Opinions wanted! Best first car for beginner

Hi, I'd be interested in opinions from this newsgroup on what a good first
collector car for a beginner with limited mechanical skills and tools would
be, given these parameters:

1) Price ceiling of low teens.
2) Desire a daily driver.
3) Chiefly interested in early to mid 1960s styling.
4) Convertible is preferable, but not essential.

I'm presuming that to use the car as a daily driver, I'll need to upgrade
the brakes and tires, so that has to figure in the price (and possible
makes) as well. Thanks for any ideas!

Eric Martin

Thanks for the feedback on the Rambler, a car I'd never considered. I'll
check it out. Isn't that the car on 3rd Rock from the Sun?

John, what would you recommend as a good "mainstream 60s car," given my
initial parameters?

Thanks, Eric

Eric Martin wrote:
>
> Hi, I'd be interested in opinions from this newsgroup on what a good first
> collector car for a beginner with limited mechanical skills and tools would
> be, given these parameters:
>
> 1) Price ceiling of low teens.
> 2) Desire a daily driver.
> 3) Chiefly interested in early to mid 1960s styling.
> 4) Convertible is preferable, but not essential.
>
> I'm presuming that to use the car as a daily driver, I'll need to upgrade
> the brakes and tires, so that has to figure in the price (and possible
> makes) as well. Thanks for any ideas!

I see a fair number of Impalas still on the road. That implies to me that parts
and repair service are still readily available. The '63 model year is the most
popular. A quick check of ebay shows that a perfect one tends to sell in the
high teens, so you should be able to get a runner for the low teens. The '65
Mustang is another car that's pretty easy to keep running. The smaller the
engine, the cheaper those will be.

Having driven vehicles from that era for decades, I don't see a problem with
keeping the original braking system, as long as you stay out of deep puddles.
Take a drum brake through water over about a foot deep, and you won't have much
in the way of brakes.

I would also recommend staying with the type of tire for which the car was
designed. Putting radials on a car from the early 60s is likely to produce an
uncomfortable leaning tendency in turns. These cars really need the stiffer
sidewalls of the bias-ply or fiberglass belted tires.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

Studebaker Larks are easy to find and relatively cheap

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:38:24 GMT, "Eric Martin" >
wrote:

>Hi, I'd be interested in opinions from this newsgroup on what a good first
>collector car for a beginner with limited mechanical skills and tools would
>be, given these parameters:
>
>1) Price ceiling of low teens.
>2) Desire a daily driver.
>3) Chiefly interested in early to mid 1960s styling.
>4) Convertible is preferable, but not essential.
>
>I'm presuming that to use the car as a daily driver, I'll need to upgrade
>the brakes and tires, so that has to figure in the price (and possible
>makes) as well. Thanks for any ideas!
>
>Eric Martin
>

In article >,
says...
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:38:24 GMT, Eric Martin > wrote:
> >Hi, I'd be interested in opinions from this newsgroup on what a good first
> >collector car for a beginner with limited mechanical skills and tools would
> >be, given these parameters:
>
> 1964-1969 Rambler American. Simple to work on, available in convertible
> body style first few years, parts for later-series 199/232 engine still
> common (its descendants powered Jeeps through 2001), installing disc brakes
> from later AMC cars is a bolt-on operation.
>
I had the 69 American. Not a bad car, but it has issues. Vacuum wipers
driven off that oddball fuel pump, to start. Rust problems, too. Body
parts are getting hard to find. And they rarely had a sway bar. Lastly,
the style is pretty bland.

While a good choice, a mainstream 60's car is a better investment,
because the resale value for the dollars you put into it would be
better.

In article m>,
says...
> Thanks for the feedback on the Rambler, a car I'd never considered. I'll
> check it out. Isn't that the car on 3rd Rock from the Sun?
>
> John, what would you recommend as a good "mainstream 60s car," given my
> initial parameters?
>
It's really a matter of taste. Personally, I have better things to do
then restore a car I don't like. So, find a car, or a style of car, that
you really like. Second, and most important, get a good, solid body that
has only cosmetic rust at most. Preferably one that someone else has
already painted. Budget is going to be the deciding factor here.

Hanging parts on a car is easy. It's all just loosening and tightening
bolts with a little properly timed cussing. Body work, OTOH, takes a lot
of practice to be good at. And there's very little fun in it. It's far
better to find a nice straight body and let a good shop paint it. Dollar
for dollar, a paint job is one of the best investments in a car. Chrome
valve covers and the like don't add a cent to resale value. Or at least
never enough to justify their cost. Interior work is a wash, more or
less. You get back about what you put in, sometimes a little more.

As far as brand, I'm not really partial to any of them. I like the Dodge
the least, but that's just me. I had a 70 charger and didn't like much
of anything about it, especially the way it handled. Ford and Chevy of
the late 60's is a toss-up. Finding a good motor for a Chevy is easy.
Yes, I love Chevelle's. Any and all up to 72.

As a beginner, I wouldn't go back any further than the mid to late 50's,
as these cars take a lot more maintenance to keep going. They don't
often have the features people today take for granted, like turn signals
and self-adjusting brakes.

Lastly, start out by buying a shop manual for it, not a chilton's or
Haynes book. They are easy to find (try Ebay or a website for the car),
and are worth the money.

They ain't that cheap anymore...

