67 Pontiac GTO..a genuine muscle car?

68deville

i am currently looking at a 67 GTO at the mo and was just wondering
is there anybody aware of one in the country?for an reasonably iconic
60s car they seem to be pretty reasonably priced and a decent 4seater!
your thoughts??

PaulK_CCI

I have a soft spot for the 67-68 Pontiacs, but make no mistake, genuine GTO's are far from 'reasonably priced'. Expect to pay between 25 and 35 onwards for a very good to mint GTO. Don't know about Ireland, but I know of at least 3 for sale here in the Netherlands and Germany.

A lot of "LeMans" are used to look like GTO's and are priced accordingly...

manta mad

ohhh lovely motor ,,any pics ?

68deville

IF YOU SHOP AWAY FROM THE HIGH STREET YOU WILL FIND REASONABLE
VALUE,THIS PARTICULAR CAR IS IN GOOD CONDITION BUT PRICES CAN GO
UP TO 45K IF IN SHOW CONDITION

Dades

OKAY!

PaulK_CCI

68deville wrote: »

IF YOU SHOP AWAY FROM THE HIGH STREET YOU WILL FIND REASONABLE
VALUE,THIS PARTICULAR CAR IS IN GOOD CONDITION BUT PRICES CAN GO
UP TO 45K IF IN SHOW CONDITION

In the states you can find cheaper ones no doubt, but don't forgot that on any car that you import from the US you need to add on appprox 31% VAT and Customs & Excise duties, regardless if the car is over 30 years old!!! On a car worth 15 or 20k, that's still a tidy sum, and you'd buy 'long distance' or even unseen!!
I only source cars on the continent for that reason, so if someone asks me to source them a car, at least I have inspected it myself physically before purchase.

68deville

PaulK_CCI wrote: »

In the states you can find cheaper ones no doubt, but don't forgot that on any car that you import from the US you need to add on appprox 31% VAT and Customs & Excise duties, regardless if the car is over 30 years old!!! On a car worth 15 or 20k, that's still a tidy sum, and you'd buy 'long distance' or even unseen!!
I only source cars on the continent for that reason, so if someone asks me to source them a car, at least I have inspected it myself physically before purchase.

I have a relative who can view the car in question and who has taken care of shipping in the past before which is a godsend!not the first time
importing and could never say it wasnt worthwhile,you wise up after the
first one;)!

Kevin_Herron

There are a few genuine GTO's in Ireland.
I only know of one '67- a convertible.

A quick check of the chassis will reveal whether its the real deal or not.
If it starts with 242077, 242177 or 242677 its a proper GTO.

68deville

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

There are a few genuine GTO's in Ireland.
I only know of one '67- a convertible.

A quick check of the chassis will reveal whether its the real deal or not.
If it starts with 242077, 242177 or 242677 its a proper GTO.

indeed! starts with 242177k,it has carfax and marti reports and all
that gud stuff..

sudo911

I myself have been looking at a 66 GTO, but watch out for the models - they can vary greatly. Sure you could get one circa 16k, but most of the proper desirables are around the USD30+ mark. Look out for the common problem areas too, nothing worse than paying good money and ending up with a pile of scrap.

If you do find a decent one, call Hill Shipping in the UK on +441795876000 - they will sort you out with a good shipping quote with 0% duty and just 5% VAT. Its dependent on certain conditions, but open for most cars 30yrs+ old. All you would need to do then is just sort a local shipper from the UK.

If its just the look you are after, why not go as the lads suggest and maybe opt for a Lemans? Same car virtually.... here's a nice one for good money.... http://www.cars-on-line.com/49434.html

68deville

A MINT EXAMPLE CAN RUN UP TO 45KPLUS IF YOU WANT A SHOW EXAMPLE!WAY OVER BUDGET FOR ME IM AFRAID,WOULDNT BE BOTHERED
WITH A LEMANS

Paparazzo

sudo911 wrote: »

I myself have been looking at a 66 GTO, but watch out for the models - they can vary greatly. Sure you could get one circa 16k, but most of the proper desirables are around the USD30+ mark. Look out for the common problem areas too, nothing worse than paying good money and ending up with a pile of scrap.

