Barrett-Jackson

isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
edited April 2014 in General
I've been watching the ongoing Barrett-Jackson auctions the past couple of nights and I'm just amazed at the prices some of these cars are bringing!

But I'm sure in many cases, the restoration costs far exceeded the prices bought.

A lot of these cars are over restored far beyond they way they left the factory.
«1

Comments

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,951
    The car was also sold new in Seattle...as pretty much a rule, AC is uncommon (when optional) in Pacific NW cars until the 80s
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Yes, one has to be careful in comparing some of the B-J cars to the ones in your neighbor's driveway. Also one has to be careful to believe that there is a real bid on some of the cars.

    But in some cases, the bids are just not smart, and the bidder would find it nearly impossible to re-sell the car privately for what he paid. I've seen some cars drop 30%.

    Of course, the PREMIUM cars with HIGH DEMAND are holding steady but that's the cream of the crop. The rest of the crop is going soft.

    Lots of European bidders by phone I'd bet. They're sick of old MGBs and little Alfas, they want to top-notch expensive stuff because they are shopping with Euros, so essentially they are only paying perhaps 70% of what you see the price listed at in USD.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 9,703
    I watched some last night, and (for the hour I watched) none of the cars failed to meet reserve - that seems odd, or did they have a 'no reserve' night?
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    I've watched nearly every minute of the Barrett-Jackson coverage this week. I even sat through the brutally painful auction of the Monster Garage creations. Good Gawd! What a huge was of time.

    In any event, none of the cars have sold with a reserve. B-J has strictly been a no reserve auction for the last five years or so.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 9,703
    B-J has strictly been a no reserve auction for the last five years or so.

    Thanks, that's good to know, makes it more interesting, rather than a bunch of fishing exercises.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    I enjoy watching the "floor assistants" work the bidders. These people can make things happen. "Amy" is a real babe too!

    In addition to the prices paid, there is a 10% bidders fee to be considered too.

    And, some of those cars, I keep thining, "what if something breaks".

    A 1929 (I think) Nash went through last night. What in the world would a person do if somthing irreplacable were to break?

    Not like a 1955 Chevy where they reproduce everything.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 9,703
    "what if something breaks"

    Well, that applies to lots of the pre-war stuff, there are shops that can make many of these parts from scratch - they are pretty lightly stressed. Not cheap, that's for sure. Also, there is some commonality in axles, engines, transmissions.
  • hymeshymes Member Posts: 4
    New here, fellows. I joined the site because I thought I would certainly need some help on a restoration of mine. Found it to be far more interesting than just that. Anyhow, I picked up a solid body 1973 Javelin 401, complete with roller cam and rockers, Holly 780 on a Torquer manifold, .080 overbore. T-10 4 speed. I've decided it's deserving of a major, as I bought it from a lifelong friend who needed money and has had the car from day one. The driveshaft busted, and broke the U-joint saddle at the differential. Anybody have any idea what AMC was using on this muscle car? I assume some Mopar piece, but this not an area I'm versed in. By the way, he has Camaro leafs on it, a direct bolt in. Figure. Thank you.
  • hymeshymes Member Posts: 4
    Uh, apparently I've already screwed up and posted this under an existing topic. Sorry.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    You could post here!

    Restoration Advice

    Host
  • tlinkoustlinkous Member Posts: 1
    I enjoy watching the Barrett-Jackson Auctions,but the prices they are getting for the cars are killing the average guy who wants to buy something to fix up.All of a sudden that 3,500.00 camaro is now worth 10,000.00. I guess thats just the way it is.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    And everyone thinks the old car they own is "almost" as nice as the ones that went through the auctions.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,951
    I love the ads that say "this car sold at B-J for 100K", where the rat the seller is trying to con someone into buying might be worth 3K...people don't understand the high dollar car received a 50K restoration and was bid on by drunken fools.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I have to shatter so many people's dreams in the appraisal business :cry:

    Sometimes (now and then) I'll see a family bickering over deceased Dad's old car which they think is worth $50,000, only to find out that it's worth $6,500.

