Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

60s-70s big Chevrolets vs. big Fords

178101213

Comments

  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...though fewer were built, I definitely see more late '60s-early '70s Mopar wagons (like that one in post #449, thanx ab348!) in Chicago than I do GMs or Fords. We obviously have snow, salt and potholes some other parts of the counrty do not have, but I didn't think any of the Big Three were any better or worse than each other at that time when it came to disintegration.
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 19,031
    Living in the salt belt on the east coast of Canada, I can tell you that back around '73 or so Ford had a real problem with rustout. So much so that up here they were sued by a number of owners whose 1-2 year-old Fords, especially fullsizers, disintegrated prematurely. I remember at the time it was quite the cause celebre. By '75 Ford Canada had to offer a rustout warranty and began applying rockguard to the lower fenders and rockers.

    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

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...is that Chrysler products in the '60's and 70's tended to be built more ruggedly than GM and Ford products. I can't vouch for Ford, but having owned a few late '60's Mopars and GM products, I can definitely see a difference. The GM products may have been put together better...nicer fit and finish, etc, but the sheetmetal feels almost paper thin in comparison to the Mopars I've had.

    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!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...could that maybe be what prompted Ford to drop their 4-door hardtops so quickly in the '70's? I think the last true hardtop big Ford and Merc sedans were around 1973-74. After that they were all "pillared hardtops". By this time the roll-down rear window in the coupe was a mere sliver, with a huge B-pillar, so rigidity probably wasn't much of a concern.

    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?
  • jrosasmcjrosasmc Member Posts: 1,711
    I've noticed that too in the many old GM and Chrysler products that I've examined in years past. The Chryslers seemed more solid than the GMs, as well as more rugged. Of course, that's relatively speaking; I don't think any American product of the '60s and '70s could match the build quality of, say, Mercedes-Benz or Volvo.

    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.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Appears from the picture, the guy likes Chevy's, based upon his garage (and dogs).


    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

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    The car isn't real. Sounds like the guy paid too much for a "clone" and wants to bail. I bet the bidding stops around $15k-16K if the bidders are knowledgable that is.

    A real 409 SS 'vert could pull over $40,000.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    The car is obviously a clone-who knows what it had originally-maybe even a 283. Doesn't matter.
    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!
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    He found out later it has a '65 engine? I wonder if the poor guy thought he was buying an original car. Ouch.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Probably. I make part of my living working on cases like that. You have to be very careful. And it's not just dealers who are the weasels, either.
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...why anyone who wanted an 'original' car and had $20k to spend couldn't be bothered to check the numbers (block vs. vin vs. body codes, etc.). I know these can be 'faked' too, so the research isn't infallible, but still. At least it wasn't represented as an SS, which would have made it even more expensive.

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    It's all rather silly. People who buy Ferraris don't care if it's "matching numbers" but Chevy buyers do? HUH? What difference does it make which one of the gazillion V8 engines they pulled off the shelf? As long as its the right engine for the year and the type of car, end of story.

    I must be missing something.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Well, maybe the high production numbers are why matching numbers are so important. It's a way to differentiate the car from the gazillions of other Chevies.

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well yes I could see that argument when the "special engine" car is markedly different from the other mass produced models, but very often they are not different at all, except for a few bolted on options. They just take a car off the assembly line, make one a taxi and another gets a big engine some chrome bars and strips and a fancier interior and a set of disk brakes.

    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.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Sure, most of the hot cars of the '60s didn't even have bigger brakes or heavy duty frames, let alone exotic hardware.

    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.
  • chris396chris396 Member Posts: 53
    I've been seeing a change. Cars with paperwork proving that they are a special model are holding value as long as they have a "correct" engine and not the original #'s engine.
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    One major difference with Chevrolets and the whole matching number deal is actually proving that the car was sold as that model. Norwood cars do have the X codes (which are worthwhile in some cases)...so far as I know L.A. has nothing like that.

    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.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    You beat me to the punch. Your comments are accurate. Can we say Mickey Mouse?

    Still, might be fun as long as we pay the right money and know what it really is/was.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    It's that last 5% of course and it makes sense. We're talking about cars from the country that pioneered mass production. Any color you want as long as it's black. With that kind of history, value has to come down to apparently subtle differences.

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think chris is correct. Lots of collectors are getting sick of the crazed fascination with "matching numbers" and the corresponding inflated values assigned them. As long as the engine is "correct" in year and type, the penalties for "non-original" engine are seemingly less and less these days.

    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....
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    It's also called "revulsion". The market works itself into a frenzy and then wakes up one morning feeling cheap and used.

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well, all that emotion and affection is a good thing. It's the exploitation of that affection that sours people. Whenever greed or fakery or pomposity enters a hobby, you can be sure the real, true lovers of the object will either rebel or quit. The true believers are not in it for the money or to Lord it over everyone else who collects.

    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.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    Yes, I guess it's mostly about integrity or authenticity. The more original a car is, the closer you are to "the source", the factory. Never mind that this gives "the source" an importance far beyond its true stature. Anything factory is venerated, right down to the chalk marks.

    Maybe it's people trying to recapture their youth by recreating 1969 as faithfully as possible.
  • chris396chris396 Member Posts: 53
    I paid about 10 to 15K for my '69 Camaro RS SS convertible over what you could buy a similar 400 Firebird convertible. But I had to have that Camaro :~)


    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.

