Most affordable Mid-Year?
 

Good Day. Never posted here before, long term on the C6 and CFOT forums. My first ever Corvette is my current 2006.

I flirted with building a Factory Five Cobra as a hobby, but it occurs to me that nothing will ever have the intrinsic value of a mid-year Corvette. Besides, I can make a decent argument that the mid-year is the most beautifully styled car in American car history.

What I am looking for is a hobby, not a complete disaster rebuild, but am too frugal (cheap) to buy a numbers matching top of the line, e.g. swc.

I am thinking a 64 coupe with the lower hp engine, not much in options, and a powerglide. I do all my own wrenching and have plenty of time on my hands and a 3-car garage, and am looking at a long-term semi-retirement project.

Thoughts and inputs?

You pretty much have it there.:thumbs:

yup. but unless you find one with A/C (not likely), you might think about a roadster instead.

Welcome! Agree, 64 coupe will typically be the best bang for the buck if you are looking to get into the C2 side of the hobby in a cost-effective way.

Low HP 64 with a NOM, and possibly painted very nicely but not in its trim tag color.

With all that said, the best "bang for the buck" in terms of real value rather than the cheapest entry point would be a C2 with a 5+ year old, well-done body off restoration - you'll buy something at market value which will be at least $10-20 grand less than it would have cost you to buy the car pre-restoration and have it restored to that condition

What you've described is pretty much the bottom of the food chain alright, but it's still going to be at the bottom when you're finished dumping dollars and time into it. I don't know what your skill set is, but buying a car with better DNA but has rough paint and interior would be a better prospect. A small block 65 4 speed coupe for example would be a better start.

The 63 - 67 generation as a whole is pretty much an investment grade purchase from the standpoint of not being a depreciating asset. Might consider selecting your price range and then scouring the ads remaining open to what you might find be it coupe or convertible. The better the condition, the less you will need to tackle in after-purchase expenditures.

dont worry about the year just buy the best car for the amount you want to spend up front. while I agree 64 coupes are going to be the best cheapest. that dose not mean you wont find a 65-66 that is in better shape for the same price. also the more you pay for the car up front should mean the less you should have to spend latter on

The current issue of Corvette Magazine that just came out has an article saying pretty much the same as others here have told you. They say from a performance per dollar aspect, the 1964 coupe is the best Corvette deal out there.


-- Steve

As someone else stated, buy what you can afford. This is the beginning and you will have plenty of money to spend on parts regardless of what year you buy. All the parts are high, matter of fact this is my old mans statement " A mid-year will hundred dollar your azz to death "

If it were me I would be looking for a car that has majority of the parts there and can be cleaned up to close to new as possible.

Just be patient and the right car will come along. If you are not familiar with mid year cars, its always a good idea to take someone that does know them and what to look for with you prior to purchase.

Good Luck with your search and in the end it will pay off.

To 99.9% of adults, there is no difference between any mid-year Corvette, heck to half, they couldn't tell you what it is at all.

FWIW, I can afford all but the top 1% of mid-years but I have different work for my money. While I could go $100K+ cash, that is not what I'm looking for.

What I don't want is one that is more money to fix than it is worth. I want something to wrench on and play with that is cheap. Older cars require more maintenance, so the wrenching is pretty much assured. In other words, not looking for a basket case, just looking for a decent cheap driver that I can keep as a toy, and not freak out about putting miles on it.

I pretty have no use for Corvette snobbery. Some people really need to acquire some real self-esteem. :yesnod:

Don't pay any attention to them or to what they say. There are some people in this world who aren't happy unless they can make someone else feel bad. Your '64 is a fine car. Most people, myself included, would be proud to own it. It's a classic Sting Ray . . . nothing else matters.

:iagree: azmusclecar. hold your head high on that car. she's a beaut. I couldn't speak about the owner however :D :thumbs:

You know, it's comments like this that do not do a thing for the hobby or people like myself and others who own and are proud to own 64's.
Sorry, but I had to say it.

Second that!

Well said, I pulled my comment since I didn't want to interfere with the OPs thread, he did ask for opinions and ideas and I thought that is what I posted but some sensitive people may have misinterpreted what I wrote......

:iagree: I have a solid lifter 64 and a BB 66. They are both great cars. Any mid year is a gem in my opinion!