If you do find a decent one, call Hill Shipping in the UK on +441795876000 - they will sort you out with a good shipping quote with 0% duty and just 5% VAT. Its dependent on certain conditions, but open for most cars 30yrs+ old. All you would need to do then is just sort a local shipper from the UK.

If its just the look you are after, why not go as the lads suggest and maybe opt for a Lemans? Same car virtually.... here's a nice one for good money.... http://www.cars-on-line.com/49434.html

I just jizzed my pants!

68deville

just a few pics of the 67 GTO

Cmar-Ireland

No affiliation with this, but these is a nice Grand Prix on Adverts

68deville

Nice car that,hopefully the GTO will get the once over this week,have a
possible trade-in!will see how that goes first

Big Nasty

Cmar-Ireland wrote: »

No affiliation with this, but these is a nice Grand Prix on Adverts

+1 on the Grand Prix - very similar car for much less money. The one linked is a minter and based here so no shipping; VAT or VRT bothers.

68deville

The GTO is in a dealer and i have a possible trade-in so all depends how
that goes really....

Kevin_Herron

MCMLXXV wrote: »

+1 on the Grand Prix - very similar car for much less money. The one linked is a minter and based here so no shipping; VAT or VRT bothers.

The Grand Prix is a lovely car but not a muscle car like the GTO- hence the price.

68deville

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

The Grand Prix is a lovely car but not a muscle car like the GTO- hence the price.

That aswell! the dealer has a Tempest also which would considerably have
more in common with a GTO,6/7k cheaper admittedly but as i said before
alot depends on how the trade-in goes,if we can meet some common
ground..

Big Nasty

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

The Grand Prix is a lovely car but not a muscle car like the GTO- hence the price.

Why not? Because it's a B-Body as opposed to an A-Body? Apart from relatively slight size difference they share many charecteristics. Not as desireable as a GTO for sure and I certainly wouldn't consider the latter models muscle cars but I think the first and probably second gen GP's fit the bill.

68deville

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Why not? Because it's a B-Body as opposed to an A-Body? Apart from relatively slight size difference they share many charecteristics. Not as desireable as a GTO for sure and I certainly wouldn't consider the latter models muscle cars but I think the first and probably second gen GP's fit the bill.

Still aint a GTO! three very evocative letters..but look its early days
yet

2.8trooper

i took a pic of this at a recent show seems the right place for it!!!

Kevin_Herron

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Why not? Because it's a B-Body as opposed to an A-Body? Apart from relatively slight size difference they share many charecteristics. Not as desireable as a GTO for sure and I certainly wouldn't consider the latter models muscle cars but I think the first and probably second gen GP's fit the bill.

The Grand Prix was never sold as a muscle car. Its a full size car.
You're probably right about the size-Theres probably a foot in the difference in length?
The Grand Prix would also be a far heavier car than a GTO.

For me it would be like comparing a '69 Dodge Monaco coupe to a '69 Dodge Charger, chalk and cheese.

68deville

Never owned a musclecar,so if was ever in a position to obtain one
i reckoned a late 60s GTO,charger or Mach 1 would deservedly fall into
the musclecar bracket,just a personal opinion but the term musclecar
gets attached to alot of Yankie V8s undeservedly.
Just a personal opinion

Big Nasty

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

The Grand Prix was never sold as a muscle car. Its a full size car.
You're probably right about the size-Theres probably a foot in the difference in length?
The Grand Prix would also be a far heavier car than a GTO.

For me it would be like comparing a '69 Dodge Monaco coupe to a '69 Dodge Charger, chalk and cheese.

