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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Speaking of options, if a car has an option, but it doesn't work, is it worth more than that car withouth the option at all? For instance, my '67 Catalina 'vert has factory a/c. It doesn't work though. Would it be worth more though, than a '67 Catalina 'vert that didn't have a/c to begin with?
My favorite purist story concerns a guy I knew back in my GTO days who was the very essence of the type. If you weren't running the correct AC Delco wiper blade refills you were less than human.
Well, after a year of so of listening to him sneer about modifications and the sub-humans responsible for them I find him one day in his back yard replacing the original automatic in his mint original '66 with a non-original four speed.
Maybe he was going to call it a dealer-installed option.
Sr. Shiftright...do the Ferrari people have the equivalent of this sort of thing?
I'd say the most important thing to a Ferrari owner is "provenance"---where the car came from, who owned it, how long, where did it race if ever. The Italians are not above counterfeiting an entire rare Ferrari from scratch.
QUESTION ON OPTIONS:
Yes, in my opinion a non working a/c unit, if it were factory installed, would make a car more valuable than one without a/c at all. The option doesn't have to work or even be in good shape to count.
And no, I can't imagine a rear defroster making a difference one way or the other to a collector, because no two used cars are ever that equal that a minor option would tip the scale. There are always other mitigating factors, not just one little one. At least that's how I see classic car deals go down.
I often zing him about how his car is "overrestored" (it is truly beautiful) but he has showed integrity in not trying to recreate something that wasn't there originally in terms of markings and documentation. In contrast, another acquaintance is a very skilled restorer who does this as a second income - buys a 60's/'70s car (usually muscle cars or convertibles), does a quickie restoration, and flips the car at Carlisle for a good profit.
What this guy does that really bugs me is add all of the supposed factory production line markings, even ones that weren't there. He has a selection of different grease pencils, paint pens and stamps, and away he goes with marks all over the firewall, rad support, etc. I find it ridiculous and quite distasteful, if not downright fraudulent. But he and his customers seem to find it irresistable.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
I don't think the rarity of small options matters in overall value, because we could come up with even rarer combinations on cars worth far less than your car. You could put every option known to man in your car, and prove that only 1 was built with all those options, and only take away the SS/RS stuff and put in a 6 cylinder engine and you have very little left to sell to anyone.
What the rarer options will give you is something to talk about at swap meets!
This is an argument (debate) I go through all the time in appraisal work, and from my own point of view it isn't a good argument because assigning small options extra value merely inflates the value of the car in the eyes of the owner, who then feels burned when it comes time for an insurance settlement.
Your car has more than enough to guarantee its future value as time goes on. I think that coming up with combinations of small options and divising rarity quotients ultimately.obscures the true value of the car to all concerned.
However, it is great and harmless historical research and I encourage you to pursue it. I have often done this myself with cars I've owned.
Bottom line, it would be very difficult to show that anyone really cares (checkbook wise) if only 500 Mustangs came with BOTH the blue interior lights and the remote trunk release on the same car. To me these are more curiosities than significant determinants on Fair Market Value.
1) The obvious differentiators...models and engines, convertibles, etc...great thumping difference in value.
2) Stuff no one cares about... speed warning, defroster stuff, slight differences in interior trim, vinyl roofs (probably a minus),AM/FM, power windows.
3) Stuff that makes the car a bit more drivable (if bought to drive, you never can tell anymore), power steering, disk brakes, auto vs. manual, gauge package... might be a go/no-go decision for a buyer. I guess you could throw desirable colors in here (Pink Mopars, orange Boss 302's, etc.).
4) Truly rare high performance stuff (usually Chevrolet)...dual quads on 302 + the fiberglass hood, 4 wheel disks on Camaro, aluminum heads, ummmm...I'm running out of stuff here....maybe the sports car package (ie. 15 inch wheels + handling junk) on Camaro....that goofy lightweight rear end thing on 442. All of this tends to be darned hard to document.
As far as synthesizing rarity via rare combinations of setups, the Chrysler guys seem to have everybody beat. In general, I wouldn't even think about option rarity unless the car were a desirable (ie. high performance) model. OTOH, not being able to see through the floor is a big plus.
Also, the motor is still a 1964 Ford 352/250hp, but it's not the one that came with the car. Is that a problem also?
Fortunately, since I purchased this car in 1969 with 46,000 miles, and it now has 207,000 miles, I don't think that I could ever sell it.