I really didn't mean to step on anyone's toes, but that's just the way it is. Everyone knows that 64's are the best value for the money, and no doubt that would have been the better way to word it.

The simple fact is that it costs the same money to restore a 64 as any other mid-year, so why not spend that money on something with a better potential to avoid being upside down?

I'm here to learn just as much as anyone else. If someone can refute what I said, I'm all ears and ready to learn.

Assuming equal condition, what can be purchased cheaper than what the OP proposed?

:lurk:

No, your comments, and the others, are in alignment with my vision. :cheers:

Again, I can afford a museum '63 SWC or a '67 427, and know nothing about it and pay someone else to work on it for me as if I didn't know a combination wrench from a quadrajet, and drive it only on sunny days to a car show to frown at others because I lack self-esteem.

But that's not what I'm looking for, I want a simple toy to wrench on, like back when life was simpler.:thumbs:

truth hurts some people maybe you should make it political correct so you don't up set anyone.

while what you said is true and every auction and sell list over the last 30 years reflect it.

there is nothing wrong a 64. this conversation comes up every couple of months the same things are said. there is no sense beating a dead horse :cheers:

That joy of wrenching was one of the reasons I bought my 64 as well as it was the one I could afford. The ability to return to "working" or wrenching on a car brought back a lost joy. Yes, I am going through issues now with heads. I could drive the 64 to a garage and say here...fix this and call me when it's ready. The checkbook is not my best tool in the box.

Using this forum and good information from well intended members have helped elevate my level of knowledge and skills that I hope to pass along to someone someday even though I'm getting long in the tooth.

I had a 2007 ZO6, my dream car with it's mystic 427 badging on the hood. I washed it and polished it and then washed it and then polished it and drove it and with it's extended warranty through GM.........what did I need a tool for?

My fear and love of C2s were both founded on things people had said. Warnings of impending stress cracks in the fiberglass and OMG...look out for axle issues and blahblah blah..........but then I spoke to C2 members and honestly, I found a class of owners I better identified with. OLD SKOOLers........................or OLD FOOLers.
The looks of the car sold itself. It took courage on my part to spend the money to get my C2 and I'm on a very tight budget.
I sometimes feel like the pair of brown shoes in a world of tuxedos.
But I love my C2, I love my 64 and wish I could own a second one.
I hate the days I can't drive the 64. I love pulling plugs and opening the gap from 35 to 38 after a Pertronix install and guess what...........I did it all with the help of this forum, and yes prayers helped too to minimize the cussing.

My agitation to those who feel they need to run someone else's car down to make them feel better really hurts the hobby. We all share one thing in common. A love of these cars in this model. So what if yours is a small block, or a powerglide, or a restomod. Good grief, the hobby is meant to bring us together for a common cause. Not tear us apart because the need to feel superior by making another one feel inferior.

I'm sorry for the rant but I pulled my comments because I was accused of hijacking a thread on another post and all I did was post an example and it was taken out of context. So, I try to keep my opinions to myself, but my old gal 64 cried out from the garage and asked me to come to her defense.

Ya' know............in 1964 you would have done many things to own my car. I'm proud to own it today. I hope you find one to be proud of as well...............and SHARE the joy. There's enough bad things in this world. We don't need 64 bashing in here. Now I'm going out to reassure my 64 there are those out here proud to own a 64.

I rest my case your honor.

So I see. A poor choice of words on my part - no offense intended.

I would rather have a Top Flight Fuelie 64 than an undocumented NOM 67 BB that's in great condition.

I did not mean to infer that 64's could not be enticing or valuable. I simply meant that the OP had described a ... ah, screw it - nuff said.
:cheers:

For around $50,000, and with the aid of a knowledgeable C2 Forum member, you could get a VERY NICE 90% correct '64 coupe in good shape. It should run and drive fine as is, but need tune-ups and other light maintenance soon enough, that's how they were designed 50 years ago!

Your hobby car would be cheaper than a new Corvette, and it will appreciate in value rather than depreciate. A safe place to park your money while you have fun. What's not to like?

Are you suggesting that despite their relative rarity, coupes are now cheaper than convertibles?

-third owner of a '64 convertible since 1966 (California black plates!)

