Gents,
For the past few months while waiting for my 1940.... 346 engine to have it's overhaul completed I have read all the postings on this forum except in the WANT TO BUY column. I am 52 pages into that thread now, back to April 2013. I've noticed that as recently as 3 or 4 years ago there were many, many posting concerning cars from the 30s and 40s.
However for the past 2 or 3 years there is are few mentions of automobiles from this era. Did I miss the golden era for my 1940 LaSalle? Has the desire for pre-war vehicles been lost to an earlier generation?
I am 69 years of age and may be among the younger (that's a laugh) persons to still treasure these older cars. If so...my only regret is that I did not get involve a few years sooner. Either way I anxiously await the return of my engine from the rebuilder. Hopefully the LaSalle will be back on the road by mid summer. I cannot wait.
I am so grateful for this forum and all the experiences shared here.
Bob
I am 52 and I have had my 1940 Lasalle for 20 years. I agree with Bob that interest in pre war cars is waning. The focus now is on cars from the 50's and 60's. Many reproduction parts for my car are no longer available. Also some knowledgeable club members who were familiar with these cars from their younger days have died. Tom Boehm, New Albany Indiana.
Bob, I'd say that the interest has not faded away but rather the buyers have in great numbers, and it's not limited to Cadillac and LaSalle. I've also been a '33 Chevrolet owner for 38 years, only 1 year longer than being a Cadillac owner, and 5 years ago was super fortunate enough to be able to acquire an uber rare '33 Chevrolet Phaeton with all of it's provenance back to its original bill of sale. While complete and not rotted it is in need of a fully deserved frame off restoration which is my plan. Here too, however, the challenge is one of money in Vs money out. A short 10 years ago there would be no doubt that the restoration would double the investment. Five years ago a 150% return would be reasonable. Today, I'd be lucky to break even. What's selling for the big bucks these days, and a horrible thought, is to take the car and do a RestoMod to it to make it look OEM, but drive like today's cars......I can't phathom the thought on this car.
Even on the recent BJ and Mecum Auctions, the full classic cars from the 20's, 30's that easily have over $100k into restoration costs are selling for far far less than that. A recent BJ auction had the most gorgeous Pierce Arrow that must have had $30k in chrome work alone, sold for just over $50k if I recall........
So, IMO, there is still interest, just not the money chasing them like there used to be unless of course it is a full one off classic that must be in a collection for the right person.....
Jeff
The prewar cars are much more of a work of art than the post war cars. I think that post war cars are made more for the driver and prewar more for the passengers.
I'm 56 and the 1961 thru say 1976 Cadillac are the most interesting to me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and a 1970 Cadillac just draws me to it, whereas way less interest in a muscle car. I was a kid when these car were new and they commanded attention - you made it in life if you drove one.
Another reason I like them is they are extremely drivable in modern traffic and can be made fairly safe. Seatbelts were around in the 50's, 1962 delivered dual master cylinder brakes, 1967 first year of collapsible steering column, 1968 first year for flush door handles (maybe door beams for side impact protection), 1969 all Cadillacs disc brakes, head restraints, locking column all standard standard. Then radials by 1973. You can easily add a modern collapsible steering wheel, power dual master cylinder with disc brake system and door beams to a 1961 Cadillac.
Also this era of cars generally very comfortable and often have (or can be added) tilt/telescoping steering wheel, air conditioning, power seats, power locks, power windows, twilight sentinel, trunk release and pull down - basically everything a modern car except nav system and cup holders.
I would not want a 1970 series 75 where the front seat is fixed and no tilt wheel because it is meant for the passengers, not the driver.
I think the pre war cars will always command respect and be desired, maybe by fewer people, but that is OK maybe they do not know what they are missing. Oldest car I ever drove or rode in was a 1954 Cadillac series 62 convertible and I was very impressed with power and handling. Maybe the public just needs more exposure to prewar cars.
One of the problems with obtaining a pre-war anything is that the people with them, don't want to sell them, and if they did want to, the prices would be too high for most people.
