldn't serve as a good daily driver, but the '67 you described happens to be my favorite older Mustang, so I'd want to preserve her.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    but for some reason I thought the Mustang GTA's only came with the 390 engine, but I'm probably remembering that wrong, or it was a later change.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    IIRC you're right. I remember turning down a chance to buy on because a 390 might be a tad thirsty. It was considered a big hunk of motor for a "Stang in '67 (GT-500 came in '68 w 428)

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • jaserbjaserb Posts: 858
    In fact, wasn't the GT pkg more appearance than anything else? I doubt you could get a 6 cyl. GT, but I think back then the appearance and performance options were available either separately or together.

     

    -Jason
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    at least on the 65 and 66 the GT was V8 only (if my memory serves me correctly)
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    http://www.hemmings.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/dealers.detail/hmn_v- - ehicle_id/216489

     

    could be a nice car for autocrossing or just carving up back roads. I'm not sure I believe the "supposed 150 Hp" though.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Pretty unlikely. A 150HP MGB would be barely driveable on the street. Even 130HP engines are fairly stressed.

     

    Car looks awful with those wheels and lowered suspension. A slammed MGB? Eek!

     

    Some people have no respect.
  • gsemikegsemike Long Island, NYPosts: 2,097
    I don't know. I think that looks pretty hot. Not every car needs to be left 100% original.

     

    Not much of a project car though.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    Car looks awful with those wheels and lowered suspension

     

    Minilite wheels are a period-correct upgrade for a

    B Roadster and it doesn't look all that much lowered.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,873
    is that grille! Too garish and domestic-50's looking. Okay for a Buick, but not this car. I've always hated MGB taillights too, because I always thought they looked too kit-car for their own good. Maybe that's because a lot of kit cars use them, though?
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Not CHROME minilites, and besides, the MGB handles great the way it is. Lowering it just screws the whole car up, with harshness, and it destroys the lines of the car by hunching the body over the wheels.

     

    Sure, if you're running EP or HP in SCCA, you can gut an MGB and do these things, but taking a nice original (and early) MGB and pimping it out doesn't work for me.

     

    Basically, this car has been rendered worthless IMO, to any collector or British car enthusiast. They will HATE it.

     
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    completely different.........

     

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cate- - gory=7251&item=4524398728&rd=1

     

    You only though you hated the lowered MG. No, I don't know why either.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    oh...my....god...
  • gsemikegsemike Long Island, NYPosts: 2,097
    Jesus... that's just bizarre
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,699
    Porsche engine? Really?
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 37,550
    The engine is the scariest part. The rest of the car is just another odd Vdub kit body, and the style is certainyl to each his own.

     

    But, if it really is a Porsche engine, you can run into high repair costs, unlike with a simple Bug engine.

     

    I actually like the rino lining as paint idea. WOnder if it comes in colors? Should eliminate the worry about parking lot dings, and no need to wax!

     

    But still, i can't fathom why anyone would do this, but if it is cheap enough (and it really has a bug engine), could make a fun toy for a teenager.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD (wife's)

  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288
    I think the best thing you could do with that ugly mess is strip off that awful body and put a Myers Manx (dune buggy) body on it.

     

    Porsche-engined duners were wicked fast being as they were lighter than Porsches.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 21,288

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • gsemikegsemike Long Island, NYPosts: 2,097
    I'd like to see more pictures and info, but that looks like a pretty decent car. It's so hard to tell from just one pic. He doesn't even say anything about numbers matching or what has been done and what is needed.
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,699
    Hold on!

     

    We didn't vote on the VW/Z-28. I say yes as the "Mickey Thompson wheels and tires are valued at over $5500 alone." The Porsche engine is worth at least another couple of thousand.

     

    Quite simply, you have found a veritable gold mine.
  • gsemikegsemike Long Island, NYPosts: 2,097
    do I detect a touch of sarcasm?
Sign In or Register to comment.