Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
60s-70s big Chevrolets vs. big Fords
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Strictly anecdotal, but my dad bought a new '71 Monaco back then, did nothing to protect it from rust, and sold it when it was only a couple of years old. I was amazed to see it running around here one day a few years ago. Maybe Mopar did something special they didn't even realize to protect their fullsizers.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
You'd think that Chrysler products, since they were all unitized after 1959 (Imperial after 1966) would be more prone to rusting than Ford or GM body-on-frame cars, but I've noticed just the opposite.
The difference wasn't really vast in the '60's, but when GM redid their fullsized cars in 1971, and the intermediates in 1973, they really took a tumble in quality and durability. In contrast, the '69-73 full-sized Mopars were especially tank-like, except for the 4-door hardtops around the door area, which would flex alarmingly when you slammed a door.
Chrysler started slipping in the '70's too, but in a different way. GM got cocky. It's almost like they took an attitude that the public would buy their products no matter what kind of slop they threw together. Chrysler just got strapped for cash, and quality slipped as a result. Chrysler got sloppy with their build quality. Things wouldn't line up right, they'd develop water leaks, and their emissions controls were problematic (whose weren't?). Some cars, like the Aspen/Volare, got rushed to the market before they were really ready (suddenly it's 1957?). Still, for the most part their bigger cars retained that tanklike quality right up through the last M-bodies in 1989. Sure,they'd squeak and rattle, but they felt like they'd bash through anything!
Then again, there was proposed legislation aroud that time regarding stricter roll-over protection, which would have eliminated hardtops and convertibles. GM designed its 1973 intermediates in anticipation of this. Maybe Ford was just thinking along the same lines?
Andre, you'd be interested to hear that I believe that today's Jeep Grand Cherokees are built much more ruggedly than Blazers and Explorers. The fit and finish seems better, and the drivetrains last much longer than the troublesome Chevies and Fords.
I guess I'm not enough of a perfectionist; it seems like overkill to worry about storage marks on the convertible top, very light pitting on the chrome, etc. I guess I'm a #3 grade car kind of guy.
One question, 409's came with the Powerglide 2-speed?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1868009637
A real 409 SS 'vert could pull over $40,000.
62 409s weren't available with Powerglide. 63 was the first year, with a 340 horse 409-and it had hydraulic lifters, not solid. It does look like this guy's trying to bail while he can. Not to criticize the car too much-it's certainly nice, and it would be a fun ride. But a real 62 409 would be worth way, way more, like Shifty says. This car is like that 64 GTO convertible clone I saw a couple weeks ago-for $13,500. Oh it was a nice car alright, but there again, a real one would have been worth way more.
About the build quality of 60s and 70s Mopars-I think they were generally more solid than GM and Ford-even though fit and finish might not have been quite as good.
I've been to a few demolition derbies over the years, and it always seems the last cars still moving are fullsize Mopar wagons from the 60s and 70s.
I remember one of these I went to some years ago, where a friend had prepared an old 72 Cad Beater for the derby-huge rollcage inside, etc. We though he'd have a great chance in that big tank. Not to be-it was one of the first to go. The winner of that one was a big Chrysler station wagon of the 69-73 years. Derbies like that do tell alot about a car!
I'm guessing this car wasn't represented as 'all original', or perhaps the new owner (now seller) didn't know what questions to ask, to originality may not have been an issue. This is what bugs me about buying old Chevies especially (and most muscle cars): originality is everything. I mean, you don't want a '60s Cadillac or Mercury or Pontiac with the 'wrong' engine, but it doesn't seem quite as tied to value as it does with Chevies.
It's a nice looking car, anyway, and would make a perfectly acceptable cruiser, but it's not a $20k car to me.
I must be missing something.
It's also a way to make the car stand out from the herd of Chevies that have been modified, cobbled together and generally butchered.
If these special cars were not in fact, for the most part, just quickly re-arranged, serial production mass-made cars, then there would not be so many clones out there. It's something you can fake right in your garage, so how different can these cars be?
You couldn't fake cars very easily if they had special sheet metal, aluminum doors, special body pans, etc. Try and fake a lightweight Thunderbolt or some such.
But that's my point. When a car is inherently ordinary and similar to a gazillion others then how do you differentiate it and assign it value? Especially if it's the kind of car that was often re-engined either to improve performance or to just nurse a few more miles out of it. These cars were $500 beaters (and beaten on) for years.