Plus, obtaining parts for them is getting into the realms of unobtanium. Even post-war stuff is getting dearer, and scarcer.
Bruce. >:D
It certainly is true. Interest seems to be directly linked to age. When I was young most of the valuable interest was in teens and 20s cars. That's what you saw at the shows. My interest was 30s and these guys couldn't understand that. Now these people have gone, their cars are in museums and my kind of cars took centre stage. The next generation under me only had eyes for 40s and 50s cars. I couldn't understand that as they were my daily drivers and so it go's on. My son in his 30s wants nothing but 70s cars and while people might still admire my cars at shows they do not want to own them.
As we all die off the demand is not there and the price drops.unless the car is exotic. There are also 'bubbles' that certain cars go through where their value skyrockets . I have seen it with 41 convertibles, sadly after I sold mine >:( Then it was the 59 convertibles. These bubbles seem to be moving along with the generations. Here right now it's happening with 70s Aston martins and Morgans which completely bewilders me. In 30 years it will be cars from 2000s if they ever can be restored? I doubt it with all the technology which will be obsolete but any that survive will be worth a fortune.
Bruce, I think it depends on the make of the car. The parts for pre-war Fords are plentiful and I imagine they always will be. I owned a '32 Ford until 2012 and there were no parts that weren't available.
On the other hand, I've heard from friends who own Chrysler products cars that pre-war parts for even Plymouths and Dodges are not easy to find.
As for post-war, so far almost all parts for my '49 Cad are available. The only exceptions are some of the chrome trim pieces and if you search for a while even those can be found for a price.
Hello
Interesting topic for discussion with very valid points. I love every LaSalle....but that market is in decay. As a Global Appraiser-Broker-Consultant I have observed a decline in value and interest by the United States population in Prewar American cars. However in Asia, Australia and Europe there is a great surge to acquire Postwar American Iron by Generation Xers and Millennials. To avoid "bubbles" I advise my clients to purchase an original condition, low production or restored vehicle to achieve a good return on investment.
I've got to believe it's the $$ thing. There are a select few that can afford a restored (or needing restoration) pre-war Cadillac. The production numbers are low-- in comparison to post war Cadillacs. Many guys are now finding out the truth in terms of money that it takes to "do" a pre-war Cadillac.
There are guys with the big money than can afford them but after that there are still many cars that are just too expensive (not overpriced mind you) for the average working man to afford in today's economy. The costs to restore a car, as most of us know here on the forum, is going up every year. As has been pointed out, you seldom can "make money" on even a well restored car-- of any year, make or model.
Sadly it appears that this is a hobby that is simply getting too expensive for the "hobbyist" to enjoy.
As a side note, I've been looking at a 250 Ferrari for sale. It is missing the motor, the transmission, and many other parts. But, hey, it's a '60's Ferrari right? It still has to be worth at least 50K since nicely done cars or well documented originals are going for upwards of a half a million? But as it turns out the car remains unsold-- for months now. It's seems it's the same "money" issue. Most guys with the resources to "do" the car don't see the wisdom of tracking down all the missing parts, working years on the restoration, and having in the car as much or more than they can buy a nice documented car for. And with the means to purchase one, why even consider the endeavor?
Is it possible this is the fate many pre-war Cadillacs suffer that are in need of restoration? Is this a contributing factor to the waning interest in these cars?
Add to this the fact that younger folks have all grown up with "modern" cars. A/C, power steering, power windows, etc. are all normal comfort options that most likely came standard on every car that they have owned including the first car they ever owned. Is it that the pre-war cars are just too unenjoyable for them whereas the 50's and 60's cars are more comfortable for them, more like what they are used to?
Quote from: Jay Friedman on April 26, 2017, 03:58:59 AM
Bruce, I think it depends on the make of the car. The parts for pre-war Fords are plentiful and I imagine they always will be. I owned a '32 Ford until 2012 and there were no parts that weren't available.