Outside of the SWC, coupes have been cheaper than comparable convertibles for decades now.

I would like to know how current C-2 prices are going to " appreciate " more. One buys a new C-7 for sixty grand and drives it. Sure it is going to depreciate because its not sitting in a heated garage collecting dust. It is being used up. Buy a sixty grand C-2 and you have a classic boat anchor. No one wants it to see the light of day because it may tarnish the exterior and heaven forbid get a paint chip. It becomes a " CD " that takes space in the garage.
As far as preference it is just that. The same car built in multiple years. Ego is the largest difference between them. Condition, rusty, crashed, complete, project, restored, and options are the equalizer for a prospective buyer. Then there is the coupe vs roadster saga. Until 63 one never had a choice. If your happy roof less the choice is easy.
I would never call a 64 less of a car in this series. All years improved in quality and are basically the same package. Some have preferred ribbons and bows.

Jesus what a bunch of sensitive 64 owners taking an honest and factually accurate response to the OP's question as an insult. GTF over it, you own a car that, for whatever reason, is undervalued in the marketplace. No one said the market's under valuation of 64s is deserved; it's just a fact, and in fact just the opposite is implied.

The 64 is the red-headed stepchild of the C2s and thus represents the best value. If you think I am "part of the problem plaguing the Corvette hobby for saying that, please post away so we can identify all of the overly sensitive 64 owners and send you off to a special forum where everyone gets a trophy fir having the best car. .

:withstupid: Having fun with my affordable '64!

64s are ugly and slower than other C2s!:rofl:

:iagree: THIS one made me smile :yesnod:

I'm observing that convertibles typically are more sought-after than coupes in corvette and many many other marques, making the coupe traditionally less expensive than a convertible.

Really? .. A little harsh, don't you think?. Looks like that cuts both ways.

Does anyone think the 76 will go up in value as years go buy.....or should I give it away now?

Coupes are appealing in my eyes....but they are sure hot inside during the summer! :D

Then again "If the top goes back, the price goes up"

1. OP asks which C2 is the best value.
2. Forum members post honest and factual responses, identifying the 64 as the best value.
3. Other forum members who own 64s get their feelings hurt by the truth, take one of those posters to task and imply an apology is in order.
4. I suggest that those whose feelings got hurt might want to grow a set.
5. Other overly-sensitive forum members accuse me of being . . . Overly sensitive?

I own a 65 - should I demand that the forum members never mention the fact that similar 67s fetch more money in the marketplace, or criticize someone who posts such factual information?

Being frugal and being smart are two different things. For a few $k more you will increase your car pool and you might get the year with the options you want.

The article in Corvette Magazine I referenced earlier backs that up. They say the best Corvette value on a performance per dollar basis is the 1964 coupe.


-- Steve

Beautiful car!
I met a fellow recently with a 64 Z06 tanker. I think I would be tempted to give up both the 63 and 65 for that car.

Regarding Zoomin's comment: you are correct, IMO.

Do you really want a two speed auto ?
 

The four speed I think would be a lot more FUN to drive.

Golly, after reading this thread what would y'all have thought of my "mongrel" 65 roadster? It was a big block conversion with all the stuff from a 66, including the frame and an 80s vintage Eckler's one piece hand laid front clip. Motor was a 454 pickup block with a 427 truck crank and stock L-72 cam, headers, Thrush turbo mufflers, oval port heads and one of those old Torker manifolds with the carb turned 30 degrees. Back in the day it was one of the fastest things on the street. I loved that car and would gladly have it back. Used it as my daily driver for years.

I have a museum piece now and I hate it!

OP, enjoy the NOM 64 and build it the way you want it. I think they have the best looking gauges of all the C2s

I'll try. After one year a C7 will be worth 20,000 less. After one year, my C2 will be worth the same or maybe a little more than now, whether it sits in my garage or I "use it up".

A $55k Z51 C7 will not be worth $35k in one year. The price increase for 2015 might put a 2014 Z51 @ $43k to $45k depending on miles. Once again driving one for a year is worth every penny . Hey I'm 66 and you can't take it with you. My 67 coupe will go to car shows , but the 2014 is going to be enjoyed for it's thrill factor.

