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
#31 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [andre1969]
Jan 21, 2008 (1:04 pm)
The quality and workmanship of Ford products of that era fell far short of GM.
As and example, a Riviera was SO MUCH better of a car than a Thunderbird.
#32 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [isellhondas]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Jan 21, 2008 (1:08 pm)
It's true. I've seen original unmolested Ford products from 1958-1968 and the GM cars are much better in every way.
#33 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [Mr_Shiftright]
Jan 21, 2008 (1:10 pm)
Speaking of color, if I ever decided I wanted to sell my '67 Catalina, would its pale, creamy yellow color be a detriment? Probably a moot point, since I couldn't see myself wanting to sell it.
I always perceived it to be sort of a generic color. Not something that would make you all lusty, like a red, or a nice blue, but at the same time, not something that's vomit-inducing. If anything, I think the black interior and top make a nice contrast to it.
#34 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [Mr_Shiftright]
Jan 21, 2008 (1:15 pm)
How would you say Chrysler products compared to the Fords and GM's? I've never owned a Ford product, but when comparing the GM and Mopar products I've had, I'd say the workmanship was better on the GM's. Tighter fit and finish, panel gaps, etc. Fewer squeaks and rattles. But the Mopars just had a solid feel about them, like the sheetmetal was twice as thick, and like they could slice through a GM car like a knife through hot butter.
I think another thing that, in my mind, at least, might make the Mopars seem a bit more solid is that GM went a bit more modern on the interiors before Mopar did, with more plastics and such. For instance, the knobs and switches in my 60's Mopars were good old fashioned metal, just waiting to impale you in an accident. But on the GM cars, they were plastic, just waiting to get brittle with age. I don't think Chrysler learned how to chrome plastic as early on as GM did.
#35 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [andre1969]
Jan 22, 2008 (6:17 am)
Andre, I think that yellow would help that car.
It was popular at the time and most people liked it.
#36 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [andre1969]
Jan 22, 2008 (6:18 am)
Just my opinion but I would rate Chryslers of that era somewhere between GM and Ford as far as quality and workmanship.
Jan 22, 2008 (8:28 am)
I was looking over the write-up on that 1965 GTO convertible that sold for 81,000 (!!!) including auction commissions. Given that the 2005 restoration was already going off with various wear and tear indications, I think whoever bought this "base" engine car just threw $20,000 bucks out the window.
Jan 22, 2008 (9:12 am)
The other day, they sold a '69 Corvette with 600 miles on the odometer. All I could think was "what a waste." Almost 40 years of just sitting around.
I don't remember the sales price, but it wasn't too much. I'm all for the idea of holding on to a car that you enjoy, then selling it decades later for a chunk of change. But no one enjoyed that Corvette, so what was the point?
Meanwhile, I watch a lot of goats and hemis sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the odometers indicate that the owners DID enjoy them. That's more like it!
Like many of you, I question how an old car could be worth that much to people. But then I watch "Leggende e Passione" and see old Ferraris sell for $2 and $3 million, and I quit asking questions.
Jan 22, 2008 (9:36 am)
I guess everyone has a different attitude. If I spent millions on an old Ferrari I'd bang it around the race track, as God intended and if I had an old Corvette I'd burn rubber, slam gears and take it out on vintage rallyes.
#40 of 70 Re: This one didn't break the bank [andre1969]
Jan 22, 2008 (11:17 am)
Geeze, for $16K, I'd at least expect it to be one of those Park Lane convertibles with the funky wood panelling.