With a Ferrari you don't have to split hairs to prove it's special. The low production numbers and engineering tell you. There's no nagging doubts, no need to go to extremes.
I'm not saying any of this necessarily makes sense, although since I'm a big believer in the inherent rationality of markets then I guess it has to make sense--to the players in the market, not necessarily to the bystanders.
So, for instance, if you have a DZ code 302 with the VIN stamped on either the front pad or back by the bellhousing (and no restamp), it's really a Z/28. Ford/Chrysler seem to have had the foresight that their poorly made consumer goods would actually be worth tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars some day and you get the gift of engine type being built into the VIN.
This, of course, does not fix the fact that cars that are 95% the same (an SS350 Camaro vs. a ZL1 for instance) have such widely varying values. I guess it's the same supply and demand that lead to dividendless stocks having such high values.
Still, might be fun as long as we pay the right money and know what it really is/was.
Although the performance differernce between a 350/295 Camaro and an aluminum 427 Camaro is far from subtle. And since Camaros are sold on the basis of performance, not handcrafted quality, the greater the performance the greater the value.
I know this must infuriate people who paid $80,000 for what is basically an ordinary Chevrolet but it's really just the other side of the coin. Pandora's box was opened with the numbers craze, and now there will be the backlash (the market "rationalizing").
You all remember the "black tulip" story? Someone tell it please....
I'm reading a book now called "Manias, Panics and Crashes", written in 1978 but still relevant today.
I think the difference between something like the tulip and tech bubbles and the demand for Chevies is that a) Americans have an enduring love affair with cars, b) Americans are going to collect American cars, by and large and c) Chevy is so ingrained in such a large part of society.
That's not to say that demand and prices won't be cyclical and that there won't be bubbles for certain cars. And yes, Chevy prices never cease to amaze me, especially when compared with cars that were considered better when new.
So yeah, Chevies are pretty ordinary but there's an emotional attachment that's been incredibly strong and enduring. But given Chevy's track record over the past twenty years or so this may not go on forever.
True hobbyists respect integrity, true, and even rarity, but when they find something rare, it's more about marveling about it, not clutching it in their sweaty little hands, and the first thought being "hey, I got a real gold mine here".
I remember feeling a near physical illness when in the late 1980s, I heard about "consortiums" of investors being gathered together to buy a certain Ferrari (never seeing it or even knowing about ferraris), and then an "investment manager" being hired to market the car and "turn" it quickly for a profit.
As you might imagine, come 1990, some "consortium" was left holding a very large and very leaky bag. Some Ferraris that were driven up in price to 5-6 million are now selling for $225,000.
Maybe it's people trying to recapture their youth by recreating 1969 as faithfully as possible.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1869001130
A Camaro optioned like this car would have no problem going for $35,000 yet this Firebird is only bid to $17,500. This car tempts me away from a Porsche 356. What a cruiser with all those options!
There is currently work on obtaining the Chevy paperwork. GM is letting the people who run the Pontiac Historical Society search the old records. Hopefully in the future you?ll be able to easy document a Chevy like you can a Pontiac.
It was in excellent condition, and not Mikey-Moused up: glossy black paint and all chrome and trim (Ford did not skimp on either back then). I don't care for the fender skirts on it that many seem to think the early 60's full-sizer's need. The engine sounded good too,
My only regret was being in my 2000 Intrepid, and not my 67 Galaxie convertible.
Here's a '62 "boxtop", so called because of the boxy roofline. There was also a faster roofline.
The '61 is similar but has small fins like the '57.
Chevy [and all GM] kinda did the same thing with their 2dr hardtops, dropping the "bubbletop" 61s [which I liked] for the rooflines of 62.
Actually, I ended up liking them all. But even now, when I see a 61 Ford Starliner or 61 Impala or Ventura "bubbletop" I wonder why they dropped them after one year.
As for matching numbers on Chevies, I think it might have started when unknowing Corvette buyers found out someone had taken out the 327, and swapped in a 283. Just too hard to tell WHAT smallblock you had in anything without checking numbers, and too easy to make the lowliest smallblock look [and even sound] like one of the hotter, rarer ones.
I wonder how that 62 Impala 409 buyer would feel if he discovered the engine was actually a 348??
Come to think of it, I bet at least one 348 was passed off and sold as a 409.
At least with a Ferrarri, you don't have to worry that the engine was swapped out of a taxicab, and polished, painted and chromed to look like the real thing.
