Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
On Ebay right now is the NICEST 1960 Impala Convertable I've ever seen. It's bid to over 30,000 at this point. Wish I knew how to post the link.
A few more thousand and you're in Electra convertible money, so there's nowhere for this seller to go but OUT.
As nice as it is it's still a car that appeals to very few people.
He may regret not grabbing the money when he had a buyer.
:confuse:
Yep, just a 4 door, stripper Buick that is as nice as they come.
Nice but hardly a car that's in high demand.
Take your pick. There's three of 'em right now, although knowing you, it's not that rodded green one that you're drooling over!
The green one does NOTHING for me although it must appeal to the people who have made higher bids than the stock ones!
Actually, I ws talking about the one in the middle. The one with the 283 and Powerglide. I hadn't seen the third one.
The third one is interesting. It has the 348 engine with tri power and a very rare 4 speed. The one with the 283 looks more "pure" so it would be a tough call for me to make. If I went with the one with the 348, the first thing I would do is pull off those hokey fender skirts and throw them into the closest dumpster!
Thank God nobody hung a Continental Kit on it.
Did you notice, the two bids on the two red ones are identical??
How can that possibly be? Shills?
I'm going to have to go back and examine the two red ones more carefully in case I decide to get my hand in the air. :P
Lookiing harder at the second one, I did spot a couple of accessories that probably add value but are things I don't really care for. I have never liked the second "dummy" antenna in the rear fender nor do I like the "fender birds" that have been added.
A not so funny story from my youth. Yes, another of those "when I was a kid working in a gas station" stories.
We were working on a customer's Chevy one day and we were trying to pull the intake manifold. It wouldn't budge so my co-worker got into the engine compartment and straddled the engine while he yanked on the manifold.
Well, he slipped and sat down right on top of a "fender bird"!
It really wasn't funny. He SCREAMED and let out a tirade of obsenities.
We couldn't figure out what had happened until we saw the blood.
I think he needed a half dozen stitches.
Of course, every time I see these on a Chevy ar a car show, I think of that.
OK Shifty...which one would YOU pick?
Let the debate continue . . . . . .
it's easy. Open up the other webpage in a new window or tab. Copy its url.
Then, click the little "Url" button below the text box. You'll see a series of characters pop up ending in ". I won't post it, because it'll mess up my message. Then, paste the url in. Then, click the "Url" button below, and you'll get another line of characters, with the words "link title" in it. Just replace "link title" with whatever you want to call your link, and you're all set.
If that doesn't work, let me know!
And yeah, I thought it was odd that both '60's were bid to $30,100!
Something just doesn't seem right, there. With that kind of time, the only 1959 Plymouth you'd better challenge to a drag race is a 6-cyl. And you'd even better watch out for Grandpop in his 1955 DeSoto Fireflite if he hits the gas faster than you do, because Consumer Reports got 13.1 seconds out of one of those...and that's just with a 291-4bbl Hemi and a 2-speed automatic, 200 hp, and no doubt a heavier car!
I guess it's just that when I hear "big block" and "Tri-Carb", I think performance. But when I hear "13.1 seconds", I think 1985 Camry or Reliant.
I wonder if Uncle Tom's test car was just out of tune, or something?
So it wasn't the engine's fault. You could knock seconds off your 0-60 just by trading out the Turboglide.
Wow, that's sad. I remember with the 1957 Dodge Royal 325-2bbl poly head with 245 hp, if you got the 2-speed Powerflite, you got 0-60 in about 13 seconds (Consumer Reports). If you got the 3-speed Torqueflite, you got 0-60 in about 10 seconds (Consumer Guide).
So, with Mopar, you subtract 3 seconds when you add the extra gear, but with Chevy, you add 3 seconds? :surprise: That's just sad.
For some reason, when I think of '60 Chevys, I always think of whatever color they called it that was a copper-y hue, almost like a new penny.
Back to skirts...one car I think looks like it was made for skirts is the '70-72 Monte Carlo...although it was rare to see one with them. Those cars looked boring to me back then, compared to the '73--but in hindsight I think they've stood the styling test of time better than a '73.
Bill
Doesn't sound easy but I'll practice. Thanks!
I had a 62 Impala SS with the 327 -300 H.P. Powerglide with factory A/C.
White with blue interior. Wish I had it back!
The 348's weren't really "dogs". They were heavy engines that actually held up quite well. People called them "truck" engines because that is where they got their start. Chevy used them from 1958 - 1961. In '62, the 327's came out and a 327 equipped Chevy could whip a 348 in a race.