For me it would be 'close, but no cigar'!

hi5

68deville wrote: »

Never owned a musclecar,so if was ever in a position to obtain one
i reckoned a late 60s GTO,charger or Mach 1 would deservedly fall into
the musclecar bracket,just a personal opinion but the term musclecar
gets attached to alot of Yankie V8s undeservedly.
Just a personal opinion

Muscle cars were usually full size 2 door cars about 6'6x17' with high performance big blocks of about 400ci and up, usually with a triple carb built from around the mid 60's to early 70's(until the oil crisis hit)Chargers,Roadrunners,Chevells and Torinos come to mind

Mustangs,Camaros and Firebirds are not muscle cars.

Big Nasty

hi5 wrote: »

Muscle cars were usually full size 2 door cars about 6'6x17' with high performance big blocks of about 400ci and up, usually with a triple carb built from around the mid 60's to early 70's(until the oil crisis hit)Chargers,Roadrunners,Chevells and Torinos come to mind

Mustangs,Camaros and Firebirds are not muscle cars.

Strictly speaking Mustangs, Camaros & Firebirds are Pony Cars.

There's plenty of different arguments as to the criteria required for Muscle Car Status but in its simplest form a muscle car is a 2 door RWD coupe with large powerful engine. I'm not really bothered about whether it's slightly to big / small; heavy / light, blah, blah, blah. If it looks like a muscle car and sounds like a muscle car then, IMO, it is a muscle car.

68deville

hi5 wrote: »

Muscle cars were usually full size 2 door cars about 6'6x17' with high performance big blocks of about 400ci and up, usually with a triple carb built from around the mid 60's to early 70's(until the oil crisis hit)Chargers,Roadrunners,Chevells and Torinos come to mind

Mustangs,Camaros and Firebirds are not muscle cars.

out of plain interest what would a 1969 Boss 429 be??

Big Nasty

68deville wrote: »

out of plain interest what would a 1969 Boss 429 be??

'Technically' it's a Pony Car but 'Realistically' it's a Muscle Car!

68deville

MCMLXXV wrote: »

'Technically' it's a Pony Car but 'Realistically' it's a Muscle Car!

Technically a 327/350 Chevelle wouldnt be a musclecar either!

Kevin_Herron

I have always tried to stress the point that a Dodge Charger with a 318ci small block is NOT a muscle car!
The same goes for any 'muscle car' with a small block engine.

A Boss 429 is a pony car.
A '69 Cadillac Fleetwood was standard with a 7.7Litre engine, it had 375 BHP- Is this a muscle car? Of course not. But it would show a clean pair of heels to alot of small block 'muscle' cars.

68deville

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

I have always tried to stress the point that a Dodge Charger with a 318ci small block is NOT a muscle car!
The same goes for any 'muscle car' with a small block engine.

A Boss 429 is a pony car.
A '69 Cadillac Fleetwood was standard with a 7.7Litre engine, it had 375 BHP- Is this a muscle car? Of course not. But it would show a clean pair of heels to alot of small block 'muscle' cars.

i reckon it will always be a contentious issue!!

Kevin_Herron

68deville wrote: »

i reckon it will always be a contentious issue!!

The 'issue' only seems to arise with owners of Pony cars trying to pass them off as muscle cars!

68deville

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

The 'issue' only seems to arise with owners of Pony cars trying to pass them off as muscle cars!

I have neither so far!might just get an engine dress-up kit and a set of lowered springs for the Lesabre and convince meself its a musclecar!!!:D

Big Nasty

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

The 'issue' only seems to arise with owners of Pony cars trying to pass them off as muscle cars!

Meh, I know my own car is a Pony Car but who drew the line in the first place? Who coined the term Muscle Car and who decided what 'is' and 'isn't'? A Caddy is obviously not a Muscle Car but saying a small block Charger is not a Muscle Car is just ridiculous in my opinion!

chevyv8

68deville wrote: »

Technically a 327/350 Chevelle wouldnt be a musclecar either!