We all know people who got taken horribly.
I always thought the '62 Bel Air hardtop, with its '59 era roofline, was better looking than the more squared-off Impala, too!
Ford probably saw the excellent market response given the 58-60 "square birds" and the 59 Ford, and assumed that the formal look was in.
Chevy thought the same thing and put the formal roof on the 62 Impala and the 61 styled bubble top on the lower priced 62 BelAir.
For racing, Ford did have a few 62's with removable 61 roofs, but I'm not sure if they were considered "legal". They were not offered to the public.
I wonder if the 63 1/2 Ford (and Merc) lower roofline was due to public demand or stock car racing necessity?
One of Ford's biggest surprizes may have been the panic that set in after seeing the more modern 59 Chevy, and trying to make a styling clone, the 60 Ford.
Ironic, because I thought that the 59 (and 57) Fords outsold their Chevy counterparts.
Was the 63 1/2 different from the 63? I see some cars noted as 63 1/2's.
(Actually, Ford made some low roof line 1962 models for oval racing, but the style wasn't offered to the public. I also think that the roofs were removable.)
I know that both makes around that time announced four door bucket seat models (500XL and S 55), but I'm not sure if that announcement was also considered a "63 1/2".
Ford stopped offering the formal style 2 door hardtop after 63, but Mercury kept offering two different rooflines, one being the breezeway retracting rear window first found on the 57 Merc Turnpike Cruiser.
Ford (and Merc) even experimented with a large model fastback 2 dr in 1968, but the car's proportions didn't look right.
But, IMHO, I think they hit a home run with the fastback 1968 Torino and Montego/Cyclone fastback style.
The Dodge Charger and AMC Marlin were first to offer the fastback style in a larger, non pony vehicle, but the Ford products seemed better proportioned and offered a wide variety of engines.
You could get a 1968 mid size Ford/Merc with a 302 2v, 302 4v (Cyclone only), 390 2v, 390 4v, and 428 (although the CJ428 may have been a 1969 option along with 351).
But, if you ever had to remove the gas tank from the 1968 Ford intermediates, you were surprised to learn that the gas tank was the floor of the trunk. You removed a series of large, self tapping screws from inside the trunk and then removed the gas tank which left a large opening in the floor of the trunk.
When you consider the tendency for cars to rust in that era (doors, quarters, trunks, etc), makes you wonder just how safe that design was.
Very interested in your last post. I own a '68 Camaro RS in which has some rare and desirable options. I have been working diligently the past year trying to trace it back but I have not been too successful. I, unfortunately, am without a build sheet or window sticker. I would like to verify whether or not my car came from the factory with those options. I know if it were a Pontiac than I could contact PHS for help. Do you have more information or could you keep me informed as you get more info with a simiar type service for Chevy's as you mentioned? I am EXTREMELY interested in this service. Please advise.
I once got a ride in a '63 with the 406. The salesman was driving it to warm it up before he'd let me drive (I was maybe 18 and had zero credibility). He goosed it leaving a stop sign, shifted into second and I heard this "boom"--he'd lost second. The car didn't have that many miles but the T-10 they were using then was a lot happier behind a 283 than a big block.
But what a beautiful car, mint black over black, and it made great noises.
The 63 Fastbacks were a response to the oval track racing needs. Those pseudo Tbird roofs didn't move air very well at 180 mph.
But those square Tbird roofs sure sold well, I guess. Heck Ford was putting them on everything-even Falcons and Comets to make 'em look like T-Birds.
I remember when the 62 Ford Galaxie 500 XL came out-kind of a response to the Impala SS. Buckets seats, console, fancy interior, more chrome.
Those were the days...
I kinda doubt that without a build sheet you'll be able to prove anything for certain but you can build a logical case for something being on your car--like for instance if the one option is part of a package, and if you can show one of the options are being original (original stamping or paint, etc.), then you've proved the package---that sort of thing.
Also, if the option is rare it still might be "minor" and of no consequence to collectors or to the car's value. The Camaro with the only pink sun visors every recorded is no more valuable for it (that of course is an extreme and silly example but you know what I mean).
Seriously...except for the high performance engines the only option that is meaningful might be 4 wheel disks...which were a dealer option that year ('68) in any case rather than factory (OK, OK, I suppose that dual quads on a 302 and/or that oddball cold air inlet which goes into the firewall might count).
YMMV, as usual.