    Talk about jaws hitting the floor. I just tell 'em "don't kill the messenger. That's what appraisers are for...we have no interest in the car, no mad passion for it, no desire or payoff attached--we just call 'em as the market directs us".

    Or a divorce where hubby sunk $35,000 in a car worth $8,000. Wivey wants half, which is only fair, but it's going to be half of the market value, not half of the restoration costs.

    B-J really distorts reality because we are viewing unusual merchandise sold under unusual circumstances----which is NOT the legal definition of fair market value.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 53,951
    I'd think it would be fun to shatter peoples unrealistic ideas, but then again I am a jerk ;)

    I've had people come up to me and tell me the fintail must be worth 50K, as they see a new MB costing this much. They are shocked when I tell them 5K would be a very fair price for it.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    What do these buyers DO with these over restored trailer queens?

    Some of them are museum pieces and I can't imagine there are that many buyers with museums!

    Do they drive them on nice days on city streets with their irreplacable
    parts in harms way?

    One thing is apparant, there are people with a LOT of money to throw around!

    Did anyone see the 30' Miami Vice speedboat with 1150 horsepower that came with it's own custom Hummer and trailer?

    What in the hell would anyone do with such a thing yet it brought (I think) 600,000!

    A prototype UGLY 1963 Corvette went for over a million!

    Amazing....
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Every year, at the end of the auction, when Craig Jackson is interviewed on Speed TV, he ALWAYS utters these words, "the market is strong" and goes on and on about how these cars are great investments. So, when Mike Joy interviewed Craig Jackson this evening, sure enough, he said it again, "the market is strong". But, unlike past years, he didn't go overboard about how B-J is the bell-weather of the market or that values are up, Up, UP!, etc. In the interview, C. Jackson chose his words rather carefully.

    PERHAPS for these extremely rare &/or well-preserved/restored iconic cars, there will always be enough millionaires around to buy them.

    Yes, the Miami Vice boat/trailer/Hummer sale was kind of nuts. But, the thing that gets me is the purchase of these non-vintage race cars. Where in the hell are you going to drive something like that? No where. Perhaps if you own a car dealership or a sports bar, you might buy something like that as a draw. But, for the price paid for these cars, you'd need to sell a heck of a lot of hot wings and beer.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/search/carlist_Details.aspx?&In_LotNu- - mber=17

    Actually, one of my favorite cars at the B-J auction was this '67 Parklane convertible and it sold for only $16,000. Yes, I'm sure some will argue that $16K is ridiculously high for this car. But, where are you going to find another one - let alone SEE another one driving down the road? This car sold on Tuesday which is when grunts like me are in attendance. ;-)
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    I dunno...$16K might be a little high, but it looks like the car is in really good shape. If its price is inflated, it's still a lot more reasonable than most of the other B-J stuff. Although I'd lose those awful rear skirts. And are those wire hubcaps authentic? I don't really care for them, but I guess they do suit that car. It's not supposed to be a sporty car, but more of a cushy cruiser.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Yup, I'd probably replace those wire wheel covers too. When I was a kid, we had a new '67 Colony Park station wagon which probably explains whey this convertible caught my eye. I clearly remember the hub caps on that car, which were very good looking as hubcaps go - sort of like what you'd see standard on a 64-64 Thunderbird.

    I'd probably leave the fender skirts on. Yeah, they may be somewhat hokey, but they lend a bit of panache IMHO.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    Personally, I think those skirts make the car look horrible.

    The only thing worse would be a continental kit.

    The hubcaps are wrong and it doesn't have air conditioning.

    And it's probably the worse color it could be.

    16,000 plus the 10% buyer's fee?