WHY NOT? even in america today chevelles with a 350 smallblock up to 1972 are considered musclecars ..i have been to loads of shows and drags stateside and there are thousands of 350 small block chevelles running as muscle cars.so if a chevelle or impala running a small block aint a muscle car or pony ,what is it classified as. the chevelle ss up as far as 1972 are considered the last of the muscle cars from chevrolet... technically camaros , stangs and trans ams are pony cars and may or may not not be classified as true muscle cars depending on what muscle car book you have read.. not all off them had triple carbs set ups by any means , the 1970 chevelle ss 454 big block came from factory with a single carb 4 barrel and was considered the pinnacle of chevrolets muscle car input, laws and stuff then kicked in and chevrolet got round this with their LS5 AND LS6 engines, oil crisis and emission laws came into force about 72 and chevrolet were still advertising the 72 chevelles as the last of the muscle cars,..... now is a 69 mustang boss with a 429 block a pony car or a muscle car or even a pony musclecar? the words technically and realistically are inter twined here and could realistically go round and round for ever.

68deville

chevyv8 wrote: »

WHY NOT? even in america today chevelles with a 350 smallblock up to 1972 are considered musclecars ..i have been to loads of shows and drags stateside and there are thousands of 350 small block chevelles running as muscle cars.so if a chevelle or impala running a small block aint a muscle car or pony ,what is it classified as. the chevelle ss up as far as 1972 are considered the last of the muscle cars from chevrolet... technically camaros , stangs and trans ams are pony cars and may or may not not be classified as true muscle cars depending on what muscle car book you have read.. not all off them had triple carbs set ups by any means , the 1970 chevelle ss 454 big block came from factory with a single carb 4 barrel and was considered the pinnacle of chevrolets muscle car input, laws and stuff then kicked in and chevrolet got round this with their LS5 AND LS6 engines, oil crisis and emission laws came into force about 72 and chevrolet were still advertising the 72 chevelles as the last of the muscle cars,..... now is a 69 mustang boss with a 429 block a pony car or a muscle car or even a pony musclecar? the words technically and realistically are inter twined here and could realistically go round and round for ever.

considered yes,but would the 327/350 chevelle have been marketed as
a musclecar? or for that matter it could morph into one by the help of crate 396/454 and some SS livery

Kevin_Herron

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Meh, I know my own car is a Pony Car but who drew the line in the first place? Who coined the term Muscle Car and who decided what 'is' and 'isn't'? A Caddy is obviously not a Muscle Car but saying a small block Charger is not a Muscle Car is just ridiculous in my opinion!

The trem 'muscle car' was coined by Road & Track magazine (amongst others) in the Sixties, and it constitues a mid-size American car with a performance engine.
Only some models in some years of manufacture could be classed as muscle cars. This does not mean that all examples of the cars named were muscle cars, since in all cases the attributes of a muscle car were optional extras such as the performance engine, heavy-duty suspension, etc. So a six cylinder or small block poverty spec Dodge Charger is not a muscle car.

A Cadillac of the late Sixties is not a muscle car but would be far faster than a small block Chevelle or whatever from the same era.

Kevin_Herron

chevyv8 wrote: »

WHY NOT? even in america today chevelles with a 350 smallblock up to 1972 are considered musclecars ..i have been to loads of shows and drags stateside and there are thousands of 350 small block chevelles running as muscle cars.so if a chevelle or impala running a small block aint a muscle car or pony ,what is it classified as. the chevelle ss up as far as 1972 are considered the last of the muscle cars from chevrolet... technically camaros , stangs and trans ams are pony cars and may or may not not be classified as true muscle cars depending on what muscle car book you have read.. not all off them had triple carbs set ups by any means , the 1970 chevelle ss 454 big block came from factory with a single carb 4 barrel and was considered the pinnacle of chevrolets muscle car input, laws and stuff then kicked in and chevrolet got round this with their LS5 AND LS6 engines, oil crisis and emission laws came into force about 72 and chevrolet were still advertising the 72 chevelles as the last of the muscle cars,..... now is a 69 mustang boss with a 429 block a pony car or a muscle car or even a pony musclecar? the words technically and realistically are inter twined here and could realistically go round and round for ever.