Could not agree more. The new kid will hold value far better than its predecessors. Fresh style, aluminum frame, engine refinements, and kick azz looks will draw crowds. A comfortable cruiser with stellar performance in a go anywhere crowd. My old remain in the stable while the newer convertible gets driven but not daily. After the big demand subsides I am a new coupe customer. My 3 D picture ( C-2s in storage ) remain just that. As the caretaker I will pass them on to my children as mementos of the past. Chances are they won't continue the tradition or share the fondness of yesterdays classics. It is a computer generation !

The two sting ray coupes together. One show and the other one GO .

The actual amount wasn't the point. chevahaulic said explain how a C2 will appreciate more than a C7. One goes up, the other goes down. The C7 value definitely won't "appreciate" and the C2 will. And by the way, the window sticker on a Z51 C7 is 73K with the 3LT. If you "use it up" as he says, $20K depreciation isn't unreasonable.

The 3LT option @ $8k is a waste of money for some of us. I'm sure the dealers like them. You are right the depreciation is higher. Since the Corvette team really made the 1LT interior more up scale , in black it's very close. The HUD is no longer needed cause the Dash configuration lets you do the same display. Way to much to explain here. The 3LT makes the car a little heavier also.

Hey Steve,

You're so right!

I find that more and more people would rather be critical versus complimentary.

I think it's mostly due to jealousy, or the feeling that somebody has done better than they have.

Instead of complimenting, or appreciating another individual's car, several individuals would rather try to point out the flaws on the vehicle.

Funny thing is, most of the critics don't even own a classic car, much less a Corvette!

Pat

I think most of the '64 haters are jealous because they know that the '64 has the most HP of any C2 n/a smallblock (365), and therefore was the quickest/fastest of all the factory smallblock C2s. :willy:

My 64 story.

Bought my baby sight unseen about 15 years ago on ebay. Paid $17K for a non posi, rust free frame, stock bodied, glassed in head lights, with side pipes, original a/c coupe. Shipped it to Hawaii and began my mods. I spent an additional $17k to return the headlights to stock, a 5 speed transmission, 17x9 PSE wheels with 255/275 rubber on stock quarters (backspacing is the key), Van Steel offset trailing arms, complete suspension rebuild with lowered front and rear stance, an LT-1 cammed engine, a 65 posi unit with 3.36's, 67 BB hood, 4 wheel power disc brakes from a '69 shark donor, and a few other items. Although there were some previous owner changes like 67 seats and a 65/66 instrument panel, for about $35k I have a 64 that will hold its own against any other C2. I actually prefer the 64 side coves (having once owned a 66 427/450 coupe) and the nifty glassed in exterior exhaust vents. She's a traffic stopper on any day of the week and built to my standards and taste. Still plan on adding Autometer gauges and modern seats while these old hands can still wrench :D Don't knock the red headed step child :thumbs:

Yeah we're also smart enough to KNOW that the '65 fuelie has 375 HP which makes it even quicker.

Quicker that what?

I thought everyone knew that a '63 has the best looking gauges :D

:cheers:

Yes they do especially the 340/360 hp cars:D lets not forget that beautiful console as well:D

Really? You couldn't follow?

Actually you're mistaken there KM. I stated na (normally aspirated) and you're stating FI, in which case the '64 FI 327 also made 375hp, BUT achieved this HP at 5800 rpms, whereas the '65 had to wind out to 6200 rpms to achieve 375hp. By that time all you would see of the '64 would be the taillights! This is mostly because the '64 FI 327 had 11.25 compression, and the '65 was reduced to 10.50. But hey, you're a close second, so don't feel bad.:thumbs:

don't matter what year it is, just find the one you like and enjoy the heck out of it, that's what we are doing powerglide and all! :

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5...ril2011019.jpg

:iagree:


After wandering in the wilderness with that '64 opinion for decades, somebody else finally said it! :auto:

Very close but no cigar IMO, Zora thought the speedo and tach numbers were easier to see at night without the "brightwork". :cool:

I hope this helps the OP, since the OT delved as usual in the Falling Off of the Wagon Bashing of the '64's once again.

