black64

As a new owner of a 1964 coupe, I continue to hear that the 1964's are considered the least desirable of the '63-'67 Stingrays. I know they are priced the least, which was OK with me. I know I got a great price for the car based on all the pricing info I found. I love the car, but would like to know what makes the '64 the least desirable.

NightshiftHD

You are correct they are a great car indeed. And as you also know priced the least of the midyears for a few things off the top of my head:

- no split window (63)
- no disc brakes (65-67)
- no big blocks (65-67), and therefore no BB hoods
- improved dash gauges (65-67)
- more refined interiors (65-67)
- teak steering wheels (65-66)
- telescopic columns (65-67)

That will get you started as you look at pictures of these cars. In the meantime, love your classic and drive it like you stole it! Bill

TCracingCA

The first year 1963 will always be a novelty and the 65-67s have disc brakes! Therefore the 1964 is just an overlooked gem! Actually the 327/365 &375 are arguably the best of the breed of small blocks! The interior trim is actually the best of the C2 breed, and gauges are more interesting except the cones can deteriorate! It got the Muncie, F-41, the exterior has a few hokey unnecessary styling cues like the hood indents where it no longer had the fake grills and the side vents essentially do nothing functional, and just became styling! Welcome to the 1964 Club!

black64

Interesting. If that rule applied to the Ferrari world, and I've owned a few, the old 1950's and 1960's Ferrari's would be worth less that the new ones with much better features. Sorry, but a 1964 Ferrari is worth a "frickin" fortune without the upgrade features you mention. Just trying to understand the strange Corvette world....newer is better?

TCracingCA

Ferrari's are Friggen mostly ugly! I helped with chassis histories for awhile back in time! The allure up to the rear engine era that hit, was the pinnacle of the front engine race/street ultimate GTs! For a time in my life, I was around them and helped with car histories!

For 1964, they threw a lot at the car to up the performance and worked on interior styling! The disc brake development was still in development, so it retained the drums! They deemed the split as more of a liability having complaints related to how it obstructed the rear view! That was not popular back then! Guys cut out the split and installed 1964 glass! Now the 1963 splits are classics! The front phony grill plates on the hood another head scratcher back then! So they came off for 1964!

and with this crowd of C1 and C2, newer wasn't necessity better! The value went up and down, depending on a lot of factors! The C2 ended up as the investment darlings and the C1s to the guys that think like that!

Frankie the Fink

Correct answer.
'64 was a transitional year and has limited, highly distinguishable features as do most other years. They are great cars but the deck is stacked against them a little bit

alexandervdr

I have a 64, and adding up the cost of the fortune of parts and stuff to the purchase price to bring it to life makes it a very bad investment.
A friend of mine bought a 63 and my best guess is that to bring it to the condition my 64 is in now would potentially make it a bad investment too.
In the meantime: I love my 64

Frankie the Fink

If you're not a "flipper" and actually drive your car for a number of years....you are doing good to break even. Any appreciation is offset by the maintenance and restoration costs.

However, comparing that to the same parameters with a new, modern car you are money ahead. The depreciation on modern drivers is pretty awful and maintenance costs are no joke either.

NightshiftHD

That's very true of any year. Unless your pockets are so deep you can't reach the bottom, you have to buy a car at a reasonable price given the large expense involved to restore it to original condition. Most of us can (easily) spend way too much and often more than you will recover. Regardless, your "investment" into a C2 Corvette is still a great way to have a lot of fun driving a classic ... and getting most (or all) of your money back when you're done with it. Can't say that about your late model rides in the driveway! Bill

Frankie the Fink

Gads. I hope this doesn't turn into another "collector cars as an investment" thread - there are already hundreds here. Suffice it to say that these cars are diversionary toys and as far as dollars/hour of enjoyment goes....that ratio beats the numbers on my seldom-used boat all to hell.

NightshiftHD

So funny you mention that Frankie ... same problem here! And the work on the boat is a big distraction from work on the Corvette. Bill

rfn026

There are some basic rules of collecting.

The first and last of a series is more desirable than something in the middle. This applies to cars, shotguns and anything people collect.

A '53 is worth a lot more than a '62. In the Porsche world the long-hood 911s are the holy grail of the 911 series.

As we get to the more recent generations the system breaks down a little but it may be that they're not considered as collectible. Give them another decade.

If you're value shopping the '64 is a great value. You get the same driving experience for less money.

Richard Newton
Car Tech

corvetteed

this subject has been visited many times here on the Corvette Forum, and this list above is a pretty good summary. Remember, all C-2's are desirable; but, of the five years available, the 67 is generally considered the 'best', followed by the 63 (coupes only). The 65 & 66 are generally grouped together, which leaves the 64 as the "least". But, being the "least" of the overall 'best' is pretty good indeed. I've got a '64 too, and I follow the advice above: drive it like you stole it!

capevettes

The minor tangible differences between the 64's and other mid years contribute to the reason they are worth less but it's the often repeated myth that they are somehow less of a car that has a negative impact on their value. I had a nice 64 coupe years ago and it was just as nice a car as any other midyear I have owned. I have a 68 coupe and for years the myth has been that it is an inferior car. I like it more than the 69 that I had.

The more the myth of inferiority gets repeated, the more people believe it.

mrg

Red hair and all I'm gonna keep my '64!

Brian VH McHale

I like 64's

MOXIE62

I was not out to buy a 63. In fact I was in the process of buying a 64 when it got sold out from under me. If I had found another 64 as nice as this 63 I would have purchased it. I just knew I wanted an original C2 coupe mostly due to the room you have that you do not have with a C1.

GTOguy

'64's are under-appreciated, and '67's are over-appreciated. Personally, I like the '64's a lot more than the '67's.....much nicer interior and no fugly backup lamp over the rear license plate and small gills on the side. '64 -'66 are much cleaner than a '67, IMHO...

65 Pro Vette

In all my years of collecting corvettes 64 and 66 where the odd lower priced vette's, 66 in the last few years got better and now it is the 64's turn. 67 was in the spotlight the last 10 years then the 63 split window took over. History shows it will go back and forth, but in the end all 63 - 67's are the best looking and the best investment corvette's ever built.

JackTripper

Yeah, the 64's are the Red-headed stepchild of the Midyears. I still like them though.