The Omega, though lower in production than the Nova, is by no means "rare".
And the 94-96 Impala SS, unlike the 1960's original, was never available as a two-door, so a comparison is pointless.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I see TONS of 68-74 Omegas on the road; that must be why they are not rare.
The number of doors really makes that much of a difference in comparison?? Please.
Both cars, whether from the 60's or 90's, were body on frame, rear-drive, V8, high performance, full-size cars. The only thing missing in the 94-96 is a manual trans. Sure there is no comparison in the last generation Impala SS. That would be because they were V6, front-drive and unibody.
By the way, the Olds Omega is a rare car; how many do you see today from all three generations (1968-1985)?
Yeah, I'll bet you've seen "tons" of 68-72 Omegas on the road. The model did not appear until 1973.
Low production can also mean low desirability. For example you could order a rare color Pacer. Does that make it super valuable?
4 doors on cars are not typically wise to restore. Unless it's family sentiment, I don't see any Omega V8 or not as a cost effective restoration candidate. Either 2 or 4 door. I would buy a 60s Chevy II or pre 72 Nova and make the labor and parts effort worthwhile.
I have owned many cars and learned. Too many doors is usually underwater cost wise with restoration efforts.
I stand corrected, this generation Nova came out with a restyle in '68.
It's rare cousins the Omega Ventura and Apollo came out in '73.
Sorry about that, it won't happen again.
The comparison to earlier more desirable sedans was about value. Your time and money for parts and restoration can be high. If I spend many hours under the hood, then body work and sanding, is it worth it? And then paint is quite expensive today. That's why looking for a popular early 2 door is worth it. If it's sentimental, go ahead and keep it, knowing this up front. I'd rather buy the best car I can afford, as it's cheaper in the long run.
I like pre 73 GM models with 2 doors. My opinion only, but I would make this a reliable driver quality car and drive it. My comments are more financial oriented and based on what I have learned over many years. If you restore old cars, you get cut, burned and sore. It's hard work. Then to find you can't begin to get a third of it back later.
The joy factor is better with an appealing model. GM has many models to choose from. My favorite years are 69 and 70 models especially. Find yourself a 69 Nova SS 396 2 door sedan. Do a nice restoration, and run out of room in your garage with trophies.
You think the Omega is "rare" because you don't ever see any? Do you often see any other models that were last made 35 years ago?
If you looked at production figures, you would see that annual production was in the 50K-60K range. Even in 1979, its last year (in RWD form) with a shortened production run, they still built nearly 15,000.
Yeah, I live in a southern climate, therefore I do see a lot of 35 year old cars.
The point of the Omega being "rare" is that I was comparing it to the Nova, a car whose production numbers are much higher.
Funny you mention a '79. Actually there is a 1979 Omega for sale on eBay, check it out.
Low production doesn't mean always it's worth doing a build. I can't see putting many weekends' time and parts into a 79 Omega. Or a late 70s Nova. If you have to wait 10 years to buy a popular model, it's worth the wait. I have seen quite a few guys go low budget, buying a car for under 5k, a rust bucket or in primer. Paint and body runs at least 10k more for a passable straight car. Then mechanical. The numbers don't work well. Then your time, and possibly your marriage spent under the hood evenings vs with your spouse. I built a beautiful 69 Camaro SS from the ground up. If I had done the same with a 79 Omega, I would likely have been crying at the end. But I would have a rare 4 door for people to look at.
Nowhere was it mentioned to dedicate blood, sweat and tears restoring a '79 Omega. Find one in good condition and enjoy something different.
I myself don't really care for the '75-'79 X-cars; maybe the Cadillac Seville, which was built on that platform, but that's about it.
If I want to enjoy something from the late 70's, it would be the down-sized G-body (technically A-body) Grand Prix or Cutlass. For the Pontiac; swap a 301 to a 400, or the Olds, swap a 260 to a 403. Very simple work and leave the outside bone stock. The Regal Sport Coupe turbo V6 is also worth a look.
As far as 4-door classics, I would for sure take a '56-'57 Bel Air sport sedan, or a '59 Impala or Eldorado with the wrap-around style windows. Don't forget the '65 Continental.
2-doors will always be more desirable. My personal favorites are the '69-'77 Grand Prix or the '71-'73 Riviera. The point is to have something different but worth it, instead of the same old Camaros, Vettes and Chevelles. Though I always had a soft spot for Monte Carlos and mid 60's - late 70's Impalas.
The first 3 initial comments certainly did. The owner is already hot rodding the car vs leaving it as stock. I wouldn't be buying these new parts for this car. I put a new stainless MagnaFlow exhaust on my car, which cost 1300. The dual cold air intake is around 400 alone without headers. And so on. Most doing this kind of stuff don't stop, and keep making the car look and run better. I still maintain pre 73 2 doors are a good starting point vs late 70s. I know there are a few exceptions, like a mid 70s Trans Am or a Can Am. But they are not Omegas. I would keep this one clean and stock. And have a reliable driver. Save the muscle car parts for your Super Sport piggy bank buy down the road.
Love the same "old" comment. First gen Camaro 66-69 Super Sports and Z/28. 1970 Camaro Z/28 and 1966 to 1970 Chevelle SS and the Corvette C3 chrome bumper models. These are the models I have been collecting since the mid 80s. And will never tire of. Maybe one day the Omega will be worth 65k plus, or maybe it will be just another lost in the crowd "old car".