If you refer to Hagerty's charts which visualize sales of C2's recently, you'll notice that the valuation realizations aren't necessarily for the year, but instead the options; namely engine HP or rarity. The sales realizations in which the crowd here uses compares the big block 65-67's to the small block '64's, SWC being the exception (50 year anniversary). If you compare small block to small block (same HP ratings), the only real appreciation is the 1967 Corvette; I'd speculate last year and first year hold higher realizations for that reason. However, comparing only small blocks, and using Hagerty's sales as objective advice, you'll see no significant realized sales price advantages of one year over another year.

Numbers tell the story when compare 300 HP to 300 HP, not 250 HP to 300 HP, or 65-66 big block prices to 63-64 small block prices (except SWC).

So you're basically right in seeking out a non-optioned low HP coup without A/C. You can add your own A/C and build to your liking any year.

To the OP....and the Original Question :thumbs:

I am in you league:willy: I did build a Cobra Replica and then bought a 64 for body-off restoration. That was actually not needed (no birdcage/chassis rust, paint reasonable, engine running fine etc) But I wanted to have a hobby activity, and I have a ball taking the car apart and rebuild it and just make it better. It may cost me 50K or more (stopped counting long time ago...) once finished, but then it will have new paint (after gone to the fibreglass), blasted and repainted chassis, airco (Vintage Air) , powersteering (Borgeson), all new bushings for suspension, new springs front/back, new brake system, power brakes, radial tires, interior like new, 5speed gearbox, new exhauset etc etc. Would be happy to get 300Hp but I don't care too much about power, cause I want to use it as an almost daily driver. Will never make money on it, but I don't care...
And after all: what is there less in fact&figures in a 64 compared to a 63SWC...?:thumbs:

Are you saying that a 64 365hp is faster than a 65 365hp?

The VIEW from that office makes me want to change my color from black to red. I have two hoods..... maybe I can do a paint scheme on the second to highlite the raised portion. Awesome in every detail.

I didn't dare touch that, lest I be branded as a"'64 hater" - to be honest, I almost bought a 64 over my 65 because I happen to love Daytona blue as a color, but I couldn't find a Daytona Blue 64 vert with the L76 (my engine requirement) in the right condition at the time so I ended up with the 65 L76 vert in my second-choice color, Milano Maroon. I probably paid $5,000 more for the 65 over what the similar 64 would have cost me; I would have rather bought the 64 in my fav color (and saved money too) but that just didn't work out.

If only I had gotten the "faster" 64 L76 :D

Boy, a lot of fail in this post.
1st - Fuel Injected cars ARE naturally aspirated. Unless you mean Forced Induction (meaning turbo or superchargers - but that's not what is being discussed here)
2nd - The 64 and 65 engines are identical and achieve the same horsepower at the same RPMs.
3rd - Both the 64 and the 65 had 11:1 compression. Only the 63 FI had 11.25:1 compression (of the C2 Fuelies).

Absolutely! between the quicker windup of the '64, and the "dragging" action of the disc brakes on the '65, I would think the '64 would come out first every time.

Wrong! I won't even reply to your #1 because everyone understands the subject matter. Your #2 & #3 comments do not correspond with page 6, column 1 in Pierre Lafontaine's Chevrolet Small-block V-8 ID Guide, which clearly states the info I provided earlier, with the exception that in '65 compression ratio was reduced to 11 from 11.25. Are you saying that this book is incorrect?

Obviously not everybody understands the subject matter because you clearly do not understand the difference between na and FI.

As for your source, it's probably either a misprint or is just flat wrong (or you midread the book). Both 64 and 65 (for both the L76 and the L84) had 11:1 compression. And all four engines had their peak HP at 6200 RPM. There was no difference between the two years (for either the L76 or the L84).

So you are saying that the Chevrolet Small-Block V-8 ID Guide is wrong, and you are right. Do you have any written evidence of what you are saying?

I probably have about 50 sources. Why don't you start with Chevrolet's Sales Brochures (as done by Chevrolet, not some unreliable secondary source).

http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Chevro...et-Corvette-08

http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Chevro...Corvette-12-13

Don't hate the messenger! Just stating the facts!

Somewhere, my friend Paul (Subfixer) is laughing and thinking "I hope Jack now finally believes that my 64 L76 is faster than his 65 L76!"

brought low by my "dragging" disk brakes! Curse you technology!

I hear a lot of '65-'67 owners are going to make the move to the drum brakes in order to run quicker, not to mention the fuel savings!

