Please recommend a classic

[Guest Garden Gnome]

I'm considering buying a classic from the 60s or 70s and would like some opinions on which car I can buy that would be a safe, dependable daily driver. I don't have to take the freeway to work and live just 10 minutes from work as ill be driving this car. The main reason I'm considering a classic is I'm not made out of money and every new car I buy ends up being absolutely worthless in less than 10 years....I'm tired of losing money buying new cars. I had a 66 Mustang , 69 Camaro and a 67 Nova in the early 80s. I have no allegiance to any one company I love all classics.

So can I get some opinions on which would be safest and most dependable ?

GG

[Rusty_OToole]

None of them. You are talking about a used car that is 30 - 40 years old. None of them are anywhere near safe by today's standards, and their Best Before date expired when Madonna was a virgin.

For cheap transportation I like to buy 5 - 10 year old used cars privately, from the original owner if possible. I look for well maintained cars with for sale signs in nice neighborhoods and on Kijiji.

If you want to try the sixties or seventies cars, a basic Chevy Nova or Chevelle, or a Valiant or Dart, or Falcon would be a good choice. Avoid luxury cars with all their fancy accessories, stick with the basic 6 cylinder or small V8.

My preference would be a slant 6 Valiant, Dart, Barracuda, or a Fifth Avenue from the eighties. The Fifth Avenue is a more luxurious car and a little newer but still a basic rear drive sedan with ultra reliable slant 6 or 318 V8 power. They all seem to have been owned by old people who maintained them to the letter and never drove over 60. Nice examples still turn up and they are cheap.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

None of them. You are talking about a used car that is 30 - 40 years old. None of them are anywhere near safe by today's standards, and their Best Before date expired when Madonna was a virgin.

True wisdom.

I would hesitate to recommend any car before 1990 as a daily driver for anyone. Even a rarely used car would be an increased risk relative to a truly modern car. At the very least having airbags and ABS is an important advantage over old iron, to say nothing of the practicality of fuel injection and electronic ignition.

As for cars becoming "absolutely worthless" after 10 years, you have to bear in mind that 10 years was about the maximum lifespan of a car before (roughly) 1990. My rides for the first 10 years of my driving life were always 1 step (me) from the junkyard, and nearly every one wound up there after me. ALL of them were less than 10 years old when junked [1969 AMC Ambassador in 1976, another 1969 Ambassador in 1977, 1971 Datsun 510 in 1979, 1980 Datsun 210 in 1988, 1982 Subaru BRAT in 1990].

The statistics linked below summarize the average age of cars on the road since 1970. Note that a 10 year old car in 1970 was practically decrepit (almost 2X the average age), and to day it would be still younger than average.

Federal Highway Administration, Average Age of Automobiles and Trucks in Use, 1970-1999: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/line3.htm

So if you want to see a car that will be worthless in 10 years, just grab pretty much anything from 1970 and try and use it for a daily driver. You'll be very lucky if it's still a car by then. (Yes there are people who do it, but you can bet they're spending more money and time on the car than it's worth financially. It's done out of love, not any real sense of propriety.)

Edited September 15, 2013 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[30DodgePanel]

No offense Dave but all those cars you mentioned were heaps when they were built. I hear what your saying about the new cars but I don't buy it, safety is all dependent on who is driving and how they are driving and how they are maintaining they're vehicle.

I'll keep my 68 daily driver made in America thank you very much,.. built like a truck should be. I have no problems keeping up with freeway or interstate traffic, it pulls a ton and it is the easiest vehicle one could ever ask to work on. Once the mid 70's came 73 specifically, in came the junk ! We are still trying to convince our selves we are the better for it too... what a shame.

Barracuda from the late 60's with the 318 is a great choice Rusty.

Edited September 15, 2013 by 30DodgePanel (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

Most "recommend a car" questions quickly devolve into a list of each person's personal favorite. To the OP, let me just suggest that 1967 was the first year that dual circuit brake systems and collapsible steering columns were standard equipment. 1968 was the first year that front seat shoulder belts were standard. 1969 was the first year that front seat headrests were standard. 1973 was the first year that emissions controls really impacted performance. Yes, some of this equipment was available earlier than I've indicated, but the feds required them across the board in the years above.

