Last post on Oct 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Coupe, Convertible, Sedan
#833 of 852 Re: Corvettes For $12,000 [Mr_Shiftright]
Jul 01, 2009 (4:47 pm)
The problem is - if you want something fast AND old and cheap, it's usually a deathtrap. for instance, a 20 year old Porsche 928 might fit the bill, but unless it's properly maintained($$$), you'd be stupid to actually drive it fast at that age.
The smart money is on something fast, well made, and under everyone's radar. The Volvo 850 Turbo was a good example of this - a decade ago. Today, it's a lot tougher, since most of the middle-end cars are either aging classics or no longer made. A good example is the Surpa. Cheap used, fast, and oops - not made any more.
#834 of 852 Re: Corvettes For $12,000 [plekto]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Jul 01, 2009 (5:08 pm)
Yeah but being a deathtrap is half the fun
Jul 02, 2009 (5:02 pm)
I don't know what vettes you've been looking at, but these cars are plentiful in southern california. There are certain years that are pretty crappy, just don't look at those. I saw a 100,000 mile ZR1 blow out around $12,000 at the palm springs auction, and it was nice.
A well maintained 928 will drain your wallet faster than a topless blond and the boobie bar.
#836 of 852 Re: Vettes [bob550k]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Jul 02, 2009 (6:16 pm)
I'll testify to THAT!
#837 of 852 Reviving This Discussion
Oct 04, 2009 (4:59 pm)
Was wondering how we might revive this discussion. Shifty, do you think replacing the word "Classic" with "Collectible" would increase interest in this topic, without materially affecting the intent of the subject?
I recall that some time back we reduced the minimum age to 20 years, from 25, and raised the dollar value for this discussion to $12,000 from something lower. By substituting "Collectible" for "Classic" we could also consider increasing the minimum age to where it was originally, and/or rolling back the dollar figure to $10,000, or whatever.
Since it appears from some posts that some people don't make much distinction between classic and collectible, it may not matter much, but I thought I'd pass these thoughts along.
#838 of 852 1970 Bonneville convertible sold for $12K
Oct 04, 2009 (5:41 pm)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230383102944&viewi- - - tem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AVRI
1970 Bonneville convertibles are one of my "guilty pleasures". Like the Super Bee, the front end of these cars are so ugly that I love'm. And, here's what appears to be a pretty nice one that recently sold on ebay for $12,000 - right at the threshold of this discussion. This car had been listed the week before with a "buy it now" price of $12,500. The high bid of $10,400 didn't meet the seller's reserve. It was soon relisted and immediately sold for $12,000.
I'm sure Pontiac made a ton of these, but it's fairly rare that you see one in nice condition that's for sale at a reasonable price. Ironically, there are two other 1970 Bonneville convertibles on ebay right now. And, an auction for a third one sold earlier today for $10,476 - but, it wasn't as nice as the one referenced above. There's also a '69 on ebay, but it's not a '70 and isn't as nice.
So, here you go. Submitted for your approval . . . . . . a 1970 Bonneville convertible!
#839 of 852 Re: 1970 Bonneville convertible sold for $12K [parm]
Oct 05, 2009 (6:38 am)
Yeah, those '70 Pontiacs are kinda ugly-yet-cool. Actually, I think the car looks gorgeous when viewed from the side, all sleek and voluptuous and whatnot. And I love the Bonneville without the fender skirts....really helps slim the car down.
But I never cared for that rear-end treatment. I thought the '69 looked good, with the big bumper and the hockey stick-shaped taillights above, but on the '70, I think it's just a bit poor-fitting. And I never cared for the "6 headlight" look created by putting those horn ports in. FWIW, I never liked it in later years either, when they put the turn signals between the headlights on some Cadillacs and Pontiacs.
Pontiac's image started going through some turmoil in the late 60's. I think 1967 is the last year the big Pontiacs really made a serious attempt at being sporty and youthful. That was also the only year they had a Grand Prix convertible, and the year with the hidden headlights, that made it look really futuristic. But then almost overnight, the '68 Pontiac seemed a bit dull and dowdy. The midsized cars looked good, but I just don't think the look translated as well on the big cars. But then I kinda like the big '69 Pontiacs. I had a Bonneville 4-door hardtop for a few years, and that thing was a nice car...at least in that rare moment that occurred after it firing up without eating a starter, but before it overheated.
By 1970 I think the big Pontiacs were just becoming, for lack of a better word, confused. At some angles they do look sleek and sporty, but then they have that retro look going on (they called it "neoclassic" back in the 70's), with the fake horn ports, tall, skinny grille, etc. Still, that deep red one you posted, Parm, looks really nice. Only real downsides I can see are no a/c and no power windows (yes, I guess I'm getting a bit spoiled). I'm sure it really moves with that 455, though! I'd love to know what kind of driving conditions you'd have to endure though, to support that 20 mpg claim.
#840 of 852 not exactly classic yet
Oct 05, 2009 (7:04 am)
But you can buy a really nice late '90s Boxster or Z3 for less than $12K easily.
#842 of 852 I'll chime in. . .
Oct 05, 2009 (7:57 am)
Not sure what it would take to find a really nice one, but I'd like to get my hands on a first-generation AMC Javelin. This one looks like the best of a bad crop of them on eBay right now.