These small block cars are being retrospectively classed as muscle cars as they were never marketed as such because they werent. They are a mid size car with mid size engine.
A Boss 429 is a fast automobile but it isnt a mid-size car! Its a Pony car.
The same as the Challengers and Cudas.

chevyv8

68deville wrote: »

considered yes,but would the 327/350 chevelle have been marketed as
a musclecar? or for that matter it could morph into one by the help of crate 396/454 and some SS livery

ss packages were sold back then with various block sizes and packages. so you could get an ss model from 350 block to 454 block .

Big Nasty

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

The trem 'muscle car' was coined by Road & Track magazine (amongst others) in the Sixties, and it constitues a mid-size American car with a performance engine.
Only some models in some years of manufacture could be classed as muscle cars. This does not mean that all examples of the cars named were muscle cars, since in all cases the attributes of a muscle car were optional extras such as the performance engine, heavy-duty suspension, etc. So a six cylinder or small block poverty spec Dodge Charger is not a muscle car.

A Cadillac of the late Sixties is not a muscle car but would be far faster than a small block Chevelle or whatever from the same era.

I hear ya and I'm not saying that you are wrong, technically. However it's much like the argument between 'sports' cars, 'performance' cars and 'super' cars. Ok, we all know a Ferrari F50 is a Supercar and a Toyota MR2 is a Sportscar, or maybe not! Using extremes for example is one thing but when you get close to the line it's quite another - where do you draw the line between one and the other? It's just not possible! The point is who is right and who is wrong at the end of the day depends on who you listen to, what magazines you read, etc, etc. As I said, I know my own car (Trans Am) is a Pony Car and not a Muscle Car but if I was asked, and I have often been, 'is that a Muscle Car?', I'm gonna say 'yeah' rather than go in to the difference between Pony / Muscle, engine size, big / small block, bhp & torque.

There is no definitive definition of a Muscle Car, Sports Car, Performance Car, Supercar as far as I am aware so opinions vary greatly from one community to the next or even within one group. As I said earlier, and this is just my own opinion, if it looks like a Muscle Car and sounds like a Muscle Car, well then - to me, it is a Muscle Car.

Kevin_Herron

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I hear ya and I'm not saying that you are wrong, technically. However it's much like the argument between 'sports' cars, 'performance' cars and 'super' cars. Ok, we all know a Ferrari F50 is a Supercar and a Toyota MR2 is a Sportscar, or maybe not! Using extremes for example is one thing but when you get close to the line it's quite another - where do you draw the line between one and the other? It's just not possible! The point is who is right and who is wrong at the end of the day depends on who you listen to, what magazines you read, etc, etc. As I said, I know my own car (Trans Am) is a Pony Car and not a Muscle Car but if I was asked, and I have often been, 'is that a Muscle Car?', I'm gonna say 'yeah' rather than go in to the difference between Pony / Muscle, engine size, big / small block, bhp & torque.

There is no definitive definition of a Muscle Car, Sports Car, Performance Car, Supercar as far as I am aware so opinions vary greatly from one community to the next or even within one group. As I said earlier, and this is just my own opinion, if it looks like a Muscle Car and sounds like a Muscle Car, well then - to me, it is a Muscle Car.

Personally I dont see it that way at all, but we'll agree to disagree

Big Nasty

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

Personally I dont see it that way at all, but we'll agree to disagree

Again, fair enough and each to their own.

This is not an argument in any way, merely a discussion, but can you show me a definitive description of what is a 'true' Muscle Car is in terms of body dimensions, body type, engine size, engine type, performance figures, etc? Not just your own opinion now Kevin but something definitive with links to back it up?

Kevin_Herron

Well, I dont think you'd have to search very far for everyone to agree that a muscle cars must at the very least be fast? As in have a performance engine.