Is that all you have? Everyone knows that GM has been lying about their engine's numbers for decades!

I enjoyed reading this thread. Just have to say though....there is no such thing as an "affordable" C2. Not when you shell out the cash to buy it, not when you shell out the cash to fix it, not when you shell out the cash to upgrade it and not when you shell out the cash to restore it!!! :lol:

They're all affordable. You just have to start out with enough cash to afford them.

Hey rat dog that is a 67 right .Some where some thread said you had a 64 .

I've only owned 1 Corvette in my life and it's the '67 I own now.


-- Steve

I'm trying to figure out if you're ignorant of the facts or just trying to be funny?

:D:lurk:

Second that!

Well, I posted source of my information in post #67, so unless I'm seeing things I'm no more ignorant than The Small-Block Chevy ID Guide, or its' author. Here you go, take a look yourself.

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps833ec750.jpg

64 vs 65
 

Are disc brakes heavier or lighter than drum brakes? I'm looking at the difference in curb weight 64 vs 65 and see a difference.

Unless the data is incorrect, it looks like 63's were the lightest, then 64's lighter than 65's lighter than 66's and 67's being the heaviest.

Here's the book previous page is taken from. Page 6, column 1. Decide for yourself. I don't claim to be an authority on the subject, so if I make a statement I list the source. If the source is wrong then so be it, but that is yet to be determined, is it not. Is there anyone here that is an authority on this subject that can say that GM did not place any 11.25 compression 327s in any '64 Corvettes? If so I'll make a note in the manual.



http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z...ps2db48e04.jpg

Thanks now I remember that great color combo .

The comparison of the '64 and '65 SHP SB specs is grossly in error in the chart you posted.

The '64 and '65 engines were identical and so was the way GM rated them.

I was in the middle of it in '64. What were you doing then?

:rofl: I guess I'd go with the guy who was "in the middle of it" :thumbs:

To be fair (why not?) I'd say VeroWing was basing his assertion (which all of us immediately rejected as dead wrong) on a source that is itself erroneous - not his fault. But lets be clear - my 65 L76 is just as fast as a 64 L76!! :D

With all that Jack posted I say hell yeah...

As for building a Cobra.. Had one.. built it and have the t-shirt. They are fun as hell, the power to weight ratio is awesome. However it will never be a real car.. More like a shifter cart on steroids.

I sold my BackDraft car and bought a second midyear to wrench on.. She was a sexy ass bitch though..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...a/DSC_0002.jpg

Your source is worthless. Your attitude here is such that you cannot or will not believe that some of us here have been working with and on these cars for the better part of over 30+ years. And some for far longer than that. Knowing the compression ratio or differences between the various C2 engines is almost second nature to some of us. Perhaps the Corvette Shop Manual data will convince you.

http://imageshack.us/a/img841/1779/jxec.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img801/9116/mre6.jpg

What in the heck are those stains on the manual?:D

Well gentlemen "It appears we have ourselves a damn automobile race"

Oil, grease, brake fluid...take your pick. Some of us actually use the shop manual as something more than an ornament for the car library.

Based on yours and MikeMs expertise and posted information on this subject, I respectfully amend my original statement that 1964 alone was the highest horsepower of the small block C2 Corvette engines produced, to include the 1965 as same and equal in configuration and power output.

I furthermore will no longer rely on information provided in the Chevrolet Small-Block V-8 ID Guide as trustworthy. I have learned my lesson.

That was pretty well-written VW, and sincere. You just chose the wrong source to build your case on (Pierre Lafontaine - sounds like a french tool from his name alone, you should never trust someone with a name like that for solid car info :D )

cue the French jokes . . . .

You're right, I should have known better!:hide:

Wasn't Louis Chevrolet french :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

The lighter weight '64 vs the '65, I'd love to see that.

VeroWing, That was a great mea culpa. :cheers:

My advice would be to buy as many books as possible. Threads on what books would be best often come up so I would do a search for in the archives. There's a lot of misinformation out there. I suspect that the guide you were using was just sloppy editing - clearly not your fault.

:grouphug:...well done by all.

Sounds awesome. How about a photo?

:cheers:

HEY!!!! I've seen that view before.....lol. WTH are you doing driving my car, huh?