It is true that we are working on a project for Chevrolet to retrieve and organize the history files for Chevrolet Division. However, you are a bit premature to request information on a vehicle.
My personal background is that I originally came from the Chevrolet Fleet & Special Order Group (the collector community calls it COPO) back in the late 60's and early 70's. I worked on the marketing side of many of the now collectible Chevrolets that were built during that time, plus I have collected cars myself for almost thirty years.
This project is a major undertaking and will require quite some time to get things organized. I am sure that information will be published when the project is complete. Stay tuned!
Jim Mattison
Automotive Services, Inc.
a.k.a. (Pontiac Historic Services)
- Fiber Optic Light Monitor system - in my opinion - would be tough to add after the fact
- Speed Warning
- Head Rests
- Power Windows
- Rear Defroster
- Power Front Disc Brakes
There are 20 or so more yet what I listed are for the most part; the rarest. I think that a car with some rare and desirable options will put somewhat of a premium onto a vehicle, especially if they are uncommon. any thoughts?
Anyway ... will be looking out to see whether the Chevy historical files will become available.
Also ... have a title history back to '84 ... just having trouble reaching the 2 previous owners.
Rarity of either a car or an option does not necessarily translate into value. The operative indicator of value of ANY car or ANY option is that "someone has to care that it's rare". A Kaiser is a very rare sedan. Try and give one away sometime. A GTO 3X2 with bench seat is probably rarer than one with buckets---but worth less.
To me, anyway, I cannot see your car being summarily rejected, or, conversely, massively hunted by hundreds of collectors because it does or does not have those particular options.
What collectors want in Camaros is provable authenticity, large engines, 4-speeds, and of course the SS/RS package. Whether it has the console or the special bumper guards is just icing on the cake, but not the cake itself, in my opinion.
Nonetheless, some of these options are really neat and convenient or make the car a better car. So certainly it's good you have them, and tracking down any info on your car's history is always part of the fun of being a hobbyist. For that reason alone, well worth doing.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1870151105
I wonder how much this reduces the value of this car?
I can still remember going on Sundays to a town called Montgomery NY (I think) and watching the dragraces at Montgomery airport. (Dragracing was so popular back then that they had to run four cars at a time.)
I remember one Sunday afternoon in 1960, I watched a Ford vs Chevy shootout.
Chevy always had the upper hand, but on this particular afternoon, two 1960 Fords showed up with the "new" 352/360hp engines. One was a black convertible with writing on the side "built by Ford to beat Chevvie".
Well, he lost, and on his return trip from the finish line, the crowd greeted him by throwing bottles at the car.
But, there was one really plain jane two door sedan, red, three speed on the column that was beating the Chevvies until he missed a shift.
Crowd applauded him.
I remember seeing one of the first Plymouth 413 wedge motor cars run at Island Dragway, NJ. Since there was absolutely no competition for this car, they arranged a "fun" race.
A Corvair was stationed half way down the track, while the 413 Plymouth started from the normal starting line.
They both took off at the same time, and the Plymouth nipped the Corvair at the finish line.
When Interstate rt 80 was nearing completion in Lodi, NJ (right by the Bada Bing Club, for you Soprano watchers), we used to remove the barriers and race on the still unopened interstate.
Good times........
That was 1200 HP then, and 6000 now! My how times have changed!
My parents had a house on the hill in San Pedro. I can remember beaing able to actually hear the dragsters as they blasted off.
And that was quite a ways from Lions.
I bought a record of racing sounds in 1963. My Dad had a new stereo system, so I'd put that thing on, and man! It was the next best thing to being there.
Had some great dragracing sounds-one of my favorites was a blown small block Chevy, running in B/Gas supercharged, I believe, winding out through a B&M 4speed hydro.
Also Chris Karamisines, driving the "Chizler" to a then record run of 214 in 7.81 seconds-what a big deal that was then.
One time, though, I put the record on after Thanksgiving dinner, with guests there. Got yelled at bigtime!
Not everyone likes that stuff I guess!
Mhansen and shiftright, I don't think there's any way to quantify an 'exact' dollar value on certain options. Obviously though, a 'loaded' car, in the end, is going to sell for more than a stripped one. On a car with as many available configurations as a '60s Camaro, the options help differentiate the car from others, and makes for a more 'interesting' car. That has to be worth something over a more basic car.
You have to look at the entire car, not its parts, for an accurate market value.