Now, if anybody wants a rust free, 95% original, 1958 TBird with 60,000 miles, second owner, original papers (even found some vintage old maps in the glove compartment)........
My cousin had a 65 Impala SS 327/250; my friend had a 65 Galaxie 390/300, both 4 speed. (Another friend had a 1964 Galaxie 390/300 that felt much faster than the 65 Ford, but I believe rear end ratios on 1964 manuals were 3:50. I put a 3.50 rear end in my convertible; gets a little rough over 65 mph with the 14" wheels.)
The 65 Ford could not stay with the 65 Chevvie (blame the rear end ratio a little bit: 3.00 vs 3.36.)
But the Ford could lug 4th gear down to 20 mph with a full load of riders and pull away without a miss.
Back then, my 1965 Corvette (327/300; 3:08 rear) couldn't lug at that speed; had to downshift, but I could cruise at 50 mph at 1900 rpm and 100 mph under 4000 rpm, if memory serves me correctly...
Fastest car I ever drove (back in the late 80's) was one of those all black, turbo Porches with the big "whale tail".
Fastest car I ever rode in was a 56 modified Corvette with 5:14 gears (built for the 1/8 mile track).
So if you "clone" a 500 into an XL, I think you've raised the value of the 500 but it would not bring quite the same amount as an equally nice "real" XL. Not all that much difference, though. A "cloned" GTO would suffer much much more in value over a "real" GTO.
NDANCE -- that was a GREAT run-down on options and what they might mean.
For the record, in most road tests from the 60's and 70's there was rarely more than half a second difference in acceleration between comparably equipped Ford, GM, and Mopars.
In the March 67' Motor Trend they test a Plymouth Sport Fury with 383 4bbl and 3.23 axle, a Chevy Impala Super Sport with 396 4bbl and 2.73 axle,
and a Ford Galaxie 500 with 390 4bbl and 2.75 axle.
Chevy 0-60 9.1 sec, 1/4 mile 17 sec. at 83mph
Mopar 0-60 9.6 sec, 1/4 mile 17.4 at 81 mph
Ford 0-60 9.2 sec, 1/4 mile 17.4 at 82 mph
Chevy passing 50-70 mph 6.0 sec.
Mopar passing 50-70 mph 5.4 sec.
Ford passing 50-70 mph 5.5 sec.
all cars were within 100 lbs. of each other give or take.
About the only notable differences noted in the test was that Ford's Quality was excellent, Chevy's was better than expected, and Mopar's was poor.
In 35 years, quarter mile dropped by 1.3 seconds, and mileage went up about 47%. Too bad it costs an arm and a leg to fix a newer car.
My dentist, a long-time friend of the family, always bought Impalas and Caprices, although now he has a '96 Roadmaster. He said he always picked a 4-bbl over a 2-bbl, because he'd get better economy as long as he didn't put his foot into it.
I'm actually surprised the Mopar in MT posted a time that poorly. I remember an issue of Consumer Reports, which is usually much more conservative and realistic in their tests, where they got a '68 or so Coronet with a 318-2bbl and 2.76:1 gearing to do 0-60 in 10 seconds flat. Sure, a Fury is heavier than a Coronet, but a 383-4bbl is a helluva lot stronger than a 318-2, not to mention quicker gearing!
When it came to more basic, everyday cars, Mopars usually did pretty well, at least in Consumer Reports testing. Usually they'd pit a Pontiac Catalina, a Fury, a Galaxie, and an Impala together. The Pontiac, sporting either a 389 or 400, depending on year, usually walked the others like dogs, and got the best mileage because of tall gearing. The Mopar usually had a 318 2-bbl, and would come in second in acceleration, but I forget about fuel economy. I forget what they'd stick in the Fords...probably 289's or 302's? And the Chevies usually had 283's or, later, 307's.
Chevy in particular got pretty bad in the later years. I remember one test, 1968 I think, where the 307 did 0-60 in 14.5 seconds. Chevy really didn't catch up to Mopar until Consumer Reports started testing them with 350's, and by that time, Pontiac's 400 had been downrated, too, so things started to equalize.
A spreadbore four barrel like GM's Quadrajet or I believe the Carter Thermoquad should offer better mpg at part throttle because the primaries are small. But there's a trade-off. The Q-Jet doesn't breathe as well at wide open throttle (or actually the air/fuel distribution isn't as good) because of the big difference in size between the primaries and secondaries.
I've also run across the idea that two barrels are quicker than four barrels at low speeds. I think where this might come from is that in the '50s the four barrel engine often had a hotter cam that didn't begin to turn on until the car was well out of the hole.
