Dodge Dart 70-74. A body Barracuda 67-69. No reason to become a clone with another Mustang. Maybe an AMX if you have the dough. If you are going to stand out among the muscle car world you need to think outside the box or go for uniqueness. Nothing rare or unique about a mustang/nova/chevelle etc etc. If you do go ford or chevy look at the mid -late 60's stacked headlight vehicles. Not as common.
What is a durable classic car that is reliable?
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
A 1972 Ford Grand Torino or Mercury Montego May be easier to find
'67 Buick Gran Sport, '62 Olds Starfire, '64 Ford Galaxy, '65 Coupe de Ville
I did Mopar muscle cars for around 12 yrs back from 1991-2004...owned 1968-1970 Mopar big block muscle from 383-4v to 440+6v. All those cars were pretty reliable back then, even at 25-35 yrs old. My advice today no matter what car you decide on is to find one gone through fully by a previous fussy owner....or go after a mint low mileage version needing little. I'd go as stock as possible for resale value. By a car in a popular color scheme, with decent options for the period, and ideally documented with build sheet, window sticker or other such paper work. Before you venture into the documented and matching #'s area make sure you know what you're doing.
The Mustang 5.0 Fox bodies are not a bad choice. They're becoming more collectible. And you can find those in mint condition for not a ton of money. I considered going back to 1960's muscle in 2012 but found everything just too darn expensive for "correct" cars. So I bought the next best thing....strong bang for the buck in muscle cars....a 1999 Camaro SS 350 hp 6 speed with 12K miles - $11.9K from the original owner. The Fox Body is a little more vintage and you can do a similar thing. The car's with super low mileage are fresh enough that if the previous owner did the basics....they won't require much other than tires and fluid changes.
Whatever you pick, lean towards mint and superbly maintained. It's not hard to find rust free frames and uni-bodies in the 1960's and 1970's...you just have to be picky and persistent. They're out there. You just may have to look at 5 to 10 cars to find 1.
Besides Roadrunners, SuperBees, Chargers, Coronet R/T's, GTX, GSX, 442's, Skylarks, Grand Sports, GTOs, Demons, Dusters, Camaros, Firebirds, Chevelle 327/350/396, Malibu 427...there are also Mercury Cougars, Ford Torino's, etc. The Dodge Chargers are quite expensive today if correct and nicely done. Even the Firebirds and Camaro's of the late 1980's are worthy...especially the Turbo cars from 1988-1989. The Buick Grand Nationals and Regal Turbo T's are decent cars too. It's all about condition and maintenance.... followed by owner history, options, and color schemes.
The Mustang 5.0 Fox bodies are not a bad choice. They're becoming more collectible. And you can find those in mint condition for not a ton of money. I considered going back to 1960's muscle in 2012 but found everything just too darn expensive for "correct" cars. So I bought the next best thing....strong bang for the buck in muscle cars....a 1999 Camaro SS 350 hp 6 speed with 12K miles - $11.9K from the original owner. The Fox Body is a little more vintage and you can do a similar thing. The car's with super low mileage are fresh enough that if the previous owner did the basics....they won't require much other than tires and fluid changes.
Whatever you pick, lean towards mint and superbly maintained. It's not hard to find rust free frames and uni-bodies in the 1960's and 1970's...you just have to be picky and persistent. They're out there. You just may have to look at 5 to 10 cars to find 1.
Besides Roadrunners, SuperBees, Chargers, Coronet R/T's, GTX, GSX, 442's, Skylarks, Grand Sports, GTOs, Demons, Dusters, Camaros, Firebirds, Chevelle 327/350/396, Malibu 427...there are also Mercury Cougars, Ford Torino's, etc. The Dodge Chargers are quite expensive today if correct and nicely done. Even the Firebirds and Camaro's of the late 1980's are worthy...especially the Turbo cars from 1988-1989. The Buick Grand Nationals and Regal Turbo T's are decent cars too. It's all about condition and maintenance.... followed by owner history, options, and color schemes.
If big is no problem, other than feeding it, I'd be looking at a Galaxie or a Mercury S55. Look up the S55 on Pintrest
But to be on the real cool side, maybe a Falcon wagon or a Nova wagon. Wagons are pretty cheap, and they haul a lot. Plenty parts interchangeability with their 2-door brethren. A 5.8L Falcon wagon with Shelby front suspension and a narrowed 9" with slapper bars and good shocks will wake up the troops at the local coffee shop. The slight extra weight bias really helps on launch, and these are not hard to come by
I was once beaten so bad by a 1956 Chevy 4-door that looked like it had been painted with a broom ... That old boy walked all over my S55 Merc like it was parked or rolling backwards down hill. The Merc was a solid high 12's, low 13's car. That old Chevy was prolly an 11 second small block.
