Question about buying an old car

Nate Nagel wrote:
 >
 > WinterInAmerica wrote:
 >
  > > Hi there. I would be very interested in anyone's opinion on this
  > > matter. I am looking to buy my first car (always lived in philly, used
  > > public trans for years before this). I really would like my first car
  > > to be a mid-60s era cadillac. My friends think this is a phenomenally
  > > bad idea. Folks point to a lack of 'crumple zones' or airbags in older
  > > cars, that I would constantly have to replace parts (which would be
  > > some serious long green), and even then, where would I get parts, that
  > > I couldn't rely on it to get me to work, and that it is just plain
  > > dangerous, blah blah blah. In your expert opinions, how seriously
  > > should I regard these naysayers, and how much of what they are saying
  > > is mambojahambo? Despite all of this, I still find myself pretty
  > > dead-set on the idea - what advice could you give someone in my
  > > position who knows very little about cars, and who is looking to buy an
  > > older vehicle?
  > >
  > > Thanks!
  > > WiA
  > >
 >
 > I think that your friends are full of crap, a '60's Caddy would be an
 > excellent driver car. Unlike Chevys and Fords of the same era, the
 > Cadillac engines were excellently engineered and will last a long time
 > with only routine maintenance. Moreover, they're usually owned by
 > little-old-lady types and not abused.
 >
 > That said, if you know "very little about cars," you likely will be
 > violated most unpleasantly by the first repair shop you bring such a
 > machine to, and you should also not even buy a 30 year old car unless
 > you know how to look for common signs of trouble. Some problems that
 > look very scary are no big deal to someone who knows how to hold a
 > wrench; some that appear to be no big deal mean lots of expensive work
 > in the future. I'm not trying to discourage you from dreaming of one;
 > just saying that you should learn how to work on an old car first, then
 > go shopping. Sorry if I just burst your bubble.
 >
 > nate
 >
 >


The bad thing about Cadillacs is that they are an attractive "ghetto"
vehicle that may have been abused check its history for sure). Also,
northern GM cars of the era from northern rust belt regions can have
serious frame rust. Lastly, oil pumps on Cadillacs are notorious for
not picking up oil when standing for a length of time.

Aside from that, a mid sixties Caddy is a great ride though a fuel
thirsty one...



--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

I used to live near Philly and If you were to get an older cadillac i doubt
it would last to long on the street before it was stripped.

"Grumpy au Contraire" <Grumpy.DeleteThis@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote in message
news:41E1E43A.A8C1B9F0@doofis.FAKEcom...
 >
 >
 > Nate Nagel wrote:
  > >
  > > WinterInAmerica wrote:
  > >
   > > > Hi there. I would be very interested in anyone's opinion on this
   > > > matter. I am looking to buy my first car (always lived in philly, used
   > > > public trans for years before this). I really would like my first car
   > > > to be a mid-60s era cadillac. My friends think this is a phenomenally
   > > > bad idea. Folks point to a lack of 'crumple zones' or airbags in older
   > > > cars, that I would constantly have to replace parts (which would be
   > > > some serious long green), and even then, where would I get parts, that
   > > > I couldn't rely on it to get me to work, and that it is just plain
   > > > dangerous, blah blah blah. In your expert opinions, how seriously
   > > > should I regard these naysayers, and how much of what they are saying
   > > > is mambojahambo? Despite all of this, I still find myself pretty
   > > > dead-set on the idea - what advice could you give someone in my
   > > > position who knows very little about cars, and who is looking to buy
an
   > > > older vehicle?
   > > >
   > > > Thanks!
   > > > WiA
   > > >
  > >
  > > I think that your friends are full of crap, a '60's Caddy would be an
  > > excellent driver car. Unlike Chevys and Fords of the same era, the
  > > Cadillac engines were excellently engineered and will last a long time
  > > with only routine maintenance. Moreover, they're usually owned by
  > > little-old-lady types and not abused.
  > >
  > > That said, if you know "very little about cars," you likely will be
  > > violated most unpleasantly by the first repair shop you bring such a
  > > machine to, and you should also not even buy a 30 year old car unless
  > > you know how to look for common signs of trouble. Some problems that
  > > look very scary are no big deal to someone who knows how to hold a
  > > wrench; some that appear to be no big deal mean lots of expensive work
  > > in the future. I'm not trying to discourage you from dreaming of one;
  > > just saying that you should learn how to work on an old car first, then
  > > go shopping. Sorry if I just burst your bubble.
  > >
  > > nate
  > >
  > >
 >
 >
 > The bad thing about Cadillacs is that they are an attractive "ghetto"
 > vehicle that may have been abused check its history for sure). Also,
 > northern GM cars of the era from northern rust belt regions can have
 > serious frame rust. Lastly, oil pumps on Cadillacs are notorious for
 > not picking up oil when standing for a length of time.
 >
 > Aside from that, a mid sixties Caddy is a great ride though a fuel
 > thirsty one...
 >
 >
 >
 > --
 > JT
 >
 > Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

