• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Excellent

About GT52

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 04/13/1952

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their opinion on such things. Maybe you can point out what I said that is verifiably wrong? Maybe if you and Al and Ed all agree that a 4 speed muscle car reliably brings a 40% premium over an automatic high end muscle car one of you could cite some actual sales on two otherwise comparable muscle cars...instead of just assurances of how much experience you have, how much you know, and who you've rubbed elbows with.
  2. GT52

    The Odd Ball and Weird Issues you've had

    Strange as it seems given the onslaught of emission standards by 1970, Mustangs with the Boss 302, Boss 429, and 428 CJ engines in 1970 had a manual choke. I'm not aware of any American cars using a manual choke later than that, but I think there were some imports.
  3. Well you're wrong on all counts, but I've long learned there's no point in arguing the point. Anyone can choose for themselves. Use the opinion of a guide used by millions, from a 100 year old organization that collects data from thousands of dealers sharing their actual sales information, or go with the opinion of an unknown internet poster claiming that they have a lot of experience and know a lot...some of whom clearly do not.
  4. Now we're up to a 40% premium for a 4 speed? Hilarious. Why is it that most times I've run into someone lecturing about NADA and KBB guides being worthless they've either been trying to sell me something for more than book value or trying to buy something from me for less than the book value? But really then, why wouldn't I believe a random post on the internet or a random person showing up in my driveway, instead of an official publication of a well recognized professional organization dedicated to the process? I'm sure there'd be quite a line forming for any hemi Cuda/Torqueflite, LS6 Chevelle/TH400, COPO Camaro/TH400, or even an early max wedge Polara/Torqueflite that was suddenly 40% off...even though they're clearly "undesirable" because of the transmission.
  5. So you think that NADA just makes up the numbers? Do you think that dealers/buyers/insurers/lenders don't use the NADA guide? Nothing's perfect, but someone ignores the NADA guide at their own peril. The "high retail" on a '66 GT350 is $255K. So by your 25% stick v automatic logic a stick should bring nearly $65K more than an automatic, which just simply isn't the case...not even close. It is true that an automatic will limit the number of buyers to some extent, because there are buyers who simply won't consider an automatic, but that may or may not affect the price. These are very high value very low production cars and there are a myriad of factors that will affect the price far more than stick v automatic. I don't know what's "wrong" with the GT350 in question, but at that price it would be long gone if there weren't some issues.
  6. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. NADA makes no price distinction between sticks and automatics on most if not all Shelby Mustang models. They do show the '66 Hertz cars at about $3K less than non-Hertz models, but that is on a $200K "average retail" price, so something like 1-1/2% penalty for being a Hertz car. The Hertz connection itself has always had a minor negative effect on Shelby Mustang values, and maybe some of that is because of the automatic. When NADA does account for sticks v automatics in muscle cars, and they often do, I don't think I've ever seen the difference exceed 10%, which can still be a pretty good chunk of money. Too funny about the backup lights used being as the front turn signals...I never saw that one before, and I can hardly believe that they seem to fit reasonably well! It's likely that the car is a pretty old restoration, when a lot less information was available and restoration standards were much lower than they are today.
  7. GT52

    The Odd Ball and Weird Issues you've had

    I once started my '68 Mustang to give it its monthly exercise, and it wouldn't move because the brakes were locked. Shut it off, got out and pushed the car and it rolled fine. Started it back up, brakes locked up tight again. I was a bit perplexed, and apparently it's rare, but one failure mode of a power brake booster causes the brakes to apply themselves as soon as vacuum is applied to the booster. Replaced the booster and all was fine.
  8. I think I'd go for an early 60s Corvette convertible on Route 66, in the hopes of reenacting some of the adventures of Buz and Tod on the TV show of the same name. Or, I'd go for a Sunbeam Tiger, in the hopes of reenacting some of Maxwell Smart's adventures...but I'd have to find a suitable "99" as well.
  9. GT52

    Why do you think NASCAR has declined?

