Squidio,
The early sixties '61, 62, 63, and '64 Chevrolets have and X frame chassis versus a perimeter (rectangle) chassis that the 1965 thru the final full size rear drive nineties models have.
Suspension technology, particularly the front suspension and steering on early sixties Chevies are awful when compared to 1965 and later.
Engineering in those days was still being done with slide-rule, pencil and paper. FOMOCO was the first to use computers to design suspensions and chassis set ups in the early sixties.
Huge improvements were made such that every manufacturer's 1965/1966/1967 cars were so much better than anything from 1963, or earlier and still way better than 1964.
Large GM cars from '61, '62, '63 and '64 are solidy constructed. GM did have the best Automatic transmissions of the period. Having said that, the best GM automatic transmissions began to appear in 1965 models of BUICK/PONTIAC/OLDS/CADILLAC and that would be the Turbohydramatic 400 (TH-400) and its variants. A Chevrolet version of this began in perhaps the 1966 model year, I am certain that the Chevrolet version Turbohydramatic 400 was available in 1967 Chevrolet.
This particular transmission is perhaps the most durable and reliable automatic transmission ever made.
It is also very inexpensive to rebuild as parts are simple and readily available and simple to rebuild.
One thing worth remembering:***The Chevrolet TH-400 has different bellhousing bolt configuration needed for Chevrolet engines. The Chevrolet TH-400 is generally very hard to find, say you wanted a Chevy TH-400 for the Smallblock chevy v-8 configuration because I think it (Chevy TH-400 for small v-8) was only used for several years in the sixties. A lighter and smaller variants, particularly the TH-350 which though very good , became the typical Chevy trans for the next decade.
TH-350 is nowhere near as indestructible as the TH-400. TH-350 is significantly lighter which has plusses for use in pony cars, mid size cars...etc and because of this the TH-350 developed a large aftmkt following. Still, the TH-400 equipped GM cars have the most durable Automatic transmission ever produced. Very hard to locate chevy small block TH-400 trannies as racers, particularly drag racers etc have kept and collected them for use.
BOPC versions are Indestructible but mate up to Buick/Olds/Pontiac/Cadillac, as they would need some type of machined/engineered adapter to mate to Chevy.
OK, so if you make significant IMPROVEMENTS to the BRAKES on any early Sixties American car ( FORD/GM/MOPAR/AMC/STUDEBAKER....it doesn't matter all of them have Horrible brakes)
you can make for half-way decent vehicle IF YOU ALSO IMPROVE THE SUSPENSION BY rebuilding everthing with new OEM replacement components and YOU ALSO REBUILD THE STEERING COMPONENTS with new OEM replacement parts. YOU WILL ALSO NEED TO CONVERT THE One CIRCUIT BRAKE SYSTEM to A DUAL-CIRCUIT BRAKE SYSTEM!!!
American Motors introduced the Dual-Circuit system in their 1962 models....because it was a mammoth technological improvement and safety item, ROLLS-ROYCE and CADILLAC immediately adopted this AMC engineering design for 1962 models too.
***This was such a great improvement and advancement that the US FEDERAL GOVERMENT mandated around 1965 that ALL NEW CARS SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE 1967 MODEL YEAR MUST BE SO EQUIPPED WITH DUAL-CIRCUIT BRAKE SYSTEM.
Other than AMC cars, Roll-Royce, and Cadillacs only from '62-'66 models, other cars did not feature dual circuit systems until 1967 model as most manufacturers wanted to save cost as it wasn't an item that the public knew much about like seat belts....
Engines in American cars did not become really good until at least 1963. Ford introduced a thin-wall lightweight v-8 in 1962 for the Fairlane. Cadillac and OLDSMOBILE produced the best and most durable v-8 engines from 1950 to the early sixties. Chevrolet was junk. Buick and Pontiac was OK.
MOPAR products and FORD products were just OK in v-8 engines, though CHRYSLER & FORD had both introduced great new lightweight inline sixes in late '59 for the 1960 Valiant & Falcon.
Chevrolet was popular junk because Chevrolet was the lowest priced cheapest General Motors car. (prior to Corvair......there were no other Chevrolet offerings, simply different trim levels of Chevies.. and the Corvette sports car) Because of this lowest price GM car, it was popular in the aftermkt as it was the new GM car that people could most afford to buy. A Chevrolet was junk in comparison to Oldsmobile or Cadillac, even though the small block chevy v-8 that arrived for 1955 model had been around for six model years before the early sixties. The small chevy v-8 was still junk at that time as it leaked oil and had not seen much refinement. This engine became hugely popular in the aftermarket because it was dimensionally smaller and lighter than most and could easily be transplanted into other vehicles.
