Jump to content

Parm

Members
  • Posts

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Parm's Achievements

500+ Points

500+ Points (2/7)

  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Looking for engine/radiator fan shroud in nice condition for a 1967 Electra 430 motor with A/C (if that makes a difference). Would want all mounting clips/screws. If anyone knows of a source for a reproduction shroud, that would fine too. Please email me at sparmerlee@yahoo.com Thanks.
  2. This summer, Valenti Classics (a dealer) had what appeared to be a pretty decent '63 (or was it a '64?) Wildcat convertible for sale with a red exterior and red interior. This car sold a month or so after it was first listed. Can't remember the listing price but it was plenty steep. Was curious if anyone knows who bought it?
  3. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2493200939 This will be interesting to watch. Any takers as to whether this car will attain the $8,995 "buy it now" price?
  4. So, you have a '63 Wildcat convertible? I think they're terrific looking cars. Not too big and not too small and with quintessential Buick lines from the mid-60's. All the '63 Wildcat convertibles I've seen have bucket seats so I assume yours has them as well. So, I'd like to ask how comfortable are the seats. I'm rather leary about getting a car without any tilt/angle seat adjustments - which I don't think the 63-64 Wildcats have. As an example, I used to be "ga-ga" over 1964-65 Thunderbirds, until I actually sat in the their clamshell seats. Without a doubt, these were the most uncomfortable seats I've ever experienced and it "instantly cured" me of T-Birds. I tend to like plenty of support for my thighs and don't like a seating position that is very upright. How's the comfort level in your 63?
  5. Turbine Drive! That's what I was thinking when I said "Spline Drive". Thanks. So, for '63 the transmission was a Dynaflow? Didn't those have somewhat of a dubious reputation? I seem to recall that they were referred to as "Dyna-slush", but I think that was from Dynaflows of the 1950's and I don't even know what that "dig" was in reference to. Perhaps by 1963, they had all the bugs worked out of it?
  6. Would like to hear some feedback about the transmission in a 1963-64 Wildcat. I know it was not the famed Turbo Hydromatic as the first year for that in a Buick was 1965 in the larger models. In a 1963-64 Wildcat, I'm thinking it was the unit some refer to as the "Slim Jim", 2-speed Hydromatic or something like that. Spline Drive, does that sound right? Probably not. Anyway, I sort of have my eye on one of these cars and I've heard absolute horror stories from some who have said I should run, not walk, away from any car with one of these tranmissions. These same folks have advised me to stick with 1965 and newer cars in order to get the Turbo Hydromatic transmission. Can anyone confirm that this is a sound strategy? If so, what makes the Slim Jim transmission (or whatever it's called) so bad? I would think it'd be just as expensive to fix or rebuild one of these as it would a 1965-66 Turbo Hydromatic unit. But then, there may be more to story than that. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks.
  7. Thanks. But, Old Cars Price Guide is not very accurate unless you throw out #1 and work down from there. In other words, use their #2 which represents a #1 in the real world. Their #3 is actually a #2 and so on. Cars of Particular Interest (CPI) http://www.blackbookusa.com/cpi.asp is more representative of the market. Unlike Old Cars Price Guide, you can't buy CPI at the corner drugstore. You need a subscription. CPI is the only value guide referenced in reputable collector car magazines like Car Collector, Collectible Automobile, Mustang Monthly and Keith Martin's Sports Car Market Weekly. 'Nuf said. Anyway, CPI shows a 1972 "Cutlass Convertible" (the base must be the Supreme) in "Good" condition to be $8,000 and one in "Excellent" condition to be $15,200. CPI's definition of "Good" fits most casual observer's definition of "Excellent". CPI definition of excellent includes an under-carriage that is detailed along with the engine. Anyone bought or sold a Cutlass convertible of similar vintage and condition? How much did you get/pay for it?
