Are people really paying insane prices for used cars?

Joined
May 21, 2014
Messages
852
Location
Ohio
At the risk of another "wow these prices are nuts," threads, are people really paying more than top dollar for used cars?

Case in point, I saw a nice looking "1986 Monte Carlo SS" locally. No price, no information other than that an phone. Not mint, missing headliner. And it's a 35 year old car. So, hoping maybe $3000 to $5000, I called. The owner seemed annoyed to get my call. Couldn't get a straight answer out of the guy, said it was owned by an old lady who recently passed and he acquired it. I asked what motor it had, he said it came with a 305, but she put a 350 in it. I'm not a expert on that era but I think the SS all would have come with the 350s, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it immediately sounds like a fictional story. It's "low miles" but I couldn't get a straight answer from him and I felt we ran out of Q/A runway. I felt like I was running out of his patience of answering even fundamental questions, so I asked his price. $11,000.

Um. Okay sir, good luck to you.

Now, keep in mind there's nothing particularly special about this car design to my knowledge. That 350ci puts out pretty weak performance numbers by todays standards (180hp). That body style is interesting but dated. There's basically no modern safety features whatsoever. It needs a headliner, and who knows what else but even if impeccable and low miles

So, I think this guy is dreaming. I looked at some nationwide pricing for extremely perfect examples which are in the $20s to 40s. I'm thinking $5k for an honest nice example is reasonable. So IMO $11,000 even for a very nice example, is unrealistic in my view. That's 1/2 of what a entry level modern muscle car costs, which is gonna be a lot nicer by every metric. So, are people really paying this? And who are these people? What is going on in the 70s, 80s, and 90s use car markets to justify these nutty prices? Is it just a trickle down issue, that new cars are unobtainium, making newer older cars too unaffordable, so now 30-40 year old cars are still absurd?

And, who is paying $40k for even a mint example? Makes no sense. A new mid-range Mustang is $40k, offers twice the performance, and a pile of safety features, and warranty, etc.
 
At the risk of another "wow these prices are nuts," threads, are people really paying more than top dollar for used cars?

Case in point, I saw a nice looking "1986 Monte Carlo SS" locally. No price, no information other than that an phone. Not mint, missing headliner. And it's a 35 year old car. So, hoping maybe $3000 to $5000, I called. The owner seemed annoyed to get my call. Couldn't get a straight answer out of the guy, said it was owned by an old lady who recently passed and he acquired it. I asked what motor it had, he said it came with a 305, but she put a 350 in it. I'm not a expert on that era but I think the SS all would have come with the 350s, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it immediately sounds like a fictional story. It's "low miles" but I couldn't get a straight answer from him and I felt we ran out of Q/A runway. I felt like I was running out of his patience of answering even fundamental questions, so I asked his price. $11,000.

Um. Okay sir, good luck to you.

Now, keep in mind there's nothing particularly special about this car design to my knowledge. That 350ci puts out pretty weak performance numbers by todays standards (180hp). That body style is interesting but dated. There's basically no modern safety features whatsoever. It needs a headliner, and who knows what else but even if impeccable and low miles

So, I think this guy is dreaming. I looked at some nationwide pricing for extremely perfect examples which are in the $20s to 40s. I'm thinking $5k for an honest nice example is reasonable. So IMO $11,000 even for a very nice example, is unrealistic in my view. That's 1/2 of what a entry level modern muscle car costs, which is gonna be a lot nicer by every metric. So, are people really paying this? And who are these people? What is going on in the 70s, 80s, and 90s use car markets to justify these nutty prices? Is it just a trickle down issue, that new cars are unobtainium, making newer older cars too unaffordable, so now 30-40 year old cars are still absurd?

And, who is paying $40k for even a mint example? Makes no sense. A new mid-range Mustang is $40k, offers twice the performance, and a pile of safety features, and warranty, etc.

Most every Monte Carlo SS from that era came with a dismal 305 and a sucky 4 speed automatic. I don't know if the very rare aero coupe came with a 350.
Very good car to throw a better SBC in. I'd rather have a 307 Cutlass Supreme from that era.
 
People like old cars? They are going for big bucks for some reason.
And, while true, "old cars" from certain eras offered incredible era styling, and often huge performance over what was available in the new market. For example, in the 1980s when stuff was pathetic, the 1960s era vehicles gained a huge following. Also, there was not night and day difference in safety.

