18th Oct 2009, 01:02
I'm looking into buying either a 63 Rambler Classic or a 64 Ford Galaxie.
The Rambler has a straight 6. She's a beautiful teal "3 on the tree," bench seats, but an AC unit that is apparently installed upside down so it has to be charged every year. The trunk lock is missing, The door's latch on the drivers side needs to be replaced, the radio doesn't work, needs new upholstery, and headliner, and a couple small rust spots developing.
The Galaxie I don't know much about yet, except that it runs "great" and has brand new tires. Typically speaking, what would be better to get? What are typical problems with them both? I know this is all a little vague, but this is my first classic car, and I'm looking for a fun project car, but also a daily driver. And if they are both good, then I'm buying one for myself and son, and the other for my sister who is in auto shop.
If you can email me: email@example.com with your opinion that would be great. Thank you for your time!
19th Oct 2009, 05:04
Sure, the Census Bureau has all that stuff.
How can you doubt the income has fallen relative to the price of things like cars? Seems obvious and common knowledge.
19th Oct 2009, 09:39
The average wage in the late 60s was closer to 8000 for men and 3500 for women. Many women did not work in my community. A car may have been half or more I would say of annual income. Most had payments, likely a trade in.
I graduated high school in 72. The best deals were used sports cars. Even kids with 600-800 found GTO'S Chevelle SS etc to drive. Many parents in the 60s had 1 car and again moms mostly were home. My mom had a 59 white Rambler sedan that was 9 years old. It was reliable it had the small rear fins. My grandparents had a 66 Ambassador nice car and they gave it to me. They also always had a single car. My grandmother drove my grandfather to work and used the car stayed at home too.
Nowadays women and men work together and have dual incomes. My wife drives a 40K car and earns nearly 3 times what I work for, and we would say we are better off than our parents were then. In all fairness it's a single income. Factor in mortgages, kids, tuitions etc, maybe it's not widespread though.
19th Oct 2009, 16:43
I think it was easier for the average person to earn enough to support a family, own a home etc. back in the 1960's.
My dad was the sole wage earner in our home, he had no college degree, but we owned our own home and never wanted for anything. He always drove used cars until when he was 49 years old he purchased a new 1969 Dodge Polara Wagon. 318 V8 power steering & brakes, AM radio, vinyl interior, no air conditioning - $4,000. His brothers also never went to college, but they also owned their own homes and supported their families. Nowadays it is tough for a college educated couple to own a home and raise a family.
9th Jun 2010, 18:17
In high school (class of 1968), I dated in my family's green 1963 Rambler Classic 660. Sure glad I didn't know about the seats that folded down back then. ;-) I wish someone rented older cars like that out. I would love to take my wife out in a car like that; she's one I dated back then. Now we've been married over 32 years...
6th Jul 2016, 17:02
You can go on about how old cars were "built to last" just because you have managed to keep your old cars on the road, but it doesn't change the fact that the average age of cars on the road today is far greater than it was in the 60s or 70s. That in itself is far better proof of the better durability and longevity of modern cars than some anecdotal evidence based on one person's experience with a few old cars.
6th Jul 2016, 19:06
Not at all true. It stands to reason that if you bought a new car in 1970 for example, that there would be more 1970s on the road than antiques 20 years earlier from 1950s. Factor in accidents, rust and decay, exports etc, there are less as they age. You can apply that analogy even today. Cars may be more reliable today, but at what cost. My family owns an automotive repair center. Cars are far more complex today and not all are easily repaired by an average individual. Shop rates are high. In the past cars were simpler and less costly to keep running with a small handful of tools. Even with expensive diagnostic equipment, many repairs are a process of elimination. Problems can reoccur. Many cars barely have enough room to get to where the issue is at. What I like most on my classic is the simplicity without TPMs and codes popping up. It's a real pain.
7th Jul 2016, 17:35
I think it is probably proof that people are lot poorer nowadays. Back then with unionization and Keynesian economic policies, the average worker could buy a new car quite frequently, and most people got rid of their cars long before they were even a little bit worn. Nowadays the average worker makes barely enough to get by, so tend to keep their cars till they're very near the end of their usable life.
7th Jul 2016, 21:08
The global economy and intense competition has workers making less. When I was 21 I was renting a small apartment for 139.00 month. I was making 10k a year as a starting salary. Now the same apartment rents for 1200 month. A new mid size car was under 4K. My 3 bedroom brick ranch cost me 36k in early 1978. Now the house is 250k. Now there are likely 2 earners, but things are high. Tuition at my University has gone up almost 10 times. Food and gas at 36 cents a gallon. It was better then. Companies were more family oriented. Much of the perks of the day are rarely heard of with each passing decade. I am glad to be old!
8th Jul 2016, 17:34
You are not wrong; thank you for sharing your knowledge. There are indeed zero perks in most jobs these days. I particularly dislike working for corporately owned companies.
9th Jul 2016, 13:14
So a single worker today would be 21 and need to earn almost 6 figures with that apartment. And also need to buy a car and save for a new home. No wonder many 21 year olds still live at home today. Nice having a global economy. At any rate AMC is gone. A shame, because I liked many of their cars.