It's all about Bernoulli's principle: smaller area is higher speed but lower volume; bigger area is lower speed but higher volume. The same tradeoffs apply to valve lift, intake runner size, throttle body diameter, and other engine parameters, which is why modern engines increasingly use variable valve timing and variable intake runner setups. The ultimate example, so far, is BMW's Valvetronic, which combines variable valve timing with an infinitely variable-length intake manifold (it's a rotary arrangement that changes its effective length to basically any value between two extremes), controlled by the engine computer. By doing this, it completely eliminates the conventional throttle body and throttle plate: the engine varies the valve and intake settings to give the engine exactly as much mixture as it wants at any given RPM. BMW figures that this is good for 10-15% more efficiency than a conventional-throttle engine; it dramatically reduces the frictional losses you get from the throttle plate itself at part throttle, which improves real-world, around-town fuel economy. Wonders of technology...
SOunds, um, complicated. When you consider GM is still doing pretty good with old-fashioned pushrod 3.8 V-6's, you have to wonder if that kind of technology will ever trickle down to mass produced cars? In ten years, those BMW's will most likely have atrocious (sp?) resale value compared to their initial price. All that high-technology gizmology, and a local mechanic scratching his head at why an intake manifold needs so dang many moving parts. Still, a pretty good idea, and a good example of the leading edge of technology for top of the line cars.
Do humans rebuild alternators anymore? fuel pumps? distributors? I expect less and less. In any case, I expect mysterious failures will be at the peripheries (connectors, cracked vacuum fittings, etc. due to the vibration and hot/cold cycles).
At this risk of repeating myself, the model for cars is obviously leaving the industrial/mechanical domain and entering the medical one. Failures will become more rare but more expensive over time. Health insurance (ie. extended warranties) will become mandatory. The whole thing is a natural side effect of attempting to mimic natural systems by building ever smarter and more capable vehicles. In essence, we are creating life forms.
I wonder what increasing complexity will do to the value of used cars? I'm out of the used car market because I can't afford a car that isn't under warranty, and I have my doubts about aftermarket warranties. Would an extended warranty enhance the value of a used car or would the cost of the warranty be (in effect) deducted from the value of the car?
When you say these more complex parts will last the life of a car, what really needs clarifying is what the life of a car really is. To use your life form analogy, more old folks have pacemakers, hearing aids, eyeglasses, ect, than younger folks because their parts are worn out and breaking more. Same thing with cars. A new Grand Marquis will likely break down less than my '78. So what is the life expectancy of these new BMWs, and other cars at the very cutting edge of technology? Ten years? Twenty? I'm of the school of thought that says drive 'em til the fall apart, tape 'em back together, and drive 'em some more. I've got nothing against new cars, there are several models I'd love to have, but if I bought one, I'd plan on getting at elast 150,000 miles out of it before I even think about replacing it. Of the three cars I've owned, two have been 20 years old or more, and the third I drove well past the 200,000 mile mark. I'm afraid with some of these new, high tech cars, you start hitting about 10 years, and lots of things will start going wrong, and the car will suddenly become very expensive to fix. So, yes, these complex, high tech systems willl last the life of the car, but how long is that?
I think the lifeform analogy is stronger than just a medical care = car care standpoint (in terms of risk/reward). Over time, designs will evolve to a far greater degree of intelligence...the near term with smarter control systems (ABS, control loops between engines and transmissions, safety devices) and in the longer term with higher states of control (automated highways, limited capabilites for healing). Higher states of control is an especially interesting thing...imagine the car (in terms of smarts) as a 3500 pound cockroach with wheels.
Seriously though, with all of the electronic controls in todays cars they can do wonders, putting out more power more cleanly using less fuel than ever. But all those controls mean they are simply not serviceable the way they used to be.
A friend had an early 90s Cadillac with about 80K miles. Suddenly things started to go wrong. A hesitation when pulling away from a stop. Erratic braking behavior. Sudden changes in idle speed. Strange transmission behavior. This car had been maintained fanatically by him at great cost, always by the GM dealer. But they were fairly helpless to gix any of these except by replacing very expensive components. Estimates of over $1000 for the brake problem (ABS), upwards of $2K for the engine (replacing most of the sensors and computer), etc. Far more than the car was worth. He ended up selling it because there was no justification for putting that much into it with no assurance that it would actually fix what was wrong, because the dealer really couldn't say for sure that it would. Nobody really understands what all these things do and how they interact.