The Turboglide which was an "upgrade" to the Powerglide showed up in some '57's and was available through 1961. The indicator didn't have a "L" position. Instead they had a "GR" position.
The "GR" meant Grade Retard and was used to slow the car going down hills. I think it created a turbulance in the fluid that slowed the car.
These transmissions may have been the worst automatic transmission ever made and they are rarely seen today. The transmission shops usually converted the cars to Powerglides when the Turbos broke.
In addition to being troublesome they made the cars very sluggish.
I noticed the '59 "Uncle Tom" tested had air suspension. That was another nightmare for G.M.
Tom Mc Cahill was one of a kind!
I know I'm dense but I can't find it.
http://www.phillyedge.com/fileadmin/thumb/590x590/1970_chevrolet_monte_carlo5288- 98.jpg
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1963-Cadillac-Fleetwood-/220613250965?cmd=ViewIte- m&pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item335d930f95#v4-36
However, I've found that if you want to post it, you can usually truncate the post to this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1963-Cadillac-Fleetwood-/220613250965
And, if' you're still unsure, you can always just post the item number of the auction, which in this case is 220613250965
That way, others can copy that number and paste it in the eBay search, and it will find it.
Thie is a 1962 Impala SS but it doesn't compare to the others.
It does have factory A/C. They don't say but it sure looks like a 283 engine and not the more desirable 327.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/RARE-1962-IMPALA-SS-ORIGINAL-W-FACTORY-AIR-/18051- - 2829730?cmd=ViewItem&pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2a07673122
Something tells me this won't work but that's OK.
I do appreciate the help!
Actually, they say it's a 283 in the description.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
The 283's had the rounded valve covers while the 327's were more squared off. That's how I knew.
Not a bad engine. heck you could have bought that SS with a six!
It just won't command anywhere near the money of a rarely driven # 2 car.
Looking again at the photos, the undercarrage isn't that bad but he does need to replace the pinion seal and clean things up.
I remember pulling out those driveshafts with the center support bearing.
Pulling them out wasn't too bad but wrestling them back in was no fun!
His Impala was the 283/Powerglide and the car had over 100k miles before it happened. I would imagine a bigger engine and/or a 4-speed car would need repairs a bit sooner than that.
As popular as these cars are even today, I suppose aftermarket parts have made it possible to sort all that out. :shades:
It was supported in the middle with a bearing surrounded by a rubber collar.
They usually gave quite a bit of warning before they failed completly.
And, I'll bet a 409 with a four speed would be a bit harder on those parts than that 170 HP 283.
I had a 409 like that but mine never went bad in the year or so I owned it.
It might not be easy to tell from the pics in that listing, but I seem to remember the badges were a bit different among the V-8's? Didn't the 327 badge on the fender actually say "327", while the 283 just said "V-8"?
My Dad had a '63 Impala with the hotter 409 setup...425 hp, I think it was? He put "6-cyl" badges on the fenders, just to mess with people!
If it had a 409, the 409 numbers were above the crossed flags. Very impressive for me to see as a kid.
409's were available in three different configurations. One had 340 H.P. the hotter one had 400 H.P. and with two four barrels they put out 425 H.P.
Mine was a 400 H.P. It had a lot of brute power and torque but a one night a Buick Skylark Gran Sport made it look like a 6 cylinder.
The Beach Boys made them a bigger deal than they really were.
Mine was a 400 H.P. It had a lot of brute power and torque but a one night a Buick Skylark Gran Sport made it look like a 6 cylinder.
I always kinda wondered about that. The 409 was a bored (I think) 348, and the 348 didn't have the reputation of being a performance engine.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
They were no slugs but there were definatly a lot of cars that could beat one in a race. I did whip a '69 Road Runner one night and that took some doing!
And there was a certain amount of respect when, at a liight, people would look over and see the "409" above the crossed flage.
Again, we can thank the Beach Boys for much of that!
Here's a 1964 Coupe Deville in Burbank, CA that a local restoration shop (or someplace like that) came to have and is asking $15,000 OBO. I don't know anything about the car other than what a CLC member who knows this place had to say about it.
One owner car with documentation, very very nice "vanilla" Cadillac, A/C (cold and working and not converted to r134a). Asking $15K OBO, slightly high but the car is definitely a very roadable time-capsule original car and should, at the least, be at the higher end of the market.
Not nearly as well-optioned as the '63 Fleetwood, but it's a Coupe Deville and it's a 1964. And, "OBO" implies the seller is open to some reasonable negotiation. Looks pretty decent to me, but these photos are taken from too far away to tell veyr much.
Bill
It looks good. The only gripe I would have would be the color but that's just my subjective opinion.