G'day Jay,
I was referring to Cadillacs and LaSalles. There will always be a supply of parts for the "A Model, and V8 Fords as there will always be Hot Rodders. They are even making complete Fibreglass bodies for these, as well as steel reproductions, to fill the demand for these.
Bruce. >:D
The record price ever paid for a Cadillac or LaSalle occurred within the last several years and the car was a prewar V16 model.
In response to the OP, the answer can be "yes", "no", "maybe" but the only true answer is "it depends".
It's never good to generalize...generally. ;)
I've owned a few 61/62 Cadillacs since 2004. My first one had a period correct under dash a/c unit that threw ice cubes at you as you drove. Made driving on hot days pleasant. My last 61 Fleetwood was not equipped as such. Made the driving experience much less enjoyable such that on a hot day, I just drove my regular car.
Having just bought my first 1970s Cadillac, comfort and convenience seem light years ahead of the 61. Plus working ac makes it more enjoyable overall as well. Seats are night and day compared to the 61. The tilt and telescopic steering allows me to find a comfortable position and leave it for hours on end whereas I was always moving the seat in the 61 to get comfortable.
I've driven a Lasalle and it was fun but don't really see how something like that would suit my purpose. I have a 53 Fleetwood that I have to get to work on but I'm now questioning it in favour of perhaps finding another 1970s Cadillac. The Fleetwood, if I decide to do something with it, will have an A6 compressor runnung on 1962 brackets under the hood and a Vintage Air unit in the trunk though. I want the driving experience to be pleasant not hot and sticky.
Oh yeah, and I'm pushing 40. So maybe that has something to do with it. Like previously mentioned, comfort amenities are everything.
I think everybody has covered the reasons well; Price to buy, price to restore, ease and comfort of driving in modern traffic, and as Cadillac hobbyists age, the prewar cars become relics from a time before any of us remember. The emotional attachment for many goes back to their youth...I have a thing for 2nd gen Sevilles too...which is an acquired taste others dont share.
But I will say this, as a 34 year old - I would love to have a pre-war Cadillac. The grill on the 1940, or the total voluptuousness of the 30s cars, or the nearly victorian novelty of cars further back - man, I would love to have one. But it is nearly inconceivable. I can't see being able to afford one, or really do one justice - so, I guess for those cars its either the Jay Leno type enthusiast with a ton of garageroom and unlimited resources and several cars to keep him happy, or - its the museum.
Thanks to all of you for well thought out and reasonable responses. From what I have read here, the answer to my question is YES. That is O.K with me. I did not buy the LaSalle as an investment. Rather as something that I can drive and take to a few local car shows with a feeling of pride. I intend to drive/own it for the remainder of my life. None the less....I had assumed it would hold it's value. Doesn't seem to be the case.
My car is beautifully restored and missing nothing. I have all the receipts for the restoration process, which was finished in 2000 and then driven 4,200 miles. It has been kept in a dry/heated/air conditioned garage ever since and shows almost no aging. Despite the person who restored the vehicle doing all the work himself....the value of his receipts add up to more than I paid for the car. So obviously in 2016 one could not turn a profit on a restored LaSalle such as mine....even one completed 16 years prior.
Were it not for the engine issues I would think that I received fair value for my money. After all is said and done....everything in the engine except for the crank and 6 of 8 rods will be new. Final cost for the removal, overhaul and installation will add about 40% to what I paid for the car. Still I will be happy should that be the last of major issues for a few thousand miles. And yes I know that the 346 engine was not original with my car. Didn't know that when I bought it but is fine with me. I'll enjoy the extra 5 h.p.
I got interested in a LaSalle last spring, when a wealthy individual leased space in my hangar to store his 1939 LaSalle 4 door sedan. It was a survivor with 34,000 original miles which had been stored since 1960. He had the car restored to factory new and told me that he had spent well north of $100,000.00 in the process. At the time I had no idea of the value of his car. Having learned a bit over the past year...it seems that he "might" get $40,000.00 for his perfect 39. But he doesn't have to worry about the money and has no intention of selling any way. Seems his experience and mine, however opposite, exemplify the current range of experience for most pre-war car owners.