    Don't think so.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    Hmmm, I missed the fact that it didn't have a/c. I guess I just took it for granted that, being a top-line Mercury, it would've had it installed. I keep forgetting how a'la carte everything was back then. Somehow I guess I just lucked out in that every 60's car I ever owned had a/c. Now it didn't always work, but at least it had it! :blush:

    What color IS that car, anyway? On my screen, it looks like that light silvery green metallic that seemed so common back in the late 60's and early 70's. I guess it could look nastier in person, though.

    Also, looking in my car book, I see the 410 V-8 was the standard engine, with 330 hp. So nothing really special there. My book lists the 427 as only being optional on the Comets, although there was a 428 with 345 hp offered as an option on the full-size cars.

    Not that it really adds to value, but it looks like the '67 big Merc convertibles were pretty rare. My book lists 2673 Monterrey convertibles, 145 S-55's (which had the 428 standard), and only 1191 Park Lanes verts. Meanwhile, Pontiac ran off 10,033 Catalina 'verts, 8902 Bonnevilles, and 5856 Grand Prixes.

    It looks like big Mercurys in general weren't popular by 1967. Most of Mercury's sales seemed to come from the Comet and Cougar. Similarly, most of Dodge's sales came from the compacts and midsizers, while the Polara/Monaco lineup only accounted for maybe 115,000 sales that year. GM truly owned the fullsize market back then, especially in the medium price market.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    I believe that color was called Lime Gold or something like that.

    Just not a good color then or now.
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    OK. I guess I'm in the minority here. I love the sage green color. It's a welcome change from the run of the mill red and white found on most convertibles of this era. Admittedly, I'm not wild about the color of the interior. I think a nice cream or white would've been a better choice.

    I've relaxed my requirement for A/C on car like this. I mean, if it's 90 degrees, you probably are going to have the top up anyway (or just keep it in your garage). Plus, at least for me, a car like this wouldn't be my daily driver and the trips would be limited to pleasure cruises. So, not having A/C wouldn't be that big of a deal. Plus, it's one less thing to keep repaired. LOL!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    IIRC, most of the cars I've seen in that shade of light green have had interiors that match. At least, the GM cars have. Now that I think about it, I believe the GM green was a bit more silvery, but I still find that '67 Merc's color to be easy on the eye.

    As for a/c, it's not essential for me. With a car that old, not having a/c wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, unless it was something in the Cadillac/Lincoln/Imperial league. However, I wouldn't pay a/c price for a non-a/c car. FWIW, the interior of my '67 Catalina convertible is black vinyl, which is probably about as evil as it gets in hot weather. I've driven that car in the dog days of summer, top down, and have found it to be bearable. I'm a bit of a masochist, though. :shades:

    It seems like older cars tend to "breathe" better than the newer ones. Especially with the fresh air vents under the dash, the little vent windows, roll-down windows in back on 2-doors, and less padding and insulation, all seem to combine to make a car that's more bearable in hot weather. In the 70's, they started sealing cars up tighter, which I think made them retain heat more. And with integrated a/c systems becoming more common, they started doing away with those vent windows, fresh air vents, roll-down rear windows, etc. Plus, it seems that once they started making the side windows curve in more, they'd let in more heat from the sun's rays.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    Back in 1967 I guess a lot of people did like that color because it was pretty popular back then. I didn't like it then and it hasn't grown on me. Some people like fender skirts too while I think they just ruin the looks of any car.

    It's all subjective. This is why restaurants have menus I suppose.

    I don't like cars without A/C and a big Merc like that really "should" have it.

    If it were a Cougar it wouldn't be as important to me.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    The only car I ever had with fender skirts was a 1969 Bonneville. I remember pulling them off the car, and even though it gave the area around the rear wheel opening a bit of a ragged, incomplete look, I swear it made the car overall look SOOOO much better!

    Somehow, my mother, at the ripe old age of 17, was able to save up enough to buy a brand new '66 Catalina convertible. I remember years ago, asking her if it had a/c, and she responded "why would it have a/c? It was a CONVERTIBLE!" in kind of a "D'oh" sort of tone. I guess that was the prevailing attitude back then?