Today, of the old era there's not much performance wise, nothing comes close to the safety of today... I just don't get it. Spending as much on a anemic old coffin on wheels, versus a new car that has twice the performance and worlds better safety so you can actually survive an accident.

Some of the styling in those earlier eras is better but that's all subjective really.
 
Well GM had to idle one of it's truck plants down to lower the supply of trucks backing up at dealerships. I think you could get a good deal on a truck now, maybe even negotiate it down from MSRP!


Last I knew, Fort Wayne only builds double cabs. If so, that's the problem.

I'm betting they're still building crew cabs in the other plants, as fast as they can.
 
I had an ‘85 Chevy van with one of those, with a 700R4 behind it. It was probably the most gutless turd I’ve ever owned, couldn’t even run 75 on the interstate without drafting off another truck! E10 killed carbs on it regularly, too.
That's my thinking. 180hp out of the 350 is sad, but the 305 must be an absolute dog.
 
And, while true, "old cars" from certain eras offered incredible era styling, and often huge performance over what was available in the new market. For example, in the 1980s when stuff was pathetic, the 1960s era vehicles gained a huge following. Also, there was not night and day difference in safety.

Today, of the old era there's not much performance wise, nothing comes close to the safety of today... I just don't get it. Spending as much on a anemic old coffin on wheels, versus a new car that has twice the performance and worlds better safety so you can actually survive an accident.

Some of the styling in those earlier eras is better but that's all subjective really.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote. People do what they do. I had a friend trade in a 68 Camaro SS for an 86 Camaro IROC a couple years ago.
 
A mid-size, RWD GM platform that will easily accept virtually any engine and transmission GM ever made and has the full support of nearly every aftermarket performance part manufacturer without the massive boomer price tag of a 67-69 Camaro?

Why would anybody ever buy a car like that?

People buy old G-bodies because they do this really well:
video-watch-cleetus-mcfarland-rip-off-career-bests-in-mullet-2022-10-13_00-41-33_125251.jpg


They do this really well too:
Lance-Hamilton-Monte-Carlo-SS-.jpg
 
As I've mentioned before, I have a 1991 magazine that is a compilation of road tests from the old Hi-Performance Cars magazine. The fastest 1/4 mile time was a 12.5 posted by Joe Oldham's 1969 Motion Performance big block Camaro- with 4.10 gears, uncapped headers and slicks. Aside from that car most of the others put up 1/4 mile ETs in the 13.5-14.5 second range. Those times are definitely on the slow side of average for performance cars these days. My 2007 Mazdaspeed 3 could run in the low 14 second range and trap 100 mph all day long- and that's with a 2.3 liter turbo that averaged 26+ mpg over the 8 years and 158,000 miles I had it. My M235i returned similar fuel economy but ran the 1/4 mile in 12.9 sec @ 109 mph. The C43 shaves a few tenths off of that. Even my wife's X1 can run the quarter in 14.6 sec @ 95 mph(a bit faster than my 1988 M6 when it was stock). That said, I love the musclecars from that era; if I had the money and garage space I'd have a Boss 302, an XR7-G, an AAR Cuda, a GSX, and a Ram Air IV Judge- but I still definitely believe that "the good old days" are NOW.
 
Without seeing the car it is impossible to tell if this is a reasonable price or not. Almost all came with the 305 and they are highly sought after today.
 
This phenomenon came to light for me in 2019 when I decided I wanted a Fox body Mustang. I learned very quickly that I wasn't just going to run out and get a nice '93 5.0 LX unless I planned to fork over my right leg and some other parts that will go unnamed. Nostalgia has turned to mania and people are forking over huge amounts of money to relive certain eras of their lives, or live the dream that passed them by. I did end up getting an '82 Fox, but it was very much the wrong one that I didn't keep long. I've learned that looking at the past requires rose colored glasses, because I've gone through a few more oldies since 2019 that were just too much to handle, repair-wise, and weren't as good or fun as I remembered them to be when they were new. Malaise era, indeed. You have to have deeper pockets and more time than I to get a truly nice, old car worth having. I'm making more money now than I was then, so think the Shadow I have now is going to work out . I'm not looking for anything else, but I keep entertained with the ads and the prices attached. It's mind boggling.

Screenshot_20220913-185615-443.jpg
 
Back
Top