In the final analysis my major disappointment is the waning of interest and availability of replacement parts as time goes by. Hopefully I will wear out before the LaSalle does. Sorry I missed the boat a few years ago but the timing just wasn't right for me.
I'd like to post pictures but cannot get it to work. Oh well....you guys have seen lots of pretty old cars. Thanks again!
Bob
Bob,
First the 346 has 25 or 30 more Horsepower than the 322 Lasalle. Only difference is 1/4 inch greater bore in the 346. 25 or 30 horsepower depends on Carburetor. One of the unmentioned differences is growing population. I was born in 1940 and am 6'-2" but average height has increased greatly in the last century. I purchased a 1950 Ford hot rod truck a couple of years ago and flew from Seattle to Montana to drive it home. Barely enough leg room for me. My 1940 LaSalle also has short leg room. My 1942 6719 has enough but none to spare. If it had the jump seats or the divider window it would be very difficult for me to drive. I am slightly taller than average for my generation but each generation we are growing taller.
Thanks Gary,
The 322 engine for 1940 LaSalle was rated at 130 hp. The 346 in my car is from a 1940 Cadillac..60 series. The book says 135 hp. It has a Carter Carb. The engine was very strong with great acceleration before I had it removed. But hey, who knows what mine will produce when it comes back from the overhaul. I't take all I can get!
I was born in 1947 and am 5' 7" tall. So the old pre-war cars fit me perfectly. Haa haa. Thank you for you comments. Enjoy the passion.
Bob
Gary was probably thinking about the 346 having 150 BHP? but they didn't achieve this until 1941.
I think that's right, hardly anyone is around from when the pre war cars were
common; nobody loves them. The post war cars soon became much more
suitable as practical road cars, than the others could ever be. I have a list
of things my car needs, and all the requirements weren't met until the HEI
was used in 74. The BOP engine/trans pattern did a lot toward letting a
limited number of parts be produced in volume to supply lots of cars. We
are going away from that, which is one reason the newest cars will be more
difficult to maintain. New cars are not designed for easy repairs. When all
the 2010s are dead, the 76s will still be running.
As a millennial, I love the pre-war Cadillacs for their styling, but would I ever own one? No.
They aren't practical to drive every day, more stuff to go wrong, parts are scarce, they don't have the power to keep up with traffic, ancient engines, and mechanicals, and I am sure they don't handle too well either.
Don't get me wrong, I believe a lot of the pre-war stuff is awesome, but as a young person, I'd rather own a cooler more modern post-war Cadillac's. Mainly 50's and 60's just because during this time, Cadillac's seemed to look more youthful and flashy vs the pre-war stuff.
Plus prices for pre war Cads in nice shape are very very expensive.
Bruce and 64CaddieLacky are right. I do know an older gentlemen with two pre war cars and they are driven on and off the trailer only because they cannot be driven with modern traffic. Lots of work for low benefit.
That old saying young-time, energy and no money, middle age-energy, money and no time, old-money, time, but no energy fits me so far, I have no time. While I could afford a prewar car, there is no time to enjoy it. The post war cars you can drive places that you have to go anyway and hence you kill two birds with stone.
On Easter Sunday I drove 200 miles round trip to pick up my daughter from college in my 1970 Cadillac DVC with top down entire trip on a beautiful 85'F weather - pure joy! This is a drive on semi-highway with curves and lights and speeds limits of 60 mph (people driving 70 mph) that really only a disc brake radial tire equipped car should drive. If you did not keep up with traffic it would be a hazard for other cars. This is just not a trip you could drive in a pre war car with a degree of safety unless it was heavily modified.
Bruce makes a really good point that these modern cars with so much plastic, computers, and expensive to repair, I agree difficult to imagine a 2010 car could be restored without spending a fortune, and why would you want to?
The prewar cars are art, and the post war cars are art that takes you places.