  8. http://www.cars-on-line.com/72olds14681.html I'm not posting this listing for fodder. I'm actually interested in this car and am looking for advice. I talked to the seller today and he's going to send me more photos. My take is that this is a very nice '72 Cutlass convertible, but his $14,500 asking price seems pretty steep to me - especially given the fact that this car is a pretty mundane model. It's not a 442, an "S" or an "SX". I'm not sure if it's even a "Supreme". Can anyone tell? While this is a Midwestern car, the seller reports that this car was driven in only one 1/2 of a winter season its entire life. He's the 3rd owner so I don't know how he knows this for sure. I'll give him benefit of the doubt. This car is reported to be a very nice driver. It's not a 100 point car. The engine is not detailed within an inch of it's life. And the under carriage supposedly has some surface rust. At best, it's certainly not pristine underneath. The seller claims the car is pretty well optioned, but it doesn't have tilt wheel or A/C and has only the AM factory radio. On the plus side, it has a newer convertible top (with glass rear window) that is reportedly to be very good quality with no wind noise and the car has only 72,000 original miles. Owner reports the body to be "laser straight" with original interior and he's put only 2,000 miles on it over the last several years. Has newer paint that's reportedly in very nice shape and is the original color. Overall, it looks like a very nice survivor. I look at this car and think, "Man! This might be one the best run-of-the-mill '72 Cutlass convertibles in captivity!" On the other hand, does it make sense to pay top dollar for such a nice, nothing special model? Just asking. I hope to get a lot of "informed" and "knowledgeable" feedback. Thanks.
  9. Thanks for the insights. By the way, I notice I posted this in the Buy/Sell forum when I meant to post it in the General forum. Sorry 'bout that.
  10. In looking for a big convertible from the 1960's, I've had several people tell me to stay away from those with the hydromatic transmissions - commonly known as the slim-jim. They tell me these are nothing but trouble. Can anyone confirm or deny this? If I take their advice, that means I should dismiss every Oldsmobile (a 98 convertible would be my car of choice) made before 1965. Everyone seems to agree that the turbo hydromatic was a technological marvel and a much better choice compared to the earlier slim-jim variety. Would appreciate hearing opinions as to whether the slim-jim transmission is a hand grenade in waiting. I know of a neat 1962 Olds 98 convertible for sale, but am apprehensive to pursue it because it has the slim-jim transmission.
  11. Assuming I could find all the right parts (that's another subject), how difficult would it be for a qualified mechanic (not me - also another subject) to add a factory cruise control unit to a '66 Electra with a 401?
  12. I certainly understand your comment. But, sadly, I'm looking for only one car. However, rather than limit myself to just one make/model/year, I thought it best to broaden my search. Specifically with regard to a '69-'70 Bonneville convertible, one of these would be less money than a mid-60's Electra, Cadillac, 98 (or even a 65-66 Bonneville) - all convertibles. Quite frankly, I'd probably be just as happy with a nice '70 Bonneville and with a lot smaller drain on my wallet. So, it's not that I can't make up my mind. It's just that there aren't that many nice/affordable cars out there (ie., not a polished piece of junk and not concours quality - somewhere in between) that I'd want. Believe me, I've been looking for a long time. So, keep those cards and letter coming and thanks for noticing.
  13. Wow! Somebody gave $13,500? A nice car, but I'd say it was well-sold - and, this is confirmed by its bid history.
  14. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2418655068 OK. This appears to be an interesting car, to be sure. But, it's not a Tri-Power and it's been modified. And, while a decent attempt was made to recreate the original seat covers, they're not correct. Perhaps I'm being too picky, but for the kind of money the seller obviously wants, this car should be perfect - and I mean PERFECT, in every way. Thus, I can only conclude the seller isn't really interested in selling. Rather, he's more on a fishing expedition. But, he's rowed back to shore empty-handed, . . . again (this isn't this car's first appearance on ebay). This is a $10,000 to $15,000 car all day long. Someone please help me understand this one.
  15. Am looking for a 1969 or 1970 Pontiac Bonneville convertible. Car must be in very nice condition without any rust. Please email parmerlee@comcast.net I can be reached M-F during business hours at 765-288-8493, ext. 210. Steve Parmerlee Indiana
×
×
  • Create New...