I grew up on old cars. I am 41 years old, and I've been driving other people's
old cars almost for as long as I've been driving. If you can find a mid 60's
car in your area that is in decent condition (you should be able to negotiate
with the dealer or seller to allow you to have a safety inspection performed),
it's worth a try. In my experience (I had a '59 Studebaker for a while and
then a '67 Lincoln), a lot of repair facilities will NOT be willing or able to
help you when it comes to having parts replaced. I used to take my cars upto
the neighborhood gas stations (before I started doing my own maintenence), and
they used to be able to order the routine tune-up parts and so on, but while I
had those cars, they claimed that that can't order that stuff anymore. So as a
result, I would go to the auto parts stores (the older well-established ones
like Napa, for example) and they would supply me with my parts (I would have to
know exactly what I want when I go in there). Then I would stockpile some of
the routine replacement parts, and when it was time for maintenence, I would
take my parts along with the shop manual & owners manual upto the gas station,
and then they would do the work. I had that experience with shock absorbers
also. Speedy Muffler couldn't order them. I already had a mail order catalog
which contained all of that stuff for my Studebaker, but my Dad suggested that
the local stores should be able to order the stuff too. Well, nobody could,
and so I ended up having to get the parts by mail. You should invest in mail
order parts catalogs specifically for your car. Studebaker was easy, but I was
not able to find any such catalogs for the Lincoln that I had. I wanted to
have the brakes replaced, and the gas station was able to get the brake pads,
but nothing else. I had a parts store order the rebuilt calapers for me, but
they couldn't get the brake hoses. I ended up going through the yellow pages
phone book and seeing an add for Vintage Auto Parts in the state of Washington.
I live in Ohio, and here was an ad for Washington. Since absolutely no one
here could order the hoses for me, I called them. They had them and sold them
to me for about $200 for the pair. They had special fittings on the ends that
no one else could supply. My guess is that they must have bought the machines
from Ford when they stopped making them. Then, I had a 1970 Chevy Nova. I
didn't have much difficulty with that car. It seems as though the repair shops
were better able to get parts for a 1970 than for a 1967 or a 1959.
I really like the old cars, but I can't afford to gamble with my transportation
in such a way. I have to know that I can have a repair made and be on my way
to work, and to not be waiting for weeks while parts are being located,
shipped, and then installed.
Right now I own a 1993 GMC Safari Van and a 2003 Chevy S10 Pickup Truck. I've
decided to say with General Motors, and have had more sucess with GM products
over the years.

The only thing I can say to you is to do a lot of research, and when you find
the car of your choice, get your parts catalogs and repair manuals. Don't
rely on the shops to have the stuff, because they may not- you really never
know.
Dale Wein

TeleDale Key Service,
http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/teledale
1811 Saratoga Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44109 U.S.A.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

On 9 Jan 2005 15:46:19 -0800, "WinterInAmerica" <aintitthetruth74.TakeThisOut@aol.com>
wrote:

 > Hi there. I would be very interested in anyone's opinion on this
 > matter. I am looking to buy my first car (always lived in philly, used
 > public trans for years before this). I really would like my first car
 > to be a mid-60s era cadillac. My friends think this is a phenomenally
 > bad idea.

Ignore them.

 > Folks point to a lack of 'crumple zones' or airbags in older
 > cars,

With a mid 60s Caddie, the other car IS the crumple zone.

 > that I would constantly have to replace parts (which would be
 > some serious long green)

When you own a classic, you have to expect to repair/replace things. That's
how it goes. Some parts can be really expensive (I own a '53 Caddie and a '58
Edsel), some are cheap, some are still made. It all depends.

 > and even then, where would I get parts, that
 > I couldn't rely on it to get me to work, and that it is just plain
 > dangerous

That's bullshit. If I can find parts for my '53, you'll certainly be able to
find them for your mid-60s model. Beware of McVey's parts though... they're
overpriced and have poor service, and are just generally snotty people (in my
past experiences with them). Kantner has a free catalog, and will have most
everything you'll need to do anything mechanical to the car. I highly
recommend them.

 > dead-set on the idea - what advice could you give someone in my
 > position who knows very little about cars, and who is looking to buy an
 > older vehicle?

Since you're new to it, I'd STRONGLY advise you to bring someone with you that
knows cars, and I mean really knows cars and what to look for in them. A
mechanic would be ideal, but you should have it inspected for deal-breaking
problems BEFORE you pay for it. If there's problems, don't let that stop you,
unless they'll cost more than you're willing to spend. Check for rust
(especially on the underside, floors, etc), check for leaks, smoke, electrical
problems. Something you might think is nothing can cost you a lot of money
later. That's why it's good to bring someone that knows these things if you
don't.