Point being you can start out with a pretty rough exterior and get it all correct underneath. Then start sweating the paint work and upholstery
Or a little 49 Ford F1 with a SBF. Good serviceable run around truck and it will haul if you have it set-up right
But to be on the real cool side, maybe a Falcon wagon or a Nova wagon. Wagons are pretty cheap, and they haul a lot. Plenty parts interchangeability with their 2-door brethren. A 5.8L Falcon wagon with Shelby front suspension and a narrowed 9" with slapper bars and good shocks will wake up the troops at the local coffee shop. The slight extra weight bias really helps on launch, and these are not hard to come by
I was once beaten so bad by a 1956 Chevy 4-door that looked like it had been painted with a broom ... That old boy walked all over my S55 Merc like it was parked or rolling backwards down hill. The Merc was a solid high 12's, low 13's car. That old Chevy was prolly an 11 second small block.
Point being you can start out with a pretty rough exterior and get it all correct underneath. Then start sweating the paint work and upholstery
Or a little 49 Ford F1 with a SBF. Good serviceable run around truck and it will haul if you have it set-up right
If you have time, money and don't mind putting up with buying a classic in the USA, there will be car shows on Labor Day weekend.
The Auburn, Indiana auction is this Labor day weekend, too.
The Auburn, Indiana auction is this Labor day weekend, too.
Drove my Charger on 85% of its original parts for 30k miles. Yes, that includes the 4 wheel drum brakes.
If you want a reliable muscle car, you need the following key upgrades:
Modern alternator. This is easy on Ford, Chevy, or Dodge.
Dual-circuit brakes and front discs. There are cheap options for all 3 marques.
Electronic ignition. Can't go wrong with a DUI distributor.
Modern fan and fan clutch. Parts bin operation. Cheap.
AC for the heat. Don't bull around. Get a Vintage Air kit and call it a day.
Where American muscle is concerned, early 70's Oldsmobiles were the BEST built muscle cars by far. Olds was Olds. They were not going to slap anything together that got their badge, even a muscle car.
Not to mention early 70's Cutlasses were hot as Hades. They always get the appreciative side-eye from me when I see them.
If you want a 60s Charger, beware that the seats are gaaaaaaaarbage. They were considered awful seats even back when these cars were new. The electric chair is more comfortable.
If you want a reliable muscle car, you need the following key upgrades:
Modern alternator. This is easy on Ford, Chevy, or Dodge.
Dual-circuit brakes and front discs. There are cheap options for all 3 marques.
Electronic ignition. Can't go wrong with a DUI distributor.
Modern fan and fan clutch. Parts bin operation. Cheap.
AC for the heat. Don't bull around. Get a Vintage Air kit and call it a day.
Where American muscle is concerned, early 70's Oldsmobiles were the BEST built muscle cars by far. Olds was Olds. They were not going to slap anything together that got their badge, even a muscle car.
Not to mention early 70's Cutlasses were hot as Hades. They always get the appreciative side-eye from me when I see them.
If you want a 60s Charger, beware that the seats are gaaaaaaaarbage. They were considered awful seats even back when these cars were new. The electric chair is more comfortable.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
The electric chair is more comfortable.
ROTFL! Good one!
The electric chair is more comfortable.
ROTFL! Good one!
63 Vette.
My uncle bought one, after coming back from Vietnam. As a young kid, that car SCARED me. LOL.
My uncle bought one, after coming back from Vietnam. As a young kid, that car SCARED me. LOL.
Well from experience, a ‘70’s Cadilllac. Have a 1978 Fleetwood Brougham with 425 CI V8 with 230,000 and it’s been great. I’ve had it for several years now and hasn’t had any problems, except for the ancient ball joints. Mines the 4 bbl model, this was the first year of EFI as an option, I believe. I’d rather have carbureted than TB anyway. Thing drinks the fuel though.
I was following a 74 Eldorado convertible last evening...bright red, white top down, white leather, driver smoking a fat stogie. My wife kept asking me if I'd want something like that, she could tell by my big silly grin that I'd ROCK that car!
70 to 72 Monte Carlo. I see them out here in Arizona for sale all the time and much more reasonable than most others. Not so much a muscle car as say a GTO, Chevelle, Charger or Mustang, but nice just the same.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Where American muscle is concerned, early 70's Oldsmobiles were the BEST built muscle cars by far. Olds was Olds. They were not going to slap anything together that got their badge, even a muscle car.
Not to mention early 70's Cutlasses were hot as Hades. They always get the appreciative side-eye from me when I see them.
I'd include Buick as every bit the equal (maybe better) of Olds up until ~73 or so for final assembly quality, fit/finish, etc. But for the basic engineering design... Mopar all the way. Where Chrysler sometimes fell down was on the execution: assembly, fit, finish. The engineers were a decade or two ahead of everyone else, the factory floor was often a decade behind.
Of course the wheels completely fell off of all GM products as for as build quality about 1975, too, so that advantage went away. "Monday morning/Friday afternoon" sloppy cars became the norm, not the exception.
Where American muscle is concerned, early 70's Oldsmobiles were the BEST built muscle cars by far. Olds was Olds. They were not going to slap anything together that got their badge, even a muscle car.
Not to mention early 70's Cutlasses were hot as Hades. They always get the appreciative side-eye from me when I see them.