  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Saw a big black 62 Galaxie hardtop (from the rear tail lights, pretty sure it was a 62) on the way to church this morning. I made the statement on one thread that full size got a little too full size after about 1970, but I have to say this 62 looked positively huge (and heavy).

    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.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    http://www.galaxieclub.com/internationalcarshow/members/4532/k-boorsma.html


    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.

  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    of the 60-61 Ford Starliners, and wondered why they dropped it for 1962, only to come back with the "new" fastbacks for 63, which I thought were less attractive than those Starliners. "Fastback" suddenly became a hot item, only a year after dropping what I thought was a better one.
    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.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...that the Starliner-style roof was just too old-fashioned for the '60's. While I agree it looks good, much better than that formal-roof "box-top" style, it was becoming a bit out-of-touch by the '60's. After all, that style of roofline had been around since the 1957 Plymouths and Dodges.

    I always thought the '62 Bel Air hardtop, with its '59 era roofline, was better looking than the more squared-off Impala, too!
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    Remember, in those days, cars were planned years in advance.

    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.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    After researching it some, what I saw was actually a 63, but it had a very squared off rear roofline. Funny, but I saw a similar vintage Buick yesterday with the exact same roof-line. Still, both looked like complete tanks.

    Was the 63 1/2 different from the 63? I see some cars noted as 63 1/2's.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    If I remember correctly, the roof was the only difference in the 63 1/2 Ford and Mercs.

    (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.
  • mhansen1mhansen1 Member Posts: 14
    Chris,

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Do you have the "Camaro Red Book"? This can be helpful. Look on Amazon.
  • speedshiftspeedshift Member Posts: 1,598
    There was also a mid-year change in engines, from the 406 to the 427.

    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.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    seeing pictures of a few 62s with that Starliner roof in magazines-made for the Nascar tracks.
    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...
  • mhansen1mhansen1 Member Posts: 14
    I have a copy of the 'Camaro White Book.' I think the latest edition was published in 1998 or so. Great reference book for anyone who owns a Camaro. It outlines the options and how many cars were produced with each option etc. It is categorized by year and is really easy to use. I believe these guides also exist for Corvette. Not sure though if they exist for any other models. Anyway ... I just would like to know if my particular Camaro left the factory as it exists today. I know that through the PHS ... documentation etc. can be provided to a Pontiac owner if interested. Thanks for the advise about the book though. I hope the historical search soon becomes a Chevy possibility
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh, yeah, I think it is called the "white book" My mistake.

    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).
  • ndancendance Member Posts: 323
    Hey, you never know. If it were a '69, you could be looking at the Liquid Tire Chain option. Maybe we're talkin' bench seat / column shift.

    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.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Anyone paying 5-6 million for a car, even a ferrari, deserves to be taken to the cleaners, laundered, dry cleaned, pressed and hung out to dry, IMO. I'm the kind of car guy who cries when he sees a trailer queen. I mean, the car is so over restored, with so much money in it that it can no longer be taken out on the open highway, and driven. And deep down inside, all cars want to be driven. I'd think the trailer queens would cry too, if they could. Want an investment? Buy real estate. Want some top-down wind in your hair 8 growling cylinders Chuck Berry on the in-dash record player fun? Buy an old car.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    Weren't the fast-roof 63 1/2 Galaxies part of a division-wide promotion? Didn't the Falcon Sprint, with the sleeker roofline, come out at the same time? And wasn't the XL version of the Fairlane Sport Coupe introduced at this time, as well? I think they also all featured bucket seats, which was a big deal in 1963.
  • chris396chris396 Member Posts: 53
    Here's the official word.

    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)
  • mhansen1mhansen1 Member Posts: 14
    Thanks for the updates Shiftright and Chris396. Here are the options on my '68 I am most interested in finding out whether they came from the factory:
    - 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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well I think you could safely say that none of those options would be likely to be counterfeited except the power disk brakes, because none of them except the disk brakes would have any affect on value. Thus the motives for and against.

    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.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Nothing like a continental spare tire kit on a car that should never ever have one.


    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1870151105


    I wonder how much this reduces the value of this car?

  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    Yeah, those were the days....

    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........
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    Good story. I remember my first trip to the drags. It was at Lions Dragstrip in Long Beach, CA, in 1962. I believe Mickey Thompson ran the strip then. The top fuel eliminator that night [and most nights in those days] was Don Prudhomme, driving that Keith Black and Greer built dragster with the blown Chrysler. A good time then was like 185, in 8.2 seconds. Now, Prudhomme is an owner [if you watch drag racing now] and Larry Dixon, his driver, runs like 320 in 4.65 seconds.
    That was 1200 HP then, and 6000 now! My how times have changed!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Member Posts: 20,342
    I remember Lions very well.

    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.
  • carnut4carnut4 Member Posts: 574
    That was a good part of it for me-the sounds of those engines.
    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!
  • ghuletghulet Member Posts: 2,564
    ...that Galaxie is the 'over-restored' poster child. Tinted windows, fender skirts, body colored late '70s Thunderbird alloys with spinners, bad two-tone interior. Lovely.

    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.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Sure a loaded car will usually outsell a stripped or basic one, no argument there, butsmall options or peculiar ones don't carry much weight value-wise. You can put a dollar value on pink sun visors in the sense that there isn't a dollar value. Ditto say "just" the rear window defroster.

    You have to look at the entire car, not its parts, for an accurate market value.
This discussion has been closed.