Of course the benefit of getting a Studebaker is the availability of
parts and perhaps the stoutest V8 ever made for a modern car. Cons are
the usual rust and crappy interiors.

A better choice might be a GT Hawk where a decent driver can be had for
under $10K and if one puts an effort into it, resale prices in the mid
$20K range is not unheard of.

As an aside, Studebakers love radial tires. The front suspension
geometry was far advanced for it's time and don't worry about having to
use leaded gas, the don't care...

JT


1931 Studebaker President State Coupe (Q4)
1955 Studebaker President State Coupe
1955 Studebaker President State Sedan - Almost done Daily Driver
1956 Studebaker Power Hawk - Long Time Fun Car - (Will be burial
container)
1963 Studebaker Lark Custom 4 Door Sedan - Project but driven daily
1964 Studebaker Champ P/U T-6 Long Bed - Daily driver
1965 Honda Dream 305 - Long Time Friend
1989 Honda CRX - Police Pound Project
1956 Leica M2






Riteous Right Reverend Mahmoud Bin Changstein wrote:
>
> Studebaker Larks are easy to find and relatively cheap
>
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:38:24 GMT, "Eric Martin" >
> wrote:
>
> >Hi, I'd be interested in opinions from this newsgroup on what a good first
> >collector car for a beginner with limited mechanical skills and tools would
> >be, given these parameters:
> >
> >1) Price ceiling of low teens.
> >2) Desire a daily driver.
> >3) Chiefly interested in early to mid 1960s styling.
> >4) Convertible is preferable, but not essential.
> >
> >I'm presuming that to use the car as a daily driver, I'll need to upgrade
> >the brakes and tires, so that has to figure in the price (and possible
> >makes) as well. Thanks for any ideas!
> >
> >Eric Martin
> >

--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4

Thanks for all the suggestions. A recap, of the cars mentioned:

64-59 Rambler American
Chevelles up to 72
63 Impala
65 Mustang
Studebaker Lark
Studebaker GT Hawk

A surprising group...with the exception of the Mustang, not what I would
have expected. I thought I'd see Falcons, Corvairs, Novas, maybe even
Mercurys or Oldsmobiles...

I never even considered Studebaker...I don't think I've even looked at them
in the books. My cousin is very high on Corvairs, down in Atlanta, and I
naturally have seen the extensive Ford and Chevy stuff. A lot to
digest...thanks for the ideas.

--Eric

"Eric Martin" ) writes:
> Thanks for all the suggestions. A recap, of the cars mentioned:
>
> 64-59 Rambler American
> Chevelles up to 72
> 63 Impala
> 65 Mustang
> Studebaker Lark
> Studebaker GT Hawk
>
> A surprising group...with the exception of the Mustang, not what I would
> have expected. I thought I'd see Falcons, Corvairs, Novas, maybe even
> Mercurys or Oldsmobiles...
>
> I never even considered Studebaker...I don't think I've even looked at them
> in the books. My cousin is very high on Corvairs, down in Atlanta, and I
> naturally have seen the extensive Ford and Chevy stuff. A lot to
> digest...thanks for the ideas.

Try to stay away from Cadillacs. I had two of them and there was
always something breaking. Manifolds on those 429 engines just
love to crack. One of my pistons broke once, and a local tranny
shop could never get the '64 Turbo 400 working right...

I had every damn thing re-done on that blue Coupe De Ville and
just when it was completed I had to start all over again. Eight
years, 34,000 miles and $30,000 later I just wanted it out of
my sight. On the first 6000 mile road trip I needed universal
joints, a fuel pump, and a water pump. That was only the begin-
ning...

Just remember that if it's old it may have style, but be prepared
to pay for lots of parts and repairs because things just break or
wear out. Last Summer I drove 7500 miles in my '68 Mercury in
three weeks of road tripping. I needed new wheel bearings at all
four corners, my timing chain jumped a tooth so that needed
attention, a bunch of dried-out gaskets and seals started leaking
like a sieve, the ring gear on the flywheel mysteriously got
chewed up by a starter shim that got loose, the universal joints
got loose and shaky, but I didn't get stranded once. Total parts
and repairs costed some $3000, Fuel was about $1200[Canadian] and
I managed to clunk home. Had I taken my '87 Plymouth on the same
trip, it might have costed $150 in repairs like it did last year
when the power steering pump leaked all its juices out, I got
stuck with Armstrong steering, and it smoked. If you're going
to get something from the 60's it's not a bad idea to have another
more recent low-mileage car on hand in case you have to get some-
where when the 60's cream puff won't start or needs work...

But now that everything's fixed on the Mercury it should be
trouble-free! Yeah, right. I'll take it on another 6000+ mile
road trip next year, but I'll be ready to repair a whole bunch
more things that will break. Maybe I'll take the 70,000 mile
Plymouth instead of the 170,000 mile Mercury even though it
won't have the same style...


--
'dreas...tbtw#5 'They say for centuries lovely Japanese girls
Victoria Taxi#15 have been trained in the art of pleasin' men.
Be lonely no more, open destiny's door. For one dollar they'll arrange
a meeting.' -Bonzo Dog Band/Lookout there's a monster coming

Oh, I was never considering Caddies... I have to fit this thing into my
garage. I think Impalas will be too big too. I also don't really want to
drive an enormous car...I think small to mid-range is the plan.And pre-1968,
because I don't want to mess with Illinois EPA requirements.

--Eric