I'd include Buick as every bit the equal (maybe better) of Olds up until ~73 or so for final assembly quality, fit/finish, etc. But for the basic engineering design... Mopar all the way. Where Chrysler sometimes fell down was on the execution: assembly, fit, finish. The engineers were a decade or two ahead of everyone else, the factory floor was often a decade behind.
Of course the wheels completely fell off of all GM products as for as build quality about 1975, too, so that advantage went away. "Monday morning/Friday afternoon" sloppy cars became the norm, not the exception.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
But the structure, ride, and handling are weak, the steering is straight out of 1955, and the brakes are a joke.
Not sure exactly what vehicles you're talking about here, but that is certainly not true of most "weekend cruiser" type restoration/resto-mods these days. Maybe if you do a "factory correct" restoration right down to the bias-ply tires you'd be right...
It takes very little to make a 60's car handle and stop about as well as a modern pickup truck or SUV, and while that's not sports-car territory its certainly not "right out of 1955" or "a joke" by any means. For example, 69 Coronet doesn't stop and corner like my 2012 SRT-8, but it is comparable to my wife's Grand Cherokee or my 2008 truck. What's been done to it? Well, it had factory disk brakes but I upgraded with modern pad materials. Mopars always handled OK compared to GMs, but with an added rear stabilizer bar, thicker front stabilizer bar, polygraphite bushings, and Bilstein shocks it easily moves into the 20th century. You can do the same to a Ford or GM, but it takes a little more work- higher rate springs and so forth. My car still has non-rack-and-pinion steering, but its a FirmFeel Inc. rebuild of a factory style steering box that is much closer to R&P steering feel. Since its a convertible, I added front/rear subframe connectors to stiffen the chassis a bit, but chassis flex is still its biggest drawback. Modern tires are essential, in a slightly larger size than OEM (though I refuse to put 20" wheels on a proper muscle car, that just looks stupid).
You can go much further and do a full coil-over, 4-link, and front subframe / rack-and-pinion conversion, bigger-than-stock Wilwood or Brembo front/ rear disk brake kits, etc. and *literally* make one handle like a stock Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger, but for me that actually takes too much character away from a vintage car.
But the structure, ride, and handling are weak, the steering is straight out of 1955, and the brakes are a joke.
Not sure exactly what vehicles you're talking about here, but that is certainly not true of most "weekend cruiser" type restoration/resto-mods these days. Maybe if you do a "factory correct" restoration right down to the bias-ply tires you'd be right...
It takes very little to make a 60's car handle and stop about as well as a modern pickup truck or SUV, and while that's not sports-car territory its certainly not "right out of 1955" or "a joke" by any means. For example, 69 Coronet doesn't stop and corner like my 2012 SRT-8, but it is comparable to my wife's Grand Cherokee or my 2008 truck. What's been done to it? Well, it had factory disk brakes but I upgraded with modern pad materials. Mopars always handled OK compared to GMs, but with an added rear stabilizer bar, thicker front stabilizer bar, polygraphite bushings, and Bilstein shocks it easily moves into the 20th century. You can do the same to a Ford or GM, but it takes a little more work- higher rate springs and so forth. My car still has non-rack-and-pinion steering, but its a FirmFeel Inc. rebuild of a factory style steering box that is much closer to R&P steering feel. Since its a convertible, I added front/rear subframe connectors to stiffen the chassis a bit, but chassis flex is still its biggest drawback. Modern tires are essential, in a slightly larger size than OEM (though I refuse to put 20" wheels on a proper muscle car, that just looks stupid).
You can go much further and do a full coil-over, 4-link, and front subframe / rack-and-pinion conversion, bigger-than-stock Wilwood or Brembo front/ rear disk brake kits, etc. and *literally* make one handle like a stock Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger, but for me that actually takes too much character away from a vintage car.
60's Falcon.Short of gutting the car, totally re-engineering the entire suspension, and adding a rollcage, you have bad handling, wet-noodle structure, and terrible brakes. I agree on Mopars-their suspension geometry is MUCH better. (Just ask Rick Ehrenberg.)
I had a 1970 Camaro back in the early 1980s, but to be honest I like my Y2K Mustang better. I would go with something more modern like a Fox Body where parts are easy to get. Body parts for the old Camaro are now Taiwan made and pretty pricey. I replaced fenders for my 2000 for a little over 100 bucks (aftermarket, but cheap) and they fit well. Personally, I like the Mustang SN95 form 1994-1998 better than the Fox, but beauty is within the eye of the beerholder. I was looking for one when I stumbled across my wrecked 2000 with lowish miles. I ended up spending $6300 total incl. parts, body shop, etc. and went over what the car is worth, but find one already in good shape for about the same amount of money. I just like working on stuff as a hobby so I didn't care about the money and the car turned out looking like new. Just something to think about. 
The black car is a 1998 GT with the slightly different body style I did for my sister; she always wanted a Mustang GT. It was black to begin with, but I painted it metallic black ( a Chrysler paint code).
very sweet cars Silverado12
- Status