My suggestion is to pick something you like between 1969 and 1972. These are the years that are best covered by the aftermarket for resto parts in addition to being the "safest" cars of the 1960s. If this is your first collector car, I'd suggest sticking with a more mainstream car (Camaro, Mustang, Chevelle, GTO, etc) due to parts availability. There are a lot of other nice cars but you'll be scrounging parts and testing your fabrication skills (or paying someone obscene amounts of money for service). I'll also suggest that you buy the nicest car you can afford, which is always less expensive in the long run than buying a project in boxes (not that THAT'S ever stopped me before...). All of these cars have rust issues, so be wary of recent repaints since these usually hide slipshod repairs. If you don't feel experienced enough to inspect one of these cars, pay someone who is. Finally, there are far more GTOs, Chevelle SSs, 442s, and other expensive musclecars on the road today than were every built in the 1960s, so be aware of clones and educate yourself as to how to tell the difference before handing over any money. Join one or more marque-specific online forums for help. Good luck.

[Rusty_OToole]

Incidentally a 10 minute commute is a tough life for any car. They never get a chance to warm up and they wear rapidly compared to the miles driven. Mufflers get full of water and rot off, so do engines and transmissions. In winter with lights and heater going full blast the battery has a hard time getting a charge.

Change oil more frequently and go for a longer drive once a week if you can. Drill a 1/8" hole in the bottom of the muffler, at the low end to let condensation drain off.

[Dandy Dave]

You will never be sorry with a mid 70's Chevy Nova. 250 CID 6 Cylinder, 3 Speed Automatic. One of the toughest cars I ever owned. Dandy Dave!

[Guest ole buick]

There is a guy on the Buick For Sale thread with a couple of 70's cars that appear to suit your need. They are reasonable, would be fun and could double as a hobby to take to a car show.

Good Luck, I totally understand your situation.

[Guest Garden Gnome]

Thanks I appreciate the responses. Hey Joe that's some good info there I thank you.

Im in central California on the beach I think a classic will do ok here even though I only see them driving around on Sundays. Once in awhile I see a vintage mustang...those things keep rolling along.

Thanks everyone....a 69 Camaro is now on the top of my wish list !

[Bleach]

Anything with power disc brakes and power steering would still be OK to drive in today's traffic conditions. Sometimes visibility from the driver's seat was better in the old cars than in the new ones theses days. You need back up cameras, distance sensors and whatever electronic gadgetry to just drive down the road.

[joe_padavano]

You need back up cameras, distance sensors and whatever electronic gadgetry to just drive down the road.

No, one NEEDS to simply put down one's electronic device and LOOK OVER ONE'S SHOULDER when backing up. Apparently that's too much work today...

[Bleach]

I guess you haven't driven a new car lately. Those wide C and D pillars and high rear decks on a lot of the new cars create some terrible blind spots. A lot of those technical conveniences have caused many to forget how to drive.

[39BuickEight]

As an experienced insurance adjuster who has seen more serious accidents than I'd care to share, I would never daily drive any car without side airbags. They (along with the other airbags) are the best thing ever added to vehicles. There are way too many cell phone users, testers, and intoxicated drivers out there. Your own defensive driving can't save you from everything.

[Dave@Moon]

No offense Dave but all those cars you mentioned were heaps when they were built.

You're not reading the stats I cited. Heaps are in the eye of the beholder, but facts are facts.

The statistics linked below summarize the average age of cars on the road since 1970. Note that a 10 year old car in 1970 was practically decrepit (almost 2X the average age), and today it would be still younger than average.

Federal Highway Administration, Average Age of Automobiles and Trucks in Use, 1970-1999: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/line3.htm

[ATTACH=CONFIG]214117[/ATTACH]

So if you want to see a car that will be worthless in 10 years, just grab pretty much anything from 1970 and try and use it for a daily driver. You'll be very lucky if it's still a car by then. (Yes there are people who do it, but you can bet they're spending more money and time on the car than it's worth financially. It's done out of love, not any real sense of propriety.)