Over the many many decades, classic enthusiasts have expressed doubts about "modern cars" being restored or being considered desirable classics in the future; modern cars from back then that today do have collector/classic interest. It's the cycle of the classic hobby just as one time interest in what have become "very old" cars can fade. Looking back at decades old classic car price guides, the 45+ year old classics like Cadillac and LaSalle of that time which are now 75+ years old have largely decreased in value (inflation adjusted) while the newer classics of that time which are now 45+ years old have largely increased in value.
As far as replacing parts on modern cars in the future, advancing technologies (e.g., 3D printing) may make that even easier and cheaper to do down the road. I think a bigger issue regarding current and future classics could be how potential environmental regulations, safety regulations, etc. may impact the hobby overall and ability to enjoy old(er) cars on the open road. Of course, that too has been a concern of some for a long time and one that may never have the degree of impact people think. Time will tell.
I do not have much to add to the respected Members who have already responded. However I would say for my self. I own a 1972 Cadillac Fleetwood Eldorado Convertible. I Love the car it is eminently usable on an everyday basis in traffic safely. I have now got close on $14,000.00 total invested in it and on a great day I think getting $12,000.00 for it would be all the money in the world for it. That said , I have replaced or repaired all the major systems in it to make it as reliable a driver as I can and I have done as much cosmetic work to it to make it as presentable as I can with in reason. My intention as a person on Social Security and a small pension is to drive it and enjoy it for as many years as I can. I don't care how many miles I put on it or it's resale value other than not putting stupid money into it that I do not have anyway. When I die if that date be some years in the future My three surviving kids can dispose of it or keep it as they see fit. I intend to Live and enjoy the money put into it , out of it with my Wife.
With all due respect to those who have posted their thoughts, this thread has been the most toxic I have ever followed.
It is so full of doom and gloom and projections of hopelessness, I have a hard time breathing.
If I took all of the hopeless views expressed about our aging cars as a prediction of the future - solely value orriented, I might as well cancel my membership, as I want to be associated with folks of a positive nature - not myopic car value mongers.
Please forgive me, I had to stop - take a deep breath and get my gyro back out of its tumble.
As most who know me and or know how I write about things, I just want to say that I enjoy my cars, not because they will last the test of time or value, but because they bring me happiness, while I work on them or drive them - and especially drive them.
I joined the hobby and this forum for perhaps not the same reasons others have, and that was for the joy the cars give me, and I thought others felt the same.
I am convinced that living ones own life is superior and more fulfilling than worrying about what others think or the following of car value lemmings.
Conclusion: I will relinquish the soap box, and I hope more folks would enjoy their cars - daily, and let their heirs worry about the values, after they have passed away.
Have fun,
Steve B.
Hi Bill, nice pictures of your Eldorado.
Scott, 1970 Fleetwood 75s did come with the 6 way power seat and T&T wheel. I think they were optional, but they were available. My brother's 1970 FW 75 Sedan had the power seat, but not the tilt wheel. My 1970 FWB had both.
As for me, I'd really like an early 1930s dual cowl Phaeton convertible, but can't afford one, so there it is.....
Mike,
Yes the 1970 Cadillac series 75 could be ordered with some comfort items for the driver, such as an especially the 75 series sedan. It was not uncommon in the limo with divider window that the driver compartment was not set up for driving enjoyment, this 75 series would be set up for the passengers. Just saying post war luxury cars were more for the driver, prewar luxury cars more for passengers, and the 75 series could be set up more for the passengers more like a pre war car.
59-in pieces,
Yesterday it was a beautiful sunny day in the Washington, DC area and I drove my red 1970 DVC top own and enjoyed one of the most awesome days of 2017. Drove to a construction site inspection 50 miles away, back, post office, bank, a long lunch with a hot date (newly divorced), then to the GN hotel to meet Ronnie. The car really help make it a great day. A classic car really can add to the enjoyment of life that is for sure, it is just a matter of what one you select. It was about 85'F or so and I was kind of amazed at how many other convertible drivers had the top up.