    But, judging from the pricing listed in my old car book, a '67 Park Lane was a major step above something like a Catalina. Looks like it was priced above the likes of the Bonneville even, coming in just below cars like the Electra, Ninety-Eight, and Chrysler New Yorker. That was sort of the 60's version of what they call "Near Luxury" today, a class that really should have a/c.

    I'd imagine that Mercury really had a tough time competing in this field back in the day. Olds and Buick, with their C-body Electra/Ninety-Eight, were essentially de-contented Cadillacs, so they seemed to have a definite advantage. And even though Chryslers were on their corporate "C" body, they were heavily modified from the smaller Furys and Polara/Monacos, with a body that was beefier and roomier. In contrast, the big Mercurys were just guzzied up Fords. Even though they were bigger than the Fords, it was in a fashion that made the cars longer without really giving you any more interior room. They'd stretch out the frame but use the same body, meaning you'd end up with a longer hood or longer rear deck, but not a roomier car. Although in some cases, you'd end up with a bigger trunk. Pontiacs Bonnevilles had some of the biggest trunks around back then, because they were the longest version of GM's corporate "B" body. They were longer than the Catalinas, and also longer than the Olds 88's and Buick LeSabres. However, all that extra length was in the trunk.
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 9,703
    Here's the brochure for the '67 Mercury, "The Man's Car", as they call it:
    1967 Mercury Brochure

    Lots of pages of car models that I don't even remember - they sure did have it tough competing with GM!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    The color and the lack of AC will always hurt the value of a big 60s splashy convertible....in this case, I think the car was over market but eventually the market will catch up to it in a few years----because really, any open car from the 60s, even an unpopular, unattractive one without any real "muscle"---will continue to creep along with inflation. I don't see cars like this "taking off" however. These are not '57 Chevys and '67 GTOs---they are land yachts that were not all that popular when new.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    The quality and workmanship of Ford products of that era fell far short of GM.

    As and example, a Riviera was SO MUCH better of a car than a Thunderbird.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    It's true. I've seen original unmolested Ford products from 1958-1968 and the GM cars are much better in every way.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    Speaking of color, if I ever decided I wanted to sell my '67 Catalina, would its pale, creamy yellow color be a detriment? Probably a moot point, since I couldn't see myself wanting to sell it.

    I always perceived it to be sort of a generic color. Not something that would make you all lusty, like a red, or a nice blue, but at the same time, not something that's vomit-inducing. If anything, I think the black interior and top make a nice contrast to it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    How would you say Chrysler products compared to the Fords and GM's? I've never owned a Ford product, but when comparing the GM and Mopar products I've had, I'd say the workmanship was better on the GM's. Tighter fit and finish, panel gaps, etc. Fewer squeaks and rattles. But the Mopars just had a solid feel about them, like the sheetmetal was twice as thick, and like they could slice through a GM car like a knife through hot butter.

    I think another thing that, in my mind, at least, might make the Mopars seem a bit more solid is that GM went a bit more modern on the interiors before Mopar did, with more plastics and such. For instance, the knobs and switches in my 60's Mopars were good old fashioned metal, just waiting to impale you in an accident. But on the GM cars, they were plastic, just waiting to get brittle with age. I don't think Chrysler learned how to chrome plastic as early on as GM did.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    Andre, I think that yellow would help that car.

    It was popular at the time and most people liked it.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    Just my opinion but I would rate Chryslers of that era somewhere between GM and Ford as far as quality and workmanship.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I was looking over the write-up on that 1965 GTO convertible that sold for 81,000 (!!!) including auction commissions. Given that the 2005 restoration was already going off with various wear and tear indications, I think whoever bought this "base" engine car just threw $20,000 bucks out the window.
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    The other day, they sold a '69 Corvette with 600 miles on the odometer. All I could think was "what a waste." Almost 40 years of just sitting around.