You WILL, however, be buying things. They're old cars, they've had a past,
and things wear out and break. That said, I've had more problems with my 1998
Dodge Dakota pickup than I have with my 1953 Cadillac or my 1958 Edsel, so
there ya go.

Another thing to think about... where will you store this car? If it's
on-street parking only where you live, you might be subjecting it to damage or
vandalism, so consider that too.


~~R.Banks<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

WinterInAmerica <aintitthetruth74 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
W> Hi there. I would be very interested in anyone's opinion on this
W> matter. I am looking to buy my first car (always lived in philly, used
W> public trans for years before this). I really would like my first car
W> to be a mid-60s era cadillac. My friends think this is a phenomenally
W> bad idea. Folks point to a lack of 'crumple zones' or airbags in older
W> cars, that I would constantly have to replace parts (which would be
W> some serious long green), and even then, where would I get parts, that
W> I couldn't rely on it to get me to work, and that it is just plain
W> dangerous, blah blah blah. In your expert opinions, how seriously
W> should I regard these naysayers, and how much of what they are saying
W> is mambojahambo? Despite all of this, I still find myself pretty
W> dead-set on the idea - what advice could you give someone in my
W> position who knows very little about cars, and who is looking to buy an
W> older vehicle?

W> Thanks!
W> WiA

60's Cadillacs are great, but you pay a premium when buying one, getting parts
or at the shop, as compared to say, a Chebby. Others have already given sound
advice, I'd just like to emphasize some of them.

Philly is in the Rust Belt, so be careful of rust buckets; Bondo and a cheap
paint job can easily hide terminal cancer.

Try going for one with low mileage on the clock; If the odometer is shot, check
the rubber on the brake pedal. Mechanical items are relatively easy/inexpensive
to fix/replace; however a new interior will cost you an arm and a leg.

You want fins? The last finned Caddy is from '64. If not, I would recommend a
'68-and-up 4-door model (DeVille). They have the virtually bullet-proof, beefy
472ci with the Turbo-HydraMatic-400 tranny, and a 4-door is less likely to
end up in a chop-shop than a Coupe.

The ideal situation would be if you could/would be doing most of the (regular
maintenance) work yourself, or you would be willing to learn as you go. You'd
save tons of money and not be on the mercy of sharks. It is true that you
cannot expect to find all you might need just by walking in to any auto parts
store; however, there's always eBay and the WEB, not just Hemming's.

Other things to consider, in random order:

Get the *BEST* available species you can afford; <-- This is my #1 tip!
Be careful when you see "reasonably priced" cars that need only "some TLC";
Approach a potential candidate with knowledge;
Look beyond the Rust Belt;
If you're concerned about gas money, don't buy a Cadillac;
Stockpile parts;
Join The Cadillac Mailing List: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/thecml/

You have shown that you have a discriminatory taste, now what you'll need is
the will and you can have a wondeful automobile (An old Caddy is not a car,
you know...).

Good luck! -Bela ('62 60S, '97 STS)
--
I shook my family tree, and a bunch of nuts fell out...
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

Lots of good advice already given. Especially like the comment
about the 'other' car being the crumple zone! Very true.

If you want one, go for it. I've had a '64 Lincoln for about 15 years
and its been an awesome car. Riceboxes get out of its way when they see
it in their rear view mirror.

With any older car, expect to have to do a fair amount of work. Part wear
out and it doesn't matter if its a VW or Mercedes. If you pay someone
else to fix it, expect to pay a lot. You'll be far better off if you learn
how
to pull your own wrenches. Also, buy the best car you can afford.

Steve
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

I'm still driving my 1953 Ford. It even has the original engine and never
been touched. I know im lucky but so far is hasnt let me down. I drive it
not only around town, but take it hundreds of miles, and so far it has
always brought me back. I do have the two safety features installled, AAA
and cel phone.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

Nate Nagel3 wrote:

I think that your friends are full of crap, a '60's Caddy would be an excellent driver car. Unlike Chevys and Fords of the same era, the Cadillac engines were excellently engineered and will last a long time with only routine maintenance. Moreover, they're usually owned by little-old-lady types and not abused. That said, if you know "very little about cars," you likely will be violated most unpleasantly by the first repair shop you bring such a machine to, and you should also not even buy a 30 year old car unless you know how to look for common signs of trouble. Some problems that look very scary are no big deal to someone who knows how to hold a wrench; some that appear to be no big deal mean lots of expensive work in the future. I'm not trying to discourage you from dreaming of one; just saying that you should learn how to work on an old car first, then go shopping. Sorry if I just burst your bubble. nate

