Last post on Jan 10, 2013 at 1:37 PM
You are in the Classic Cars
What is this discussion about?
Car Buying, Classic Cars, Coupe, Convertible, Sedan
#86 of 178 Re: 1967 Firebird [tjgoff]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Jun 15, 2011 (5:25 pm)
$5,500 would be a car in "fair" condition, defined as:
"Presentable. Runs and drives and will pass safety inspection. Generally in need, or approaching the need of a cosmetic restoration. Chrome pits here and there, small rips or tears, paint chips, a window crack, small hole in carpet, etc. NOT dented or rusted and not in need of major mechanical work"
So if the car, when you see it, seems less than the above description, deduct accordingly.
#87 of 178 Re: 1967 Firebird [texases]
Jun 17, 2011 (9:08 am)
Thanks for the good info. I might look at it, but definitely think $5,500 is too much. He says it does run well, but would need brakes immediately.
I guess what I should have asked is, is a Firebird with a 326 worth anything, is it desirable? Don't people usually want the 400's and such? But I appreciate the comments.
#88 of 178 Re: 1967 Firebird [tjgoff]
Jun 17, 2011 (9:16 am)
Sure, a 326 Firebird is a good hobby car, certainly worth more than a plain-jane sedan is similar condition. And bigger engines make them worth more (sometimes WAY more), that's true too. But you'll pay more to buy one. If you're wanting to make money on your restoration, don't, that's just about impossible for someone like you (or me). So what this means is to figure out what you're wanting with this car. If you are buying it in order to work on it, then lots of options out there. If you're buying it to own, drive, and do the needed repairs, that's different. It doesn't cost less to restore a base Firebird, but you'll recover less of your costs when you go to sell. Better to buy one in good running condition in that case - let the prior owner pay for the major restoration work.
#89 of 178 Re: 1967 Firebird [tjgoff]
Jun 17, 2011 (9:49 am)
Nothing "wrong" with the 326. It was more or less the standard engine unless you count that oddball six they offered.
If it "needs brakes immediately" I would guess it needs EVERYTHING brake related. Drums, master cyl etc.
A 400 would be more desirable but the 326 doesn't really hurt it like the six would.
#90 of 178 Re: 1967 Firebird [isellhondas]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Jun 18, 2011 (6:12 am)
Yeah, good advice. The small V8 is definitely better to have than a 6 cylinder car, but the small V8 will never realize the same prices as the larger engines--as a rough guideline, whatever prices you see for a Firebird 400, you can deduct maybe 30% if it has a 326. On some cars, the price difference between the smallest engine and the largest is....MASSIVE....
Classic cars, especially during the 50s--70s, when there were so many engine options, are funny this way: If the car only had one size V8, that becomes top dog in value, but if there are numerous engines of increasing power and size, then the pecking order goes according to the engine size.
In 60s cars especially, Horsepower = $$$, and HP + 4-speed = more $$$.
Even the option of a 4 barrel carburetor vs. a two barrel on the *same* engine can affect value, and some "tri-power" carb options can affect value as much as a larger engine can.
1960s BODY STYLE Pecking order (with a few exceptions)
#91 of 178 Re: 1967 Firebird [Mr_Shiftright]
Jun 18, 2011 (7:12 am)
I recently saw a real oddball of a car.
It was a 1964 Chevy Impala four door sedan.
It was a six cylinder with a three speed on the column. No power steering or brakes. Just a stripper.
Compare the value to that with an SS convertable with a 409 4 speed!
Back in those days, you could order anything. A friend's dad ordered a 1965 Chevy Biscayne Station Wagon with a 327/300 horse engine with a three speeed and overdrive.
I think it had an AM radio but nothing else.
Blackwall tires, tiny hubcaps. Talk about a sleeper!
#92 of 178 Re: 1967 Firebird [isellhondas]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Jun 18, 2011 (7:14 am)
Quite a few 60s era Chevy Sixes are purchased and then rebuilt as 60s "gassers" or drag cars. Of course, the 2-door Biscaynes would be preferred as they are lighter than the 4-doors, and the 2-door post sedans preferred over 2D hardtops (body strength) but a stripped down 4-door with no badges and a big honker of an engine still makes a nice 'sleeper'.
#93 of 178 Re: 1967 Firebird [Mr_Shiftright]
Jun 18, 2011 (7:22 am)
Yes, but usually not Impala four doors.
If I was a dealer in those days, I would be scared to death that someone would order one of these oddball cars and then back out of the deal leaving an impossible car to sell.
Probably why most manufacturers no longer build cars to order.
#94 of 178 326 Pontiac engines
Jun 18, 2011 (7:27 am)
The weak spot on Pontiac V-8's in those days were the timing gears. This especially applied to the 389's. The plastic gear teeth would wear out around the 70,000 mark.
A person who owned one was wise to just have the job done along with a new water pump around 70,000 miles.
Kinda like a timing belt job on a modern car?
Otherwise, they were pretty good engines!
#95 of 178 FWD vehicles
Jun 21, 2011 (3:06 pm)
I don't really know where to put this, but in one of the archived discussions (about FWD vehicles) several people talked about how much more difficult it would be to maintain FWD vehicles (vs RWD, I suppose). Why is that?