    I don't remember the sales price, but it wasn't too much. I'm all for the idea of holding on to a car that you enjoy, then selling it decades later for a chunk of change. But no one enjoyed that Corvette, so what was the point?

    Meanwhile, I watch a lot of goats and hemis sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the odometers indicate that the owners DID enjoy them. That's more like it!

    Like many of you, I question how an old car could be worth that much to people. But then I watch "Leggende e Passione" and see old Ferraris sell for $2 and $3 million, and I quit asking questions.

    .
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I guess everyone has a different attitude. If I spent millions on an old Ferrari I'd bang it around the race track, as God intended and if I had an old Corvette I'd burn rubber, slam gears and take it out on vintage rallyes.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAMember Posts: 15,306
    Geeze, for $16K, I'd at least expect it to be one of those Park Lane convertibles with the funky wood panelling.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    Oh, Gawd! I had forgotton about those!

    Talk about UGLY!
  • parmparm Member Posts: 724
    Careful! The '67 Colony Park station we had when I was kid had the fake wood paneling. So, I have a soft spot in my heart for that particular feature. ;) Hey, we were at the epitome of style . . . . . . . . . . . in 1967.

    BTW, today I saw a photo of '67 S-55 fastback coupe. Pretty cool car. The article I read on this car said that in '67, they quit making them about as soon as the production line started. The result? If you have one, it's a rather rare car.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,361
    What I've noticed is that with GM cars, as you went up the totem pole in price and prestige, workmanship and build quality improved. Not so much with Fords (except for Lincolns) or Chrysler products. In the 1960s, anyway, there was still a visible difference between a Buick or an Oldsmobile and a Chevrolet.

    If anything, at Chrysler, the Valiant and Dart were probably the best products!

    It also seems as though Chevrolets after 1964 show a decline in build quality.

    As for how Chryslers compare to Fords - in the old Popular Mechanics "Owners' Reports," it seems as though a larger percentage of Mopar owners complained about sloppy workmanship and build quality than Ford owners did, especially after 1965.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAMember Posts: 15,306
    ...looking at 1960s Pontiacs show there was a big leap in quality from Chevrolet. Too bad more recent Pontiacs don't exhibit this quality. Some Pontiac interiors look worse than those of Chevies. A Grand Am I rented two years ago exhibited abominable quality and made me wonder why one would prefer it over a Chevy.

    Per the 1965-66 Chevrolets, didn't they have some kind of problem with the motor mounts? I seem to recall my Uncle Charlie having some kind of front suspension problems with his 1965 Impala. Still, the 1965 full-size Chevrolets were beautiful cars. My favorite Chevrolet is the 1970 Impala/Caprice which uses the same platform as the 1965 model.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Oh, you just brought up my FAVORITE factory defect!

    Yes, the Chevy V-8 motor mount defect was DIABOLICAL.

    If the mount broke "just right", the engine would fall slightly to the right, yanking out out the power brake vacuum hose, resulting in the feeling of a very hard pedal and hardly any brakes; THEN (wait, it gets better!) if the engine fell further, it would lay on the steering arm, resulting in locked steering.

    THEN (yeah, it gets better than that!) as the engine was falling to bind the steering arm, it would PULL THE THROTTLE OPEN....

    So you had no brakes, no steering and a floored gas pedal.

    Is that sweet or what? You couldn't PLAN to kill anyone better than that. :P
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    You could still throw the thing into neutral and turn off the ignition, right? Small consolation if you're headed towards a brick wall, I guess. It'd be REALLY scary though, if it took all that out, too! I remember some bad Fox made for tv movie awhile back, called "Runaway Car" or something like that, where that happened to a girl in a Ford Maverick. It was so bad it was funny! There was also an episode of "CHiPs", where some guys in a '64 Olds or something like that got an attitude because a nerd in a little Japanese car blew past them and shouted "Get a skateboard, you'll go faster!" They went after him and, conveniently, the throttle stuck, the brakes went out, the gearshift locked in drive, etc, and they went on a path of carnage that took out a whole slew of then-worthless 60's cars.

    would the engine mount on the '65 Chevy tend to fail catastrophically right away, taking out the steering, brakes, and throttle at the same time, or would it be a gradual thing? So perhaps, if you knew what to look for, you could catch it before it got scary?