Dude,
I would say, do whatever you want. Ignore those people people. If you want to buy a good car, bring a mechanic friend if you have one. Also, a small, strong magnet is a good way to find bondo work and heavy rust. Remember that not everyone on these boards is an expert. Example: the quote attached. GM builds both the Chevrolet and the Cadillac. The older Cadillacs are worth a lot of money, and probably worth whatever you put into it and probably more.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

If you can't figure it out, what I meant above, was that Chevy and Cadillacs normally use the same engine. As for Fords, they just $u(k.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car 

BadBow99S10 wrote:

 > "BadBow99S10" wrote:
  > > [quote:b34b62fac9="Nate Nagel3"]
  > >
  > > I think that your friends are full of crap, a '60's Caddy
  > > would be an
  > > excellent driver car. Unlike Chevys and Fords of the same
  > > era, the
  > > Cadillac engines were excellently engineered and will last a
  > > long time
  > > with only routine maintenance. Moreover, they're usually
  > > owned by
  > > little-old-lady types and not abused.
  > >
  > > That said, if you know "very little about cars," you likely
  > > will be
  > > violated most unpleasantly by the first repair shop you bring
  > > such a
  > > machine to, and you should also not even buy a 30 year old car
  > > unless
  > > you know how to look for common signs of trouble. Some
  > > problems that
  > > look very scary are no big deal to someone who knows how to
  > > hold a
  > > wrench; some that appear to be no big deal mean lots of
  > > expensive work
  > > in the future. I'm not trying to discourage you from dreaming
  > > of one;
  > > just saying that you should learn how to work on an old car
  > > first, then
  > > go shopping. Sorry if I just burst your bubble.
  > >
  > > nate
  > > [/quote:b34b62fac9]
  > >
  > > Dude,
  > > I would say, do whatever you want. Ignore those people
  > > people. If you want to buy a good car, bring a mechanic friend
  > > if you have one. Also, a small, strong magnet is a good way to
  > > find bondo work and heavy rust. Remember that not everyone on
  > > these boards is an expert. Example: the quote attached. GM
  > > builds both the Chevrolet and the Cadillac. The older
  > > Cadillacs are worth a lot of money, and probably worth
  > > whatever you put into it and probably more.
 >
 > If you can’t figure it out, what I meant above, was that Chevy and
 > Cadillacs normally use the same engine. As for Fords, they just $u(k.

Not in the era he's talking about, the Caddy engine is way superior to
the Chevy is just about every way except maybe for aftermarket
performance part availability (although that is improving.) In fact,
there's a few people that have swapped BBC 454s in trucks for Caddy
429/472/500 motors and are happy with both the power and improved fuel
economy.

I really didn't mean to discourage him, just letting him know that a
little extra work is going to be required. Case in point, I just bought
a '55 Stude last weekend. Now this car is freaking gorgeous, by far the
best looking car I've ever bought inside and out. Seems to have a
strong motor and tranny too. However, so far I have

-replaced the turn signal switch so it actually works now (had an
aftermarket strap-on-the-column deal)
-discovered I need a whole new exhaust system as apparently the exhaust
in the car was done before the engine and tranny were swapped for '63
stuff, and now the e-brake cable is hitting the driveshaft
-also discovered that the driveshaft I'm guessing is not the right one
for the engine/tranny/rear combo that I have as the tranny yoke is
farther out of the tailshaft than I'd like and the rear U-joint doesn't
look like it fits in the rear end correctly.
-found that the previous owner's idea of converting to 12V involves
throwing on an alternator, reversing the ammeter connections, and
replacing some light bulbs but *not* making any of the gauges work or
replacing the wiper or blower motors
-discovered that when the (incorrect Rochester) carburetor was installed
the throttle linkage was adjusted *way* out of spec so that it was
impossible to properly adjust the tranny throttle pressure linkage
without following the FSM adjustment procedure, starting at the
carburetor and working my way eventually down to the tranny.
-brakes, while working well, are starting to weep a little bit, so I'm
going to have to kit the wheel cylinders at some point in the very near
future.
-Found four rubber suspension bushings that need to be replaced and
three metal ones that won't take grease (along with the kingpin
bearings, which I expected as pretty much any Studebaker which has been
sitting needs to have the kingpins disassembled and the old, hard grease
cleaned out before those bearings can be lubed.)

Now I'm not bitching about my purchase - far from it, I'm tickled pink.
I'm just offering this up as an example of what happens when you get
into buying a 30 year old (or more) car. But if you're not mechanically
inclined, have, say, an $8K car budget, spend $7K on a car like I've
described above, and have to pay someone to rectify all those issues -
your old car ownership experience will be short and less than pleasant.

I agree wholeheartedly with your advice to bring along a more
mechanically inclined friend - he hopefully would be able to spot most
of these issues in a decent inspection.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about buying an old car