Even the best electronics can be flaky. Can you imagine trying to fix a 7-series BMW 10 years from now? It would probably be impossible.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
My 90 Dodge Conversion van [my newest rig] had a voltage regulator problem last May. Flaky things happening with lights, amp qauge, etc. Finally, the whole thing just died. Voltage regulator? Yes-which, that year, was an integral part of the power module [computer]. Had to replace the whole thing. Cost to replace? $850 bucks. And they said I was lucky compared to some. Yeah right.
I can't imagine an expensive BMW, Audi or something like that when it approaches the 80-100,000 mile mark.
Yikes!
Just thought of something evil for the "V-8 swap" forum. 10 or 15 years from now, pick up a BMW 7 series with flakey electronics for a song, and drop an old fashioned 454 big block under the hood. Yank out that "I-Drive" thing, and put in a killer stereo, and it's got to be better than sending it to the junkyard!
Otherwise, I don't think FI was that common on '70's cars. In 1980, GM had an FI 2.8 that went into Citations and the like, that put out around 135 hp in a time when the 2-bbl gave about 110. Chrysler offered it on the '81-83 Imperial, where it boosted the 318 from 130 to 140 hp.
I think Chrysler cars, at least the RWD ones, stayed fairly simple to work on right up through 1989, when the last M-bodies rolled off the assembly line. Sure, there are vacuum hoses galore, and the engine is mounted tight against the firewall, making the distributor a real joy to get to, but compared to the few RWD GM and Ford cars still around, they were pretty easy. At least, comparing my '89 Gran Fury, '79 Newport, and '79 New Yorker to roughly similar GM cars like the '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass Supreme, '85 LeSabre, adn '86 Monte I had, the Mopars have been easier to work on.
The mechanically managed FI system came out as the K-Jetronic, and was a big improvement.
Kugelfisher was a completely mechanical (even the pump) system. Very reliable and popular among the hot rodders. This system was used in BMW, Peugot, and others.
Thing is, alot of those old 70s VW buses were driven by people who were not mechanically inclined, and tended to neglect them.
Look out.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Now that I think of it, the image of an old VW bus in flames to the tune of the Johhny Cash song is funny as hell.
This one I saw at the roadside, though, was scary. It was a Westphalia camper, looked a little neglected, and as I watched, the firetrucks fought it for awhile-but then the propane tanks inside exploded, and the thing was burning so furiously they just backed away and gave up.
I think I remember some litigation about these back in the 70s.
Nowadays, it seems the most common car I see burned up on the side of the road is a Ford product...usually Lincolns. I always figured it was all that extra wiring that goes into luxury cars.
For example, my 1980 Malibu had one interior light...the dome light. My '79 New Yorker has one light in each of the front doors, two lights in each of the back doors, a map light on the dash, a light in the glove box, two little courtesy lights in the footwell, and another little light built into each opera window that would illuminate the fancy cursive "Fifth Avenue" writing at night.
If you want fuel injection guaranteed to catch fire, try a Jaguar V-12 or a Lotus.
But I'm glad CIS injection came along soon after.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
"I fell into a burnin' ring of fire!"
The system used by VW in the early 70s was, if I recall correctly, actually originally developed by CHRYSLER corporation in the 1950s! This was the system that was offered very briefly on a handful of Chrysler and DeSoto models (the 300D and Adventurer, I think) for about $400. Only a tiny handful of units were sold, and almost all were hastily recalled and replaced with four-barrel carburetors. Evidently ChryslerCo decided at the very last minute that the FI system was a disaster and decided to cut their losses. They sold the program to Bosch for a song. The Chrysler system was very different than the Rochester fuel injection systems offered by Chevrolet and Pontiac (which were not the same); those were mechanical injection systems, not electronic. It took another generation or two of technological development to make it really reliable for normal passenger car use.
One thing I always wondered...since people paid $400 extra for fuel injection (I've heard from various sources it was $800), did they get a refund when the car was converted back to a dual quad?
But perhaps the "principles" or theory of operation could be connected and perhaps indeed developed by US engineers. Don't know myself. I'd presume any "electronic" fuel injection from the 1950s would be based on vacuum tubes, since there were no transistors or microprocessors in everyday production. I guess the system on 57 Chevies was Bendix but there was another system out then...just escapes me at the moment.
Mechanical injection was old news already by 1968. It was developed for fighter aircraft in the 1940s and I've even found some evidence of an injection system in the early 1900s.