Hello, This is an interesting topic. I have a 1940 Lasalle. Interest in prewar cars is waning because that generation is fading away. But I guess I buck the trend. I am 52 and pre war cars are not the cars of my youth. I like cars of the late 1930's because they are the first cars with modern "driveability". They have enough horsepower to be driven the speed limit on interstates. They have synchronized transmissions. They have hydraulic brakes. They have automatic spark advance. They have independent front suspension. They have all steel bodies. They were the first cars to be styled purely for the sake of appearance. The Art Deco styling is distinct from the cars of the 50's and 60's and on up. (i.e. cars I remember from my youth).
On the other hand, I do have an interest in the cars I remember from when I was young. I would love to have a 1980 Cadillac Seville in two tone blue. That is on my bucket list of cars. Tom Boehm
I really wish this issue would stop being raised because the question is based on a generalization - and a very poor one at that.
Does anybody posing these queries have any idea just what the category "prewar" encompasses? Are we talking a glamorously & fastidiously restored 1930 V16 Transformable Town Brougham w/Canework, a 1933 V12 Roadster (similarly restored) or are we talking a humble 1939 LaSalle sedan in condition 4?
In the case of the former two, yes there's interest - BIG interest; in the case of latter, eh - to some extent but not nearly as much. (Unless it was owned by the King George VI or FDR)
So when discussing collector interest in this particular grouping of collector cars, it is important to know exactly what particular car we are talking about.
Quote from: 59-in-pieces on April 28, 2017, 03:48:48 PM
As most who know me and or know how I write about things, I just want to say that I enjoy my cars, not because they will last the test of time or value, but because they bring me happiness, while I work on them or drive them - and especially drive them.
I joined the hobby and this forum for perhaps not the same reasons others have, and that was for the joy the cars give me, and I thought others felt the same.
Have fun,
Steve B.
Steve,
I agree with you 100%. I probably have more than double in the car than what it's worth, but I Love the stye of the '47 Convertible, and actually enjoy just looking at it when it's parked. Kinda like rolling art to me. I also feel like a King when I cruise that thing around and it puts a smile on my face every time. Really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. No one has ever refused taking a cruise with me, so there must be something about the car....Enjoy your life and stop worrying about Money or what other people think. Stay off the phone also ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Bobby
IMHO, I think that cars from the 20s, 30s, and 40s are still admired and cherished. However the later cars have come into their own spotlight.
It seems to go in very fickle waves. For a time Eldorado Broughams were "it." Right now, I think that certain 59/60 cars are "it." Great. Truly.
However, if a particular year is the one for you, then THAT is the "it" car. If you love your 40s Cad, then that is the one for you.
I've been in love with 70s Cads from the time they were new. I'm fortunate that I can still find good examples at reasonable prices.
I have owned many 50s & 60s cars. I started buying them in the mid 1970s at junkyard prices. I have fixed them, and restored them and driven them. I am bored with them. I still have many from these era but after a 'life experience' in 2013 I decided that I should experience an "OLD" car. I mean an old car.
To me that meant something 'driveable' (1920s to early 30s) I am not ready for a single cylinder Cad. So I made a deal for a 1929 Cad Town Sedan on ebay. Nice original. 'Restored' in about the late 60s to early 70s. (NOT to today's restoration standards) It was clean shiny and while the seller told me it ran, I could see that it would take some wake up repairs to get it going reliability. After getting it home I concluded that the seller lied of course and it would not run. (stuck valves)
I have now rebuilt the engine and all the other stuff. (clutch, water pump, generator, starter, distributor, radiator, etc, etc) I am FINALLY finishing up the brake system and I might attempt starting the new engine this summer.
What have I learned? I was completely B-O-R-E-D with the 50s & 60s stuff. Learning the engineering and technology inherent in a car of this age is like learning a foreign language!! In the course of fixing it I have many times walked away in a state of rageful frustration. BUT I wanted to learn about OLD cars and having this 1929 has forced me to do so.