So, without doing a huge amount of research, the wikipedia page covers it resonably well and also touches on the grey areas we are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

Big Nasty

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

Well, I dont think you'd have to search very far for everyone to agree that a muscle cars must at the very least be fast? As in have a performance engine.

So, without doing a huge amount of research, the wikipedia page covers it resonably well and also touches on the grey areas we are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

Ah, come on now Kevin!

I've seen you comment on a lot of threads around here, especially in relation to American cars in general and you are certainly extremely knowledgeable. However if you're going to use Wikipedia to back up your opinions I'm a little disappointed!

However wiki states that Chevelle SS is a Muscle Car and does not discriminate on engine size even though the 1st gen SS was a small block 283!

Kevin_Herron

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Ah, come on now Kevin!

I've seen you comment on a lot of threads around here, especially in relation to American cars in general and you are certainly extremely knowledgeable. However if you're going to use Wikipedia to back up your opinions I'm a little disappointed!

However wiki states that Chevelle SS is a Muscle Car and does not discriminate on engine size even though the 1st gen SS was a small block 283!

Haha! It was the first listed when I googled it as I cant scan mags etc.
Personally-I would consider a true muscle those listed by Motor Trend or Road and Track magazines from when the term was coined in the Sixties.

This is exactly my point-Never mind the 283 V8, you could buy an SS with a six cylinder but it isnt a muscle car, it only refers to big block cars.

68deville

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

Well, I dont think you'd have to search very far for everyone to agree that a muscle cars must at the very least be fast? As in have a performance engine.

So, without doing a huge amount of research, the wikipedia page covers it resonably well and also touches on the grey areas we are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

back in the day when the musclecar came to be,i would imagine unlike
today where you can oversize/pimp out a smallblock V8 to deliever 500BHP+ and aftermarket preformance items galore,the only way to get
the desired preformance you needed cubic capacity hence bigblock V8
motors,the old saying "no replacement for displacement"
Just my angle on it thats all!

Big Nasty

68deville wrote: »

back in the day when the musclecar came to be,i would imagine unlike
today where you can oversize/pimp out a smallblock V8 to deliever 500BHP+ and aftermarket preformance items galore,the only way to get
the desired preformance you needed cubic capacity hence bigblock V8
motors,the old saying "no replacement for displacement"
Just my angle on it thats all!

Some small blocks had better performance than there respective big block brothers - myth busted! :D

Big Nasty

Kevin_Herron wrote: »

Haha! It was the first listed when I googled it as I cant scan mags etc.
Personally-I would consider a true muscle those listed by Motor Trend or Road and Track magazines from when the term was coined in the Sixties.

This is exactly my point-Never mind the 283 V8, you could buy an SS with a six cylinder but it isnt a muscle car, it only refers to big block cars.

Once again Kevin, you are stating your own opinion as I am stating mine. There's no solid hard facts here. I agree that Mustangs, Camaros and Firebirds are Pony Cars simply due to their relatively small size however I would consider any 'Cuda, Chally, Charger, Satty, etc to be a muscle car without debate.

I would agree that a Muscle Car and even a fully fledged Pony should be V8 mind you!

Kevin_Herron

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Once again Kevin, you are stating your own opinion as I am stating mine. There's no solid hard facts here. I agree that Mustangs, Camaros and Firebirds are Pony Cars simply due to their relatively small size however I would consider any 'Cuda, Chally, Charger, Satty, etc to be a muscle car without debate.

I would agree that a Muscle Car and even a fully fledged Pony should be V8 mind you!

I'm not.
I am referring to the two magazines that coined the term and it specifically refers to a mid size car with a high performance engine.

But surely you dont consider a small block 'Cuda, Chally, Charger, or Satty' muscle cars????

68deville

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Some small blocks had better performance than there respective big block brothers - myth busted! :D

Then how come at auction/dealer/private sale bigblock bona fida
musclcars in the true sense knock down top dollar and are most
desired/soughtafter????

Because they are the realdeal!!!they are the definitive embodiment
of the MUSCLECAR!!!;)