[Bleach]

As an experienced insurance adjuster who has seen more serious accidents than I'd care to share, I would never daily drive any car without side airbags. They (along with the other airbags) are the best thing ever added to vehicles. There are way too many cell phone users, testers, and intoxicated drivers out there. Your own defensive driving can't save you from everything.

But a bigger car can improve your chances which is one of the reasons my daily drive is a late model Crown Vic.

[30DodgePanel]

..................Again, I hear what your saying Dave but I respectfully disagree. Facts are manipulated daily anymore, I'm sure you are aware of that, just look at the "manipulated" unemployment figures over the past many decades. We all know it depends on who's pockets are being filled from one lobby to the next, whether it be auto lobby or unions etc.... what you are stating is a form of that lining of the pockets, that is also a fact.

Nothing at all wrong with a late sixties early seventies daily driver if properly maintained. I will agree that side air bags especially are great inventions for those blind side collisions when the other drivers are having a dumb moment however.

Edited September 17, 2013 by R W Burgess
edited (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

As an experienced insurance adjuster who has seen more serious accidents than I'd care to share, I would never daily drive any car without side airbags. They (along with the other airbags) are the best thing ever added to vehicles. There are way too many cell phone users, testers, and intoxicated drivers out there. Your own defensive driving can't save you from everything.

How about seat belts?

[39BuickEight]

Of course seat belts are great, but we aren't going that far back are we

I've seen enough fatality/serious accidents that were drastically affected by airbags to convince me that they are priceless in an accident.

I can honestly say the size of the car is an extremely minimal factor when it comes to bosily injury. Given a choice of ony these 2 cars, I'd rather daily drive a smart car with tons of airbags than an older big car without them. (I hate smart cars, just using them as a safety reference because they are tiny )

[joe_padavano]

I guess you haven't driven a new car lately. Those wide C and D pillars and high rear decks on a lot of the new cars create some terrible blind spots. A lot of those technical conveniences have caused many to forget how to drive.

Wanna talk about wide C-pillars? How about these?

[joe_padavano]

I've seen enough fatality/serious accidents that were drastically affected by airbags to convince me that they are priceless in an accident.

I can't say that I completely agree with the need for 452 airbags per car (at what point do we get the expanding foam as seen in the movie Demolition Man)... BUT you do bring up a good point that I should have added to my list of safety items by year in my first post. Side guard impact beams in doors were standard in the 1971 model year.

[Bleach]

Wanna talk about wide C-pillars? How about these?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]214315[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]214316[/ATTACH]

The GM A body is not as bad as it looks. I've driven a few and really liked them. You can actually see all four corners of the car from the driver's seat with and without the mirrors. The C pillars do create some blind spots but they are manageable.

I won't argue about the Mustang. The fastbacks were pretty bad.

[Dave@Moon]

I can honestly say the size of the car is an extremely minimal factor when it comes to bosily injury. Given a choice of ony these 2 cars, I'd rather daily drive a smart car with tons of airbags than an older big car without them. (I hate smart cars, just using them as a safety reference because they are tiny )

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victoria

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/smart/fortwo

[Guest vbertucci39]

I have a nice 67 Mustang Coupe for sell. Replaced the 289 with a 351W. Everything on the car is new inside and out. Its 100% rust free.I have $12,000 in receipts and thats what im asking for it. Less than 200 miles on the engine and 89,000 original miles on the body. My dad restored it for himself but just passed after a long battle with cancer. Email me if you'd like me to send you some info & pics vbertucci39@gmail.com

[39BuickEight]

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victoria

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/smart/fortwo

Thanks Dave. I've seen this in the real world too. The side impact is what amazes me. I've seen so many permanent and serious head injuries in cars without side airbags, and so many cars that look like they were t-boned by a train, yet with side airbags these people had a broken leg at worst.

[Bleach]

I'll drive my Crown Vic over one of those Ƨmart clown cars anyday. I prefer real life crash experiences over any lab controlled experiments posing as fact. My car is a Police Interceptor model and I'll trust my life to this car over any Ƨmart car. Law enforcement agencies all over the US can't be wrong in their choice. The only police officer I ever saw driving a Ƨmartcar was Stever Martin playing the part of Inspector Clouseau.

