Last post on May 27, 2002 at 3:20 PM
You are in the Classic Cars - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost In The Town Hall... discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Coupe, Convertible, Sedan
Oct 22, 2001 (10:26 am)
For prices to rise you need demand as well as rarity.
I think you've got a great car, but I just have to wonder how many serious collectors (read: collectors with money) are going to be chasing big convertibles in ten or twenty years. My guess is that most full-size converts are going to stay in the realm of "affordable classics".
For demand to ramp up (or even stay strong) the car has to mean something to a large part of the market. Those of us who remember '60s convertibles fondly aren't getting any younger, and the people replacing us in the old-car market don't have our emotional attachment to these cars. My understanding is that this is happening with '30s classics now--the guys these cars mean something to are disappearing and so is demand.
Of course there will still be those younger buyers who want a 4500-lb. convertible simply for its curiousity and statement value, but they aren't the people who throw money at cars. I dealt with these people years ago when I was buying and selling four or five of these cars a year, and they're price conscious. They don't usually have much money, and they don't have a strong bond with any particular make--"any old car will do".
Enjoy your car but don't expect big appreciation.
Oct 22, 2001 (12:18 pm)
You are correct about the appreciation issue as far as being compared to more desirable cars from the 60's. I know some people are still looking for a bigger convertible, not as a show car, but a convertible with which they can take their kids (and their kid's friends) with them, but don't drive enough to buy a new convertible.
One bonus is the product in the 70's and early 80's was so bad that there was not a lot of interesting vehicles to collect, so interest for the 60's era cars may last longer. I never considered anything earlier than about 1957 because the vehicles were heavy and underpowered, unless customized. The newer cars are way too complicated for the shade tree mechanic, and with the drop in performance in the early 70's, history may be more fortunate.
It is a price concious market segment (I was as well), but I don't think I would enjoy a car knowing every mile I put on it will drive the price down, so this is nice to own. I bought the car from a guy who collects Cadillacs, he bought it because it was original and in good shape; he bought 54 & 62 Caddy Converts, so this had to go. He gave me a standing offer to buy it back when I want to sell.
It grows on you, not a big and overly flashy as the same period Buicks, Mercury's, and Cadillac's, yet still captures the style of the period. I drove it 4 miles yesterday to the station to check the air in the tires. In that distance, I had 3 people ask me about it at stoplights.
Oct 22, 2001 (3:51 pm)
You make some excellent points. I've always liked the '65-7 Galaxies, and the '68 fastback Galaxie GT with disappearing headlights. And the 390/C6 is bulletproof.
#34 of 40 Thanks, Speedshift
Oct 22, 2001 (7:58 pm)
You made my day. The '68 Fastback was a favorite of mine but I have not seen other favorable remarks about it. It was actually marketed as a "Ford XL" and "Ford XL-GT" without the Galaxie name attached. Yes, it had the disappearing headlamps, which it shared with the LTD 4-door models but not the Galaxies. Indeed, the 390 engine and the C-6 transmission were outstanding. Although few people seem to comment on these, I saw a clean unrestored one in a recent car show that was quite a head-turner.
Oct 22, 2001 (10:05 pm)
In fact I just saw one today on the street, looking solid and straight. There's another one, almost mint, that I see driven fairly regularly.
Oct 24, 2001 (8:22 pm)
I apologize if I gave any negative comments on the 68 Galaxie. I was thinking of the Galaxie 500, it's front end is kind of plain, the XL is nice with the hidden headlight look. I think the 68 is the same from the windshield back as the 67 except the dash. The 69's gained about 300 lbs, and soon after the engines got weaker. I grew up with a 66 Galaxie 500 station wagon, and a 72 Country Squire, my father buys only Ford's, so he was pleased to see what I purchased.
Got my 59-72 Galaxie catalog in the mail from Dearborn Classics. Autokrafters and Ford U.S.A. Parts Supply are other sellers as well. I'm pleased at the number of reproduction parts being made for the Galaxie. Not all the exterior trim, but most the interior, including upolstery, is now available newly manufactured in the correct colors and grains for all the trim levels.
They offer an upgrade from points, they call the Ignitor Ignition Kit, which includes all new low resistance wires with silicone outer jackets, breakerless solid state ignition that fits inside your distributor, and a 40,000 volt oil filled coil, all for $166.37 plus shipping. Still trying to understand the vacuum interplay with the distributor, but I am going to run with points for now.
Now wheelcovers, never seen reproduction hub caps; mine are original, so I better make sure they don't get stolen.
#37 of 40 Oil Requirements
Mar 22, 2002 (8:34 am)
I am getting ready to do a spring oil change, and had a question on oil requirements.
It is a flawed assumption to think that any brand modern oil is better than what was used 35 years ago? I realize the weight is important, but the lubrication properties of any oil that meets the latest SAE standards has to be better than the 60's. For example, I can get Shell FormulaShell for 88 cents a quart, I usually run Castrol in my new car. Is synthetic oil offer any advantages? I assuming it would be a waste of money.
The engine is all original 390-2v to my knowledge, and I am running Shell 93 octane with off-road lead substitute, and retarded timing.
Mar 22, 2002 (8:43 am)
for the most part, I always ran straight 30W in all my old cars, something I learned from my Granddad who was a mechanic. My mechanic though told me to switch to 20W-50 for the Catalina.
I would like to think that oils made today are better than they were a long time ago, but ya never know. Granddad never liked multi-grade oils, and I remember one time some friends of his had a fairly new early '80's Bonneville with a 231 that was running like crap. They had been using 10W-30 and Granddad changed it with straight 30 and it ran fine after that. I always put 30W in my DeSoto as well, and my '80 Malibu, and both of my Darts. I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme that I had been putting straight 30 in, but I figured I'd try 10W-30, because I'd heard that the multi-grade would give better fuel economy and better protection when cold. Within about 2 months though, that sucker almost self-destructed! (probably a coincidence).
With modern engines built to tighter tolerances, I can see how it's better to have a 10-weight oil that acts like a 30-weight, but with an older car, especially one that's probably loosened up some, it might be better to have the real thing.
#39 of 40 Upgrading Ignition
May 27, 2002 (1:43 pm)
Forgive my ignorance, but:
If I upgrade the ignition system, say with
1. high performance wires and spark plugs
2. 40,000 volt oil cooled coil
3. solid state ignition which fits inside the original distributor;
would this allow me to advance the ignition closer to stock, assuming it has been retarded due to pre-ignition? Or, is there nothing one can do outside of reducing compression or increasing the octane thru the use of gas additives?
I'm cloudy on how the distributor vacuum system would be effected by the above changes.
May 27, 2002 (3:20 pm)
Actually I'm thinking it may make the situation worse.
Pinging is "pre-ignition", or premature and uneven firing of the fuel. Once the fuel is lit, it's lit. Maybe one of those pulse ignitions would fire the fuel better but I sitll can't figure how you would defeat the octane issue merely by a better spark.