I am beginning to understand how mechanical brakes work. How a 1920s dual point distributor works. How 1920s motor mounts work. Everything I have had to do to repair the 1929 was common knowledge for guys who were born in the teens and twenties but all that knowledge has unfortunately now been lost. I have a dent in my head from beating it against the wall but as the project goes on I also have a better appreciation for these OLD cars. Even finding where to get the parts has been a challenge.
On this board 20-30 year old people ask how to fix their 1970s car. The answers come quickly and accurately. Sadly there are few if any people left that I can ask about how to fix a really old car. And most of them dont use computers :(
Why has interest waned related to prewar cars?
1. People are attracted to cars they saw while growing up. This means cars that they saw on the streets when they were about 8-15 years old. In the realm of prewar cars this means that those kids are now in their 80s and they are way past participation in the car hobby.
2. If you do want to get into truly old cars (Outside of Ford model Ts & As) you basically have to want to teach yourself because there are no longer any local car friends that know these cars that can come over and hang out in your garage on weekends. This aspect can take the fun out of having an old car real fast.
How do I cope with the frustration? Along with the 29 Cad I am co-currently restoring a 1959 Lincoln and a 1966 Mercury. Two cars I can work on with little thought and little need to consult with anyone for advice. And when I get bored when working on them, I then return to the 29 Cad for some intellectual stimulation.
I really like pre-war cars, including '29s. Was once outbid when trying to buy a '29 LaSalle. How about a photo of yours.
There are people in the club who have driven their old Cadillacs and LaSalles many 10s of thousands of miles. I don't think any have spoken up yet, but I think they might agree, driving the cars is how to get your money out of them.
People buy new cars everyday and the time clock on depreciation starts when the car leaves the lot. In five years the investment has lost much of its value, made worthwhile by use. A well maintained though heavily driven old car is unlikely to lose its value at the rate of a newer car.
Many older cars have good parts supply and the cost compared to the modern cars equivalent part replacement is often far less in comparison with often far less labor involved. Jim Stamper # 14370
Hello
If you want a question answered ask Eric DeVirgilis. He is analogous to Plato.
(Humble 1939 LaSalle)
M-mman as much as I love the '50s car, (and always will), I can certainly see myself behind the wheel of your '29. Lovely car, thanks for posting. Clay/Lexi
Learning about OLD cars . . .
I am always amused when people around here are fearful about the brakes, steering and operation of a 1950s-60s car. They fear the treadlevacs, the drums the <gasp!> C-A-R-B-U-R-A-T-O-R-S (because a carb car might need a little cranking to get started. . . .)
While I have yet to drive my 29 I am 'thinking' about the 90 horsepower, updraft carb, vacuum tank <gasp! NO FUEL PUMP!!> and more importantly M-E-C-H-A-N-I-C-A-L brakes. (But I am going through them to make them as functional as they were when new) and then LEARNING how to operate a 90 year old car. WITHIN ITS LIMITS!!
As a auto historian I want to learn and experience the car on its own terms, NOT to try and yank it into the 21st century to satisfy my knowledge deficits.
Which is what people are doing when they feel a need to modify their "ancient" 1960s cars and then brag about the fun of experiencing an 'old' car. :-\
Wish me luck.
Here are a couple pictures of my lady.....and the impetus for my question concerning pre-war Cadillac/Lasalle. Well.....obviously all LaSalle are pre-war! Plus the engine removed and being crated for shipment to overhaul shop.
M-mman my thoughts exactly on old cars and their equipment. I also wish to experience what they were like to drive back in the day with original equipment, imperfections and all. That is part of their charm. I wish you and your project all the best. Clay/Lexi
The most active interest will always be in the cars that most currently-active collector car buyers remember from their youth. Friends who are collector car dealers tell me that the greatest demand among their customer base is for cars of the '60s, '70s and early '80s. If you figure that the collectors who are most active in buying cars today are in the age range of 35-50 (having been born from 1967-1982), this makes sense.