[39BuickEight]

I wouldn't drive a Smart Car if you paid me. I'd drive one of many other vehicles with side airbags.

[R W Burgess]

Another 15 minutes of time spend cleaning up political statements. It has nothing to do with the original question. "Please recommend a classic"????

My recommendation? late 70's through 1990 Chevy big bodies. Buy them cheap, run them 50-60,000 miles, sell them with little loss of depreciation. You can buy a crate motor and rebuilt trannies and run them forever. Ask me how I know?

Wayne

[Guest Rob McDonald]

WAYNE, thanks again for sparing us the off-topic rants.

I recently went through the same choices that GG is pondering now. I was leaning toward a Valiant or early Barracuda as a daily driver because I already have an dismantled Valiant Road Toad, for which I needed a live model to help me with reassembly (the original owner took the poor thing apart). I'm very happy with the cream-puff third-generation Valiant that I bought.

It has a handful of safety features, in which I'm really not that interested - this car replaces a death-trap MGB that I drove for many years. The Valiant's simplicity is what I like best: simple styling, simple to operate, simple to fix. Because of some A-Body commonality with more muscle-oriented Darts and Barracudas, there's a bit more reproduction stuff available for the '67, which the '62 does not have.

I support Rusty O's good advice from way back up this thread: find a clean 6-cylinder, '67 to '69 Barracuda coupe (quite handsome and cheaper than fastbacks) and enjoy it in relative safety and exceptional economy.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Rob McDonald
added image (see edit history)

[R W Burgess]

Can't beat the slant six, Rob. Oh, nice looking car you have there too.

[30DodgePanel]

Another 15 minutes of time spend cleaning up political statements. It has nothing to do with the original question. "Please recommend a classic"????

Wayne

Just curious....

What does a Federal chart have to do with this thread ? Obviously some are allowed to post they're "facts" and others aren't. Interesting.:cool:

I see no where in the Federal statistics rant any recommendation for a classic. I have posted mine, late 60s early 70's but yet the rant stays in plain view for all to see ? My apologies all, I just see no place for any kind of federal chart when the man was only looking for a recommendation for a classic.

Edited September 17, 2013 by 30DodgePanel (see edit history)

[30DodgePanel]

My recommendation? late 70's through 1990 Chevy big bodies. Buy them cheap, run them 50-60,000 miles, sell them with little loss of depreciation. You can buy a crate motor and rebuilt trannies and run them forever.

Wayne

That's a good way to go too, good recommendation.

[Dave@Moon]

Just curious....

What does a Federal chart have to do with this thread ?

The main reason I'm considering a classic is I'm not made out of money and every new car I buy ends up being absolutely worthless in less than 10 years

Enough said by all at this point.

[D Yaros]

A 1965 or 1966 Ford Falcon is worth investigating.

[Dandy Dave]

My recommendation? late 70's through 1990 Chevy big bodies. Buy them cheap, run them 50-60,000 miles, sell them with little loss of depreciation. You can buy a crate motor and rebuilt trannies and run them forever. Ask me how I know?

Wayne

I'm with you Wayne. Between the mid 70's Chevy Nova's I have had, and the 89 -90 Suburbans I have had very good luck with reliability. Dandy Dave!

[Rusty_OToole]

I used to be a GM fan. They had to drive me away and force me to stop buying their products by building worthless junk.

Long after I figured this out I made the mistake of buying a used Suburban.The rear axle gears gave out soon after I bought it, no wonder, they put a 10 bolt rear end in this 5000 pound behemoth. When they first introduced the 10 bolt it was for Novas and 6 cylinder Chevelles, anything over 3500 lbs with a V8 got the 12 bolt.

Soon as I got that fixed a head gasket started leaking. I don't think I drove that piece of junk 500 miles before I wised up and got rid of it.

Another GM beauty was a full size Chev, 1984 Caprice woody wagon. Beautiful condition, low miles, ran great if you could afford to buy gas for it. Lasted almost a year before the rods started knocking.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest JPArizona]

Exactly what "Joe" said!