    My '68 Dart crushed the engine mount on the passenger side twice. The first time, the engine dropped far enough that it interfered with the steering, and one of the grease nozzles actually ripped the exhaust pipe off. It fell down onto the steering, and made it bind up a bit. It's been ages now so my memory's a bit fuzzy, but I think I was still able to turn left normally, but it really hindered my ability to make a sharp right turn.

    The second time it did it, I caught it before it got too bad. It was just starting to scrape.

    **Edit: turns out that Olds 88 was a '63. I guess you really can find everything on the internet!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I think the mount failure was pretty much all at once, but it didn't always result in all three component failures, no. Sometimes the throttle would just feel funny and that was your tip off, or sometimes the engine would just jump up and smash the hood.

    The "fix" was a clamp over the mount, so that WHEN it broke, the engine couldn't move too far.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonMember Posts: 20,350
    It wasn't often that all three of those things happened at the same time but it was certainly a bad design. the "fix" was a cable that strapped the engine into the engine bay. 1965 wasn't the best year for Chevrolet. Besides broken motor mounts, they handled like crap, wore out ball joints and rusted under the vinyl tops that were so popular at the time.

    Even in California, they would rust out by the rear windows.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    IIRC, 1965 ended up being a record sales year for the auto industry as a whole, so no doubt quality was slipping as they rushed the cars out the factory door as quickly as they could. Ironically, quality was the marketing buzzword of the day in 1965, with manufacturers touting "we're going all out to win you over this year. All out", et. al. Consumer Reports, in their 1965 auto issue, took each brand to task with their slogans, by printing them and then listing all the sample defects that CR found in their test cars. As I recall, Pontiac came up one of the worst with regards to defects.

    It seems like GM tended to roll their sheetmetal thinner with each redesign back in those days, so perhaps that made the '65's more rust-prone than the earlier models? I guess '65 was also a rough year in general for quality, since there was so much out there that was all-new. With the exception of Imperial and perhaps Lincoln, all the Big Three standard sized cars were all-new. Plus, there was the Mustang, Gen II Corvair, and a heavily revised line of Mopar intermediates. It must have been really exciting at the time, seeing that much all-new stuff appear at once. I don't think there's ever been as much of an "All New" year since then.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Well the Mustang and the GTO were exciting, the Riviera was still getting some buzz...I don't think Mopar was yet in its prime---that would be a few years down the road. The focus was definitely on the intermediates and sporty coupes that's for sure. Lincolns were the same odd-balls then as they are now and Cadillac was just putting along in a bit of a rut.

    The gen II Corvair was a lovely car, but it was already doomed.

    Then of course there was the fabulous E-Type Jaguar, which was THE car to own, and which was really top dog in the eyeball department in 1965.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 24,656
    Yeah, but in 1965, big cars were where it was at. That was the bread and butter of the market, and anything else was a niche product in comparison. Heck, Chevy probably sold more Impalas that year than anybody else save Ford division sold in their entire car lineup! And that's JUST Impalas. There was the Caprice, Bel Air, and Biscayne on top of that.

    1965 was also the year that Mopar got serious about offering big cars again, and they definitely benefitted from it. Chrysler finally got off that small 122" wheelbase which was where a Dodge really belonged, while Plymouth offered its first full-sized car since 1961, while Dodge greatly expanded their full-sized lineup.

    About the closest thing we'd get these days to another 1965 would probably be if the Big 2.5 all redesigned their full-sized trucks and a new Camry and Accord all got released in the same year.
This discussion has been closed.