Howdy, Stranger!


Convertible vs. Hardtop Coupe - which is better for a collector car?



  • parmparm Posts: 723 X%3AIT&viewitem=&item=250203238624&_trksid=p3984.cTODAY.m238.lVI

    OK, I know this discussion was originally about coupes vs. convertibles. BUT, at one point, the discussion went in the direction of the aesthetics of a 4-door. So, here's what appears to be a pretty nice '64 Fleetwood. Can't say I'm crazy about the white exterior, but I love the navy blue interior which is a color you don't see that often in these cars. The interior is usually black, white &/or not in very good condition. If I were master of the universe, I'd buy this car and paint it a nice navy blue. Now, THAT would be an elegant car.

    Wonder what this one will go for? Right now, it's sitting at $8,000 with 26 bids (a surprisingly high number, I think). The ad says the seller has invested $20K over the last two years. I would think that $12,000 to $15,000 would be all the money for this one. But, lately I've been banished to the corner wearing my dunce cap when it comes to estimating a sale price.

    It strikes odd that this car is located in Scottsdale, AZ with an Ebay auction date that ends on the Saturday of Barrett-Jackson. If this car is as good as the ad states, I would think the seller would have wanted to expose it multiple millionares by letting it go across the auction at B-J or any one of the 2-3 other January auctions in Arizona. Hmmmmmmmmm. Makes me think this car isn't really for sale - except for an outrageously high (ie., above-market) price - which the seller can't control at a no reserve auction.

    Nice car though.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,551
    Those Fleetwoods were beautiful cars...the unique roofline, and especially for me, the absence of moldings right down the middle of the body sides like lesser Cadillacs, and the addition of wide rocker moldings. Always liked the small "Fleetwood" lettering low on the front fenders, too. Funny, back then the Eldorado was pretty much the Fleetwood, but in a convertible body style. Too bad they didn't make a Fleetwood Coupe through most of the '60's. They did this up until '60 (the Seville), and from '80 or '81 and later though.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,986
    He could be just testing the market by putting a ridiculous reserve on the car but I don't think this is anything any BJ "millionaire" would care about. This kind of car does better away from places like BJ. It just won't get any attention there and then the seller is out the $$$ entrance fees, or if he does sell, he gets nicked $1,000 bucks or so.

    A lot of one's success in BJ depends on the day and time you are willing to pay for. If you get a lousy time, your car won't get any good bids anyway.

    I TOLD YOU these cars are bringing close to coupe money. It's probably worth $8,500 to 10,000. It should bring about 1K more than a Sedan DV. If it were extra sharp I could see $12K. Higher than that, we are talking show quality merchandise.


  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,150
    Normally I don't like white cars, either. I think it comes partly from having a stepfather who has always bought white cars, although Mom and he did just buy a light green '08 Altima, so maybe that trend is changing. Plus, I've had a white '68 Dart going on 16 years now. But on that car, I think it looks beautiful, especially with that navy blue interior!

    One thing that annoys me about cars like that though, is when they talk about all the money they put into restoring it, and then you see obvious defects, like the cracked leather on the driver's door armrest. The other three armrests look like they've been re-done, but in vinyl. Also, the outer trim on the front seating surfaces looks like it's leather, but on the back seat, looks like it's vinyl. Now I'm not talking about the side parts of the seats...that's just vinyl, both front and back. The area I'm referring to is the trim area just to the outside of the fabric. It looks cracked up front in only the way leather can do, but in the back seat just looks too smooth and shiny to be leather.

    That does look like a nice, comfy cruiser though. A lot of people would slam a car like this, saying that it looks like they put a couple of livingroom sofas in there. But compared to that, anything else is just plastic lawn furniture with a tarp thrown over it. :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,986
    That's why you should never buy a car on the blind. There is nothing like a pair of eyeballs. Depending on what I saw in real life, as opposed to the photos, my estimate of value on this car might vary as much as 30%.

    Personally I'd rather see a car a bit weather-worn and original then restored badly and crudely.