For the most part, these preferences are not based on the relative characteristics of the '40s cars vs. the '70s cars. The folks in this age range have fond memories and nostalgia about the cars of their youth, which do not include pre-war cars. There are always some exceptions, but this has been the general rule as long as I have been in the hobby.
I remember when 1940 and 1941 cars were considered too new to be of interest to hobbyists. When I bought my first antique car -- a fine original 1941 Cadillac -- I was told that it was not an antique, just a "good used car". This was in the late 1960s, when the car was over 25 years old. The evolution from that day to this is just the natural progression of things.
Unless you are in the antique car business for your livelihood, you should buy and drive what you like, and not worry about what cars others prefer. As to the possibility that a vintage car may not bring back the full amount you have invested, consider the fact that for most activities we pursue for pleasure, we get back zero percent of the money we lay out. When we go on a vacation, or rent a beach house, or join a country club, or buy tickets to sports events, we do so with the understanding that we will get back no part of the money we spend. The only return is the pleasure derived from the activity. When you buy a new car -- the second biggest investment to most people -- you often get back one-third or less of the original cost when you trade it in. So if your favorite collector car will eventually bring back 60%, 80% or 90% of the amount you have spent on it, it's not such a bad deal, considering all the enjoyment you receive from it.
I have followed this thread with interest. Many excellent points have been made, and I couldn’t have said them any better. I can only take exception with one: the notion that pre-war cars aren’t acceptable in “modern†traffic. I have driven my ’41 Cadillac to both Grand Nationals in Las Vegas, a 900-mile round trip for me, without any issues. I admit that I try to keep it down to 65 mph, as I feel that is a reasonable cruising speed for a 75-year-old car, but I did find myself creeping up to 70 every now and then. Is it the same as driving a new car? Nope, and that’s the charm of it. As far as coveting a 1930’s Caddy? I am emotionally attached to both my ’41 and my ’59, but I might trade them in an instant for the right 1930’s Cad or LaSalle. And yes, it would be driven in modern traffic â€" that’s what they were made for.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with Richard's point of view. Being born near the end of the era he mentioned, I find myself more able to connect with my 70 deVille convertible than I ever have with any of the 61/62 Cadillacs I've owned. I grew up when these were just used cars, out of my father's reach as he always could afford a Ford. I came home from the hospital in a 77 LTD II Brougham 2 door. We had that car until I was 4 and still remember it's green interior and the little blue dinky toy airplane my dad bought for me at the convenience store near the airport one Sunday after church. I used to put it in front of the vents and the airflow would spin the propeller. To this day, I would still love to have one of these cars.
As time goes by, as Richard said, what will become collectible will become newer because of these memories.
Quote from: Brett Baird on May 02, 2017, 05:41:20 PM
I have followed this thread with interest. Many excellent points have been made, and I couldn’t have said them any better. I can only take exception with one: the notion that pre-war cars aren’t acceptable in “modern†traffic. I have driven my ’41 Cadillac to both Grand Nationals in Las Vegas, a 900-mile round trip for me, without any issues. I admit that I try to keep it down to 65 mph, as I feel that is a reasonable cruising speed for a 75-year-old car, but I did find myself creeping up to 70 every now and then. Is it the same as driving a new car? Nope, and that’s the charm of it. As far as coveting a 1930’s Caddy? I am emotionally attached to both my ’41 and my ’59, but I might trade them in an instant for the right 1930’s Cad or LaSalle. And yes, it would be driven in modern traffic â€" that’s what they were made for.
I second all that Brett. I took exception too.I drive my 37 and my 41 all the time in modern traffic and both can keep up. OK, I won't be out there in the fast lane but I don't impede other road users. Even my 36 is quite happy at 60mph.
My 1929 Roadster.........A really fun car to drive, but she's pushing 90 years old so I drive it differently than the 1969 Eldorado or the 1968 Fleetwood.
All of my cars are different and they are the same.........they are fun to drive, work on and keep looking as well as I can.
Mike #15848
Precisely, Richard.
Thank you.
Jim
The 29 Roadster took awhile but it was a fun project.
Mike #15848