    What, everybody doesn't enjoy watching no-door Toyota Camrys (at least that's what the headlight and taillight decals look like) going around in circles for 4 hours? Who would have ever guessed? Isn't it fun to watch manufacturers "compete", with cars and engines that don't exist? Have the Japanese manufacturers ever entered a racing series without ruining it by throwing money at it until they dominate? Add to that: A few mega-teams control the majority of the cars, either directly or by engine programs, because they get the majority of the sponsor money. Every year or two the teams shuffle which "car" they run...brand loyalty/association is non-existent. Every month or two Nascar gives whatever brand is "down" a rules concession, or take away something from whatever brand is "up". The difficulty of watching the Nascar awards ceremony at the end of the season without having to throw they all play Hollywood. Is that enough?
  10. LOL, that would be a real good the car, not the story. Having been a part of the muscle car era I have to laugh at all the "low mileage" muscle cars available today. It's funny, in 1975, when they weren't worth anything, most of them already had at least 40-60K on them. And they still seem to have 40-60K on them today, 40 years later. Remarkable. I actually think that "rolling them back" was less common among "consumers" than just not putting the miles on in the first place. Everyone was aware that there was a huge difference in resale value, and acted accordingly...if you traded your car in with high mileage, the dealer was going to turn it back anyway. I'm not sure that I had one friend who had their speedometer hooked up even most of the time, it taking all of about 30 seconds to reach under the dash and unhook the cable at the back of the speedometer. We'd hook them up to pass PA State Inspection, put a few hundred or a thousand miles on them to make the mileage at least believable, then unhook them until the next inspection. Many of the speedometers were grossly inaccurate anyway, because of gear changes, and it was just as easy to use the tachometer to gauge your speed.
  11. A "C" code in a '66 Mustang is a 289, 2 barrel, 200 hp...the 4 barrel was 225 hp and an "A" code. The NADA link that I posted was the prices for exactly what the OP is looking at...C code, 4 speed, convertible. As I said before, the 4 speed adds just 10% to the base price over an automatic, the 4 barrel 225 hp engine (which the OPs car isn't) would add another 15%, both according to NADA. You may not like NADA numbers, but a tremendous number of dealers and buyers rely on them...and the two sold Ebay listings are in line with the NADA numbers, both cars being somewhere between "low retail" and "average retail".
  12. If it was a "rot box" it would not be considered a "low retail" car, and I wouldn't expect it to sell for anything close to low retail. From NADA: Low Retail Value This vehicle would be in mechanically functional condition, needing only minor reconditioning. The exterior paint, trim and interior would show normal wear, needing only minor reconditioning. May also be a deteriorated restoration or a very poor amateur restoration. Mostly usable “as-is”. This column does not represent a “parts car”. What I see in the OPs photos is a car probably needing paint, top, and interior, to even bring it up to "low retail"...although, if it is otherwise very solid and very complete I can see it selling somewhat higher than low retail. NADA prices use member reported sales and tend to be pretty accurate, though they are a lagging indicator for cars for which there are very few sales. The Mustangs that mike6024 linked to seem spot on, and the difference between them and the C code the OP posted is pretty obvious. Both of those cars present well and look ready to get in and drive. I think the first car is the nearest comp, (although it appears in much better condition than the OPs) and a 4 speed instead of its automatic would add only 10%, or about $1500 in this price range. The second car appears to be the nicer car, but that one is a bit tricky since it is really a T code (6 cyl) car with a 289 2V engine installed, and that definitely negatively affects the value...I think it was probably well sold at $22K.
  13. I'd be really hesitant to put a price on the car from photos because there's just too many what's under that paint, is the cowl being held together by paint, are the mechanicals original and functional or does most everything need rebuilding, etc. The car doesn't appear to be ready to jump in and drive. Here's the NADA page, and with relatively common cars with a lot of sales to go by NADA tends to be very good: I'm not seeing anything in the photos that would have me paying much above "low retail", even if it's largely rust free. '65-'66 Mustang convertibles were the rage 35-40 years ago, but that has faded to a large extent in favor of muscle cars, which a C code Mustang is not. They still bring decent money and are easy to sell, but a project can still end up being a money pit, and I'd be wary of starting on one that "needs everything". You can probably buy a better car and end up with much less in it.
  14. The transmission code appears to be a "5", which would make the 4 speed correct for the car.
  15. I guess you could make the same argument about a '65 GT350, but there seems to be a market for such a thing...