Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars What is this thing worth?
710 messages, Last post on Mar 15, 2010 at 5:56 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 01, 2009 11:55 am) This is why his price is so crazy. He can't be asking GTO money. He's probably going to sell it these days at $18K if it's really nice.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 01, 2009 11:57 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 01, 2009 11:57 am) In one of the threads in the Classic Car forum, somebody posted a link to old car brochures and I glanced through some of them last night. One of the brochures was specifically for a 1965 Skylark GS and the specs showed the engine as a "400" which kind of surprised me. Does anyone know if that was referring to an actual (and I'm assuming new for 1965) 400 ci engine, OR did they just fudge a little bit and turn the 401 into a 400 through "artistic license". I'm kind of surprised there was that much difference in the performance between a '65 GTO and a GS. I'm guessing the 1/4 times were due to the differences in vehicle weight and gearing - with the Buick being the more luxo of the two. In 1965, the basic formula for the GTO, GS and 442 were all pretty much the same - with the difference in their market values today being due to the marketing wizardry of Jim Wangers.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Dec 01, 2009 12:09 pm) The market is very precise these days about makes, model, and options. One really cannot value a car accurately unless options are carefully investigated. |
|
|
Replying to: parm (Dec 01, 2009 12:22 pm) And yeah, the GS, 442, GTO, and Malibu SS were all on the same corporate A-body. Main difference was that the B-O-P triplets were stretched out about 11 inches, most of it in the rear, to give it a more substantial, upscale look than the Chevy. Same 115" wheelbase though.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 01, 2009 12:34 pm) For what it's worth, the engine was advertised as a 400 to satisfy a GM edict that nothing larger could be put in an intermediate. It saved them having to shave a cubic inch off somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bhill2 (Dec 01, 2009 2:21 pm) http://www.ferraris-online.com/pages/carintro.php?reqcardir=FE-412-64307 or how about a '65 Skylark CONVERTIBLE for the same money? http://www.specialtysales.com/1965-buick-skylark--c-2422.htm |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 02, 2009 7:26 pm)  That Skylark seems like a nice little car. How would it perform though, with that little 300 V-8 and 2-speed automatic, though? I know you don't buy a car like this to drag race though...it's more about just riding around on a nice day and having fun and enjoying yourself.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 02, 2009 7:49 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 02, 2009 7:26 pm) While the yellow convertible Skylark looks like a beauty, it doesn't have the larger motor of the GS which should carry some cache, no? Still, your point that the blue '65 Skylark GS coupe is overpriced is well-taken. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars What is this thing worth?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2005 Ford Thunderbird
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