  • parmparm Posts: 723 /1964_cadillac_fleetwood_tn.htm

    Ok. Here's a 1964 Fleetwood I found for sale with a listing price of $10,950 offered by a dealer in MN. Don't know anything about the history of the car in terms of where it spent most of its life. However, I've received photos additional photos of the interior, engine and trunk and they look pretty decent to me. The car is reported to be, and looks to be, in unmolested, original condition. Interior is in good shape, while used, it's not abused. Is it a #1? No. Is it a #2? Nope. But, I'd say it's a pretty good #3. Anyway, this car looks nicer than the white Fleetwood on Ebay located in Scottsdale, AZ. More importantly, the seller appears to be pretty realistic on his price. The price may be a bit high because, after all, the seller IS a dealer and one would assume he's willing to accept something less than $10,950. Still, the price isn't hideous either. Finally, a seller/dealer who isn't delusional!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,986
    Gotta be careful though if it's an actual museum car. They just sit and rot.


  • parmparm Posts: 723 - ront_3-4.jpg

    I said this .64 Wildcat Coupe would go in the mid $20'sK. Well, it sold for around $33K. Either this car was nicer than I thought, or there was a free/open bar that day. LOL!

    My Barrett-Jackson rule of thumb is: estimate what you think the car would realistically sell for, then add 35%. Well, if you add 35% to $25,000, you're alarmingly close to $33,000. UNCANNY!!!! ;)
  • euphoniumeuphonium Great Northwest, West of the Cascades.Posts: 3,347
    Having purchased a new 57 Plymouth Fury 301 with Torqueflite that developed my patience quite a bit, I'm curious to know how well your 57 DeSoto has worked for you. Particularly the engine and transmission. Thank you. :)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,986
    Those torqueflites would break the reverse gear servo sure as shootin if you slammed it into reverse on a high idle. Very common weak point on the V-8 cars. The engines were okay but always had hot-start problems and they ate starter motors.


  • texasestexases Posts: 5,695

    Hope those weren't the same trannys that Chrysler used in their '60s TV ad, the one with the car being jammed from drive to reverse to drive repeatedly at speed...
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,986
    The very same, yes. Torqueflite 8.

    In TV land, nothing ever breaks and the road is always clear and your wife or husband never looked better.

    Andre, try this and let us know if it breaks. :)


  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,150

    Well, the closest thing to tranny abuse I ever had was with my '68 Dart. It accidentally got thrown into park at about 35 mph once. The original owner of that car had no left arm, so the turn signal was rigged on an extra long stalk that still came out the left side of the column, but then, through a series of right angles, went under the steering column and came up and out on the right side, near the gear shifter. I let one of my friends drive the car, and he tried to signal left with the gearshift lever! :surprise: The car stopped immediately and stalled out, but didn't seem to suffer any long-term damage from it. And that was in late 1992. That car did quit running about 9 years later, but I think it was from a bad fuel pump.

    As for the '57 Torqueflite, supposedly you're not supposed to be able to throw it into reverse if you're moving forward more than something like 10 or 15 mph. It has a safety lockout. It also has lockouts for first and second gear. I think it's 45 mph for first and 70 for second.

    My DeSoto has no brakes, thanks to a leaking rear wheel cylinder, and needs a carburetor rebuild. However, the engine and transmission have never given me a bit of trouble. But then, this car never was a daily driver for me. I've had it since September 1990, and I doubt if I've put 5,000 miles on it. As far as I know, it's the original engine/tranny.

    I never saw the commercial where they were throwing the car back and forth between drive and reverse but yeah, it would've been the same basic transmission most likely...a Torqueflite 727. There was also a lighter-duty version called the 904 that was introduced for the 1960 Valiant, but eventually was used with bigger cars and engines. My Dart has a 904, and I think my '79 New Yorkers have something called an A998, which is a slightly beefier version of it, with the "A" standing for lockup torque converter. There was another version called the A999, which I think is what smallblock copcars mainly used. I think that's what my '89 Gran Fury had.
This discussion has been closed.