So unless a car is an easy resto it should be dismissed? If you don't live in the rust belt, then it's hard to understand what is left of cars after 40 years. It 's also hard to understand how sometimes they will surprise you with how little they do need.
((snip))
The asking price still doesn't look unreasonable to me.
No Sir, not saying that at all... I (of all people) would never say that. Visit my Facebook album below to see where I'm coming from.
I was simply pointing out the things that I'm pretty sure will need attention, based on my personal experience after purchasing a car in admittedly worse shape. Unfortunately, old cars are a lot like apples that have fallen on the ground - they might still look OK from what you can see, but when you pick them up and find all the decay, the first instinct is to put it back or throw it away. Even if the apple only has one single worm hole in it, you won't know the extent of the damage until you slice it open.
Based on my personal experience [having bought into such an ambitious project], I can honestly say that I believe mine was even overpriced at $1600 - the original owner wanted $2200, but after highlighting the seized engine, frozen master cylinder, lack of keys, and the big hole in the front frame rail, and the fact that there were no other suckers available within 200 miles in any direction, he agreed (he had only paid something like $1000 for it anyway). Because our year models are still "less desirable" by the Vintage Mustanger crowd and the fact that I had my "1971 Mach 1 goggles" on (I literally saw the "restored" version of it every time I looked at it - which has also kept me motivated since the beginning), it was a little easier to get the seller to come off the lofty profit margin - especially when it sits for awhile and they realize that turd they bought for an easy flip won't be so easy to dump for a profit after all.
All I was trying to say is, "Buyer Beware. This is not going to be an easy or cheap restoration - even just to the point of 'drivable,' let alone 'nice.'" I still feel it's overpriced... not when the Fair Market Value for a #5 condition car (
running vehicle needing work to be road-worthy) is around $7,000.
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehicles/mump-1212-1964-1-2-1973-mustang-value-guide/
When it comes down to "not running" vs. "running," value based on engine code goes out the window, IMHO. Mine's
only a 351C-2V, but it took over $5K just to get the engine running again (I actually spent more like $7K because of the performance things I bought, but even returning to stock would've been over $5K). A crate motor would've run about as much as well - so it was an easy decision to just stick with the original powerplant. But I have to ask: Is an unrestored 429 Mach 1 still worth as much if the engine is seized and the block/heads are non-rebuildable? I don't think so - but others obviously do. Realistically, aside from a digit in the VIN and that chunk of iron between the shock towers, an unrestored 429 Mach 1 is worth no more or less than a similarly equipped and conditioned 250 fastback - when you have to dig into a car and replace as much sheet metal and pretty much everything else like I had to, the engine code kinda means nothing... it still costs the same for all of the other parts, regardless of the model. Again, and this is my opinion, but the 'value' of an unrestored car being based on its potential as a [someday] restored car is bunk - until it's fully restored to that level of worth, it's just a hunk o' junk and only getting worse the longer it sits.
After it's been restored - you bet! Until the work is done... not so much.
BTW - the DSO code on mine was "Lansing, Michigan," and it was only on the road for about 10 years (last registration expired in 1980) in Wichita Falls, TX (Sheppard AFB). I don't know how long it lived in Michigan, and it might've been parked in the Red River for awhile... but I think I've learned a thing or two about the "Rust Belt" cars.
Sorry for the novel, and I hope I didn't offend anyone.