By 1965 model year or so, Both CHEVROLET and FORD had recently introduced new large inline sixes that were extremely modern. AMC had recently introduced a modern v-8 and a modern inline six.
Chevrolet small block v-8 had become a quality engine by 1964 or 1965 due to minor improvents year over year. Chevrolet introduced a very solidly engineered big V-8 for 1965(big block) that unlike previous big Chevy v-8 engines, it, the 396 was not junk. (previous large Chevy v-8 engines like the 409 though extremely powerful were not durable...)
MOPAR also introduced a brand new design 318 v-8 about that time also which was superb. The slant six which appeared in '59 for the 1960 valiant had by 1965 become a great engine. Ditto for the small Ford inline six which had seen improvements.
The big engines in big cars were all really good by 1965 model for all American cars. Though you might expect only 8 to 10 MPG, the engines themselves were durable engines for the era.
Transmissions are a different story. GM and then Chrysler Torque flight transmissions and C-4 and C6 Ford Automatics of the '66 /1965 era and later are any good.
Sure earlier transmissions were OK given the junkmobile of that era, but again huge improvements by 1965 models for everybody in dependability and durability.
Still cars from 1965 to 1969 usually were equipped with small DRUM BRAKES (though DISC BRAKES became options on some in '65 or so)
****CARS got a lot better from 1965 to 1969 models as EVERYBODY WAS USING MAINFRAME COMPUTERS IN ENGINEERING DESIGN BY THE MID SIXTIES.
Collapsable steering columns were FEDERALLY MANDATED by 1968 models.
This is noteable as in a front end head on colision, the driver is less likely to be SPEARED like an arrow with the Steering column. FORD was the last to adopt the collapsable steering column when federally mandated. 1967 Ford cars simply have a vinyl covered foam pad in the steering wheel center near the horn, as they thought that was cost effective and suitable enough to suffice...LOL with a solid column.
I guess what I'm trying to get across with this lengthy post is that huge improvements in American automobiles were made between 1962 and 1969.
A 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 model might look cool to you but bear in mind that they were much more primitive in terms of steering/braking/suspension in most cases.
Also, and this is vitally important!!!!!: AUTOMOBILES WERE MADE AND DESIGNED WITH THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE WOULD BUY NEW CARS EVERY TWO to THREE YEARS and Thus WERE ONLY MADE TO MINIMAL QUALITY CONTROL STANDARDS. People did trade-in cars every two to three years back in those days. USED CAR buyers would buy used cars and would trade them at least every four years.
One needs to recognize that despite what people might say that the old cars were built to last and that is the biggest baloney and BS. Some of the mechanical engineering and the powerplant and auto transmission components were durable, however other design aspects weren't so good. Rust was not a consideration and in areas where road salt was common, a new car would rust out within three to four years so that it would not pass state safety inspection.
If you can stand near single digit MPG (fuel economy) and frequent maintenance/repairs, an older American car from that era can be fun and enjoyable BUT BE SURE TO BUDGET FOR NEEDED REPAIRS.
Cars were really crappy before at least the mid sixties. The 1968 and 1969 models are far better in every way from a mechanical standpoint and even a safety standpoint than 1965 and 1966 models.
The other thing that you might want to consider is that other than for very large luxury cars (Lincoln/Mercury/Chrysler/Imperial/CADILLAC/Olds/Buick/AMC AMBASSADOR....etc).........
FEW cars other than large luxury cars were equipped with AIR-CONDITIONING IN THE YEARS 1965 to 1970.
A/C was not even standard in Cadillac until about 1963 or 1962 model.
Those old cars that you are eyeing might look cool but
they might be too primitive for your liking.
I seriously would recommend that you consider something from at least 1965 or better yet something from at least 1969 or so.
Drive cars that are 1963, 1962, 1961 models and then drive 1965 and later models.......there is no comparison as huge advances in engineering with respect to steering and ride. Later models are even better in this area. Beginning in the early seventies poor quality and poorly thought out engineering design severely plagued GM engines, even though the chassis and steering and braking was well done for the era. All other US automakers suffered similar problems for at least a few years to a much lesser degree than seen at GM.
A 1966 through 1975 Impala/Caprice convertible would be fun and affordable enough to own.
Everything is available. Assuming that you have one with a 283/307/327/350 and a two barrel intake and the two barrel 2GC Rochester carburetor, you could expect 12 to 14 MPG and relatively reliable operation IF YOU RETROFIT the GM HEI distributor in place of the distributor with points.
Automatic Transmissions in these cars are good and easily and inexpensively rebuilt if needed.
Avoid anything with the 400cid V-8 or anything with the big block as gas mileage will be 6 to 8 MPG and you won't be able to afford to drive it anywhere on a road trip.
A 1966 through 1972 FORD GALAXIE/LTD convertible is equally excellent.
