Last post on Jan 18, 2009 at 8:12 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Classic Cars, Coupe, Convertible, Truck, Sedan, Wagon
#21 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [andre1969]
Jan 21, 2008 (7:24 am)
Personally, I think those skirts make the car look horrible.
The only thing worse would be a continental kit.
The hubcaps are wrong and it doesn't have air conditioning.
And it's probably the worse color it could be.
16,000 plus the 10% buyer's fee?
Don't think so.
#22 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [isellhondas]
Jan 21, 2008 (8:41 am)
Hmmm, I missed the fact that it didn't have a/c. I guess I just took it for granted that, being a top-line Mercury, it would've had it installed. I keep forgetting how a'la carte everything was back then. Somehow I guess I just lucked out in that every 60's car I ever owned had a/c. Now it didn't always work, but at least it had it!
What color IS that car, anyway? On my screen, it looks like that light silvery green metallic that seemed so common back in the late 60's and early 70's. I guess it could look nastier in person, though.
Also, looking in my car book, I see the 410 V-8 was the standard engine, with 330 hp. So nothing really special there. My book lists the 427 as only being optional on the Comets, although there was a 428 with 345 hp offered as an option on the full-size cars.
Not that it really adds to value, but it looks like the '67 big Merc convertibles were pretty rare. My book lists 2673 Monterrey convertibles, 145 S-55's (which had the 428 standard), and only 1191 Park Lanes verts. Meanwhile, Pontiac ran off 10,033 Catalina 'verts, 8902 Bonnevilles, and 5856 Grand Prixes.
It looks like big Mercurys in general weren't popular by 1967. Most of Mercury's sales seemed to come from the Comet and Cougar. Similarly, most of Dodge's sales came from the compacts and midsizers, while the Polara/Monaco lineup only accounted for maybe 115,000 sales that year. GM truly owned the fullsize market back then, especially in the medium price market.
#23 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [andre1969]
Jan 21, 2008 (9:49 am)
The car was also sold new in Seattle...as pretty much a rule, AC is uncommon (when optional) in Pacific NW cars until the 80s
#24 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [andre1969]
Jan 21, 2008 (10:10 am)
I believe that color was called Lime Gold or something like that.
Just not a good color then or now.
#25 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [fintail]
Jan 21, 2008 (10:10 am)
OK. I guess I'm in the minority here. I love the sage green color. It's a welcome change from the run of the mill red and white found on most convertibles of this era. Admittedly, I'm not wild about the color of the interior. I think a nice cream or white would've been a better choice.
I've relaxed my requirement for A/C on car like this. I mean, if it's 90 degrees, you probably are going to have the top up anyway (or just keep it in your garage). Plus, at least for me, a car like this wouldn't be my daily driver and the trips would be limited to pleasure cruises. So, not having A/C wouldn't be that big of a deal. Plus, it's one less thing to keep repaired. LOL!
#26 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [parm]
Jan 21, 2008 (11:07 am)
IIRC, most of the cars I've seen in that shade of light green have had interiors that match. At least, the GM cars have. Now that I think about it, I believe the GM green was a bit more silvery, but I still find that '67 Merc's color to be easy on the eye.
As for a/c, it's not essential for me. With a car that old, not having a/c wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, unless it was something in the Cadillac/Lincoln/Imperial league. However, I wouldn't pay a/c price for a non-a/c car. FWIW, the interior of my '67 Catalina convertible is black vinyl, which is probably about as evil as it gets in hot weather. I've driven that car in the dog days of summer, top down, and have found it to be bearable. I'm a bit of a masochist, though.
It seems like older cars tend to "breathe" better than the newer ones. Especially with the fresh air vents under the dash, the little vent windows, roll-down windows in back on 2-doors, and less padding and insulation, all seem to combine to make a car that's more bearable in hot weather. In the 70's, they started sealing cars up tighter, which I think made them retain heat more. And with integrated a/c systems becoming more common, they started doing away with those vent windows, fresh air vents, roll-down rear windows, etc. Plus, it seems that once they started making the side windows curve in more, they'd let in more heat from the sun's rays.
#27 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [parm]
Jan 21, 2008 (11:42 am)
Back in 1967 I guess a lot of people did like that color because it was pretty popular back then. I didn't like it then and it hasn't grown on me. Some people like fender skirts too while I think they just ruin the looks of any car.
It's all subjective. This is why restaurants have menus I suppose.
I don't like cars without A/C and a big Merc like that really "should" have it.
If it were a Cougar it wouldn't be as important to me.
#28 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [isellhondas]
Jan 21, 2008 (12:07 pm)
The only car I ever had with fender skirts was a 1969 Bonneville. I remember pulling them off the car, and even though it gave the area around the rear wheel opening a bit of a ragged, incomplete look, I swear it made the car overall look SOOOO much better!
Somehow, my mother, at the ripe old age of 17, was able to save up enough to buy a brand new '66 Catalina convertible. I remember years ago, asking her if it had a/c, and she responded "why would it have a/c? It was a CONVERTIBLE!" in kind of a "D'oh" sort of tone. I guess that was the prevailing attitude back then?
But, judging from the pricing listed in my old car book, a '67 Park Lane was a major step above something like a Catalina. Looks like it was priced above the likes of the Bonneville even, coming in just below cars like the Electra, Ninety-Eight, and Chrysler New Yorker. That was sort of the 60's version of what they call "Near Luxury" today, a class that really should have a/c.
I'd imagine that Mercury really had a tough time competing in this field back in the day. Olds and Buick, with their C-body Electra/Ninety-Eight, were essentially de-contented Cadillacs, so they seemed to have a definite advantage. And even though Chryslers were on their corporate "C" body, they were heavily modified from the smaller Furys and Polara/Monacos, with a body that was beefier and roomier. In contrast, the big Mercurys were just guzzied up Fords. Even though they were bigger than the Fords, it was in a fashion that made the cars longer without really giving you any more interior room. They'd stretch out the frame but use the same body, meaning you'd end up with a longer hood or longer rear deck, but not a roomier car. Although in some cases, you'd end up with a bigger trunk. Pontiacs Bonnevilles had some of the biggest trunks around back then, because they were the longest version of GM's corporate "B" body. They were longer than the Catalinas, and also longer than the Olds 88's and Buick LeSabres. However, all that extra length was in the trunk.
#29 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [andre1969]
Jan 21, 2008 (12:13 pm)
Here's the brochure for the '67 Mercury, "The Man's Car", as they call it:
1967 Mercury Brochure
Lots of pages of car models that I don't even remember - they sure did have it tough competing with GM!
#30 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [isellhondas]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Jan 21, 2008 (1:02 pm)
The color and the lack of AC will always hurt the value of a big 60s splashy convertible....in this case, I think the car was over market but eventually the market will catch up to it in a few years----because really, any open car from the 60s, even an unpopular, unattractive one without any real "muscle"---will continue to creep along with inflation. I don't see cars like this "taking off" however. These are not '57 Chevys and '67 GTOs---they are land yachts that were not all that popular when new.