Still seems like a lot of money. Maybe I'm out of touch?
I can buy that '63 Fleetwood today for the same price ($15,000). The Fleetwood has received some sympathetic restoration and it really is in nice condition. On the other hand, this '64 Coupe Deville is "reported" to be all original. Haven't seen photos of the engine or trunk, but the CLC member said they're both pretty decent. Either way, I think $15,000 is more than I think either is worth.
What does our intrepid California appraiser think??
But I'm sure he's busy with all the other heavy responsibilities of his new office, so I'll take a crack at it.
64 Caddy Deville Coupe, *very* nice orig, let's say strong #3, low #2 car----I'd hit it at $11,500.00 and I feel I'm being quite fair, given the current market. I bet eBayers would agree with me, too.
Of course, NOW he'll have to keep track of the auctions he predicts, in order to maintain his credibility.
Yes, I am still host (far as I know).
My Cadillac Lasalle Club guy "at the scene" in Burbank further reports the following: The engine bay is very clean and there are no signs of major work to the engine or an engine repaint (unless they since touched it up, it didn't need it), the hinges for the hood are completely clean and original with bare steel components and black components, no signs of any paint touch-ups body work or overspray anywhere on the car, the trunk is covered in the original material with some staining but still very presentable. The entire car is untouched and original and looks better in person.
Finally, a word about the shop selling it. They've had it since around February and they know enough to not touch a thing they don't have to. They did have the front seat out to clean the mechanicals and switches, that was a couple months ago. I think that was the only repair besides the usual fluids and things.
Does any of this alter anyone's opinion as to it's value?
That color combo was apparently pretty popular on '64s, I remember as an early teen going to 'visit' a '64 Sedan de Ville with the same (though it was rusty) on my bike. I was a tank-dreamer even then.
Admittedly, I'd prefer a few more options which is why I like Fleetwoods, plus I really like their long 4-door styling (yes, I'm "special" :P ) Some have questioned the coupe's styling, but I like it. And, a coupe is as "sporty" as a 1963-64 Cadillac could get.
Also, I'm very leery of reports from club guys. They tend to vastly inflate a car merits, because they are not impartial, they are in love. This does not at all infer dishonesty, only that their eyes tend to pick things that reinforce their love and to be selectively blind to anything that besmirches the image of the beloved.
It would be good to have a photo of underneath---that would tell a story or two.
Actually, I think a club member would be a good judge of quality/condition. Through national and regional shows/meets, these guys have usually seen the good, bad and the ugly and thus have a pretty good knowledge base to work from. Plus, if they have familiarity with a particular year, then tend to know what trouble areas to look for. I agree that their value opinions can be a influenced by their love of the marque, but that's a different issue.
BTW, how often does our new "valuation expert" check into the Classic Car forum? Haven't heard from him yet.
Personally I think that gold color was by far the WORST color that car could be painted and a color change would really hurt that car's value!
The beige is fine. Woudn't be my first choice but still, not gaudy (like gold) and very tastful.
I think changing a color on ANY car is a mistake and it would cost probably 5000.00 to do it "right".
Others may disagree with me.
After looking at the rear shot of that Cadillas I do believe that all of them had that chrome piece around the roofline.
Price wise, I'm not the expert our HOST is but I was thinking 10-11,000 would be all of the money.
When I was a kid just working for Sears, my boss had a black 1964 Coupe De Ville. One day he had me run an errand with him. I remember, we were in Palos Verdes CA in a narrow two lane road when he got irrated at a slow moving car in front of him. He florred the Caddy and passed the car on a blind curve.
Thankfully, nobody was coming.
A nice car Parm!
I'm very dubious of club member evaluations. They are GREAT for authentication but generally not very good at knowing market value. They tend to overvalue their cars considerably, so I'd rely on them for knowing what is "correct" but not for what to pay. Certainly they are a good tool in your toolbox.
If the miles could be proven beyond a doubt (which is not easy to do), then it's a question of a) how much extra do you want to pay for low miles and b) what do you do with an ultra low miles car?
If you drive it, then you decrease the very thing you paid extra for. If you don't drive it, then you sit in a beach chair on a lawn every weekend and talk about how low the miles are. Wheeee!
I guess I'd value the car at between $12,000 and $13,500, or maybe in a highly attended auction house, $15,000. (top retail).
This would presume that underneath justifies the mileage claims. If the miles are true, this means it was driven under 1000 miles a year and/or in storage a good deal of the time, so we have to worry about hard seals in engine/trans, and deteriorated lines, hoses, etc.
A low mileage car is strictly a cosmetic and historical asset. It is a mechanical liability IMO.