The FORD V-8 289/302 is superior to the small 283/307/350/327 Chevrolet as the FORD V-8 is far more fuel efficient. Expect 15 to 17 MPG with Ford factory two barrel intake and the FORD/AUTOLITE two barrel carburetor and RETROFITTING the FORD DURASPARK distributor seen on 1976 & later engines (Ford DURASPARK is FoRd's GM like HEI type distributor)
Again, these cars have great transmissions that are durable and inexpensive to rebuild.
YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT ANY CARS WITH 390 v-8, or 351 CLEVELAND V-8, or 429 V8.
They are durable engines but you will expect 8 MPG at best with either of those engines under the best of circumstances.
Big FORD's from 1965 to 1967 are inferior to GM cars in terms of interior/dash design and heating and A/C controls, etc. The seats and interior quality is lesser than that of 1965 to 1967 GM/chevy.
1968 onward and FORD is at least as nice as GM offerings.
GM's corporate A body cars from 1968 thru 1972 models are among the nicest riding and well designed chassis of any cars of the sixties. Engine quality varies according to what make engine/model
BEST in order of these A body cars of '68 -'72:
1)OLDS CUTLASS
2) tie: BUICK SKYLARK, CHEVY MALIBU/Chevelle, Pontiac
The OLDS CUTLASS convertible of 1970 thru 1972 is perhaps the best built convertible of anything built before the late eighties by any automaker in the world.
Equipped with the OLDS 350 Rocket V-8 or the big OLDS 455 V-8, these are among the most durable factory GM engines and are mated to bulletproof transmissions.
The serious drawback is fuel economy as one should expect 6 MPG with the 455 and about 8 to 10 MPG with the 350 ROCKET V-8 although economy could improve with a more economical rear axle ratio.
The main drawback might be that these '68-'72 A body cars are extremely collectible and the convertibles are very valuable. The smallblock Malibu/Chevelle will give the best MPG but don't expect more than 14mpg.
These are among the best designed and engineered GM cars of that time though reliabilty depends on the corporate engine in each particular model. Some aren't particularly great in terms of reliability but the OLDS cutlass with the 350 olds was very good.
Giant Lincoln, Cadillac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Chrysler, Dodge, Mercury full size land yachts of the mid to late sixties are mostly reliable if one sticks to 1965 and up models.
They can be found relatively cheap as no one wants gigantic cars relative to Camaros/Corvettes/Mustangs/GTO's/Chevelles/Cutlasses/Challengers/CUDAs/Chargers/Javelins, etc.
The main thing is that replacement parts are scarce for the land yachts as almost nobody reproduces any metal or interior or trim pieces exclusive to such models.
The mechanical parts can be found new and used and are easily found and rebuilt.
These are all monster gas hoggs.
My guess is that the '65 to '67 Cadillac and the Mercury/Lincoln land yachts will give the best MPG of the group. My guess is the '65-'67 Caddy before the 472 cid will offer the best MPG at maybe 10 or 11 MPG and the Mercury & Lincolns at 9 MPG and '68 and later Caddy's and Dodge and Chrysler and Oldsmobiles delivering 7 to 8 MPG.
These cars are nearly too costly to use from an MPG standpoint, even though all were among the most reliable American cars of their era.
My suggestion is that unless you seriously love and I mean seriously love any vehicle that is older than a 1965 model, you should forget them and go for something 21st century that carries an Asian automaker's badge.
They don't make them like they used to, For A Very Good Reason!
gas isn't $0.29 per gallon and remember that though your research might tell you that these cars got 13 or 14 MPG in 1967 or whenever, you must take into account that Modern gasoline has an alcohol content of about 10% and has much lower octane than the lowest octane fuel of 45 years ago. In order to function properly on modern gas, many large and powerful engines of the sixties and very early seventies WILL REQUIRE modified ignition timing to compensate for today's fuel.
Those of you with modern F150 and C-10 Silverados that are from 2012 and 2013 that deliver MPG of 15mpg understand spending $85 to $100 per week in gasoline. Now imagine spending twice that in fuel cost on something from the sixties.
The modern F150 and C-10 Silverados will be extremely reliable compared to anything built before the nineties.
Look at it this way, you will likely spend more on any ancient car in total from 8 years of ownership than if you bought a brand new base model Toyota Corolla or a Kia Soul.
Decide if it is worth it before you
and wonder why you didn't buy at least a 3 year old late model used Asian maker's car, if you can't afford a brand new one.
Brand new is the way to go. Better interest rates (very low rates) if you have decent credit/FICO.
One certain make has 10yr/100,000 mile warranty and inexpensive quality cars.
OLD CARS can be fun but they can be just as expensive as New cars, even though you'd never admit that is indeed the case
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Canadian Alternative
