1966 Galaxie 500 Convertible 390

It's not a good idea, but I think I've found a decent deal on a 66 Galaxie 500 convertible... I'd like to get my son something cool for his first car, and something that perhaps will appreciate in value over time.  

https://sacramento.craigslist.org/cto/d/1966-ford-galaxy-500/6706638023.html

Don't worry- we live in a small town, he won't hit the highway in it (or his balls will be in a vise), and he's a really really responsible nice young man--- neighbors trust him to babysit their boys and he is an awesome role model. Contrary to his father's nature, he doesn't do fast. 

I can't find a buyers guide - any problem areas to look out for? Is this thing priced fairly?  Haven't looked at it yet, but would like to go in prepared.

That looks like an awesome ride for anyone of any age. I think you might be living vicariously here

The only caveat is to look for structural bondo.  This is where bondo is used to sculp a car over rust holes. There are people who are artist at  this and a shiny car is no indication of  how solid the car is. 

Bodymen are lazy so get down and look at the lowermost potions of the body and see if you can find bondo stalagtites. 

Look in the trunk for signs of how the new quarter panels might have been attached.  Half panels to the bodyline, 3/4 panels to the top of the quarter or a full quarter panel sub-assembly? Bonus points for original tin.

Floors; what do they look like from under the car?

Pete

The frames rot out on these.   Bad.   Check it close, because who knows where it was in the 50 years before that shiny paint was laid down on it.

Also, adding to the red flags of fresh shiny paint and swapped interior, keep in mind that in one photo the right front wheel is chocked, and in two others, there is a truck pulling it backwards.

Cooter said:

Also, adding to the red flags of fresh shiny paint and swapped interior, keep in mind that in one photo the right front wheel is chocked, and in two others, there is a truck pulling it backwards.

 

Yes- I saw the tow strap and wheel chock as well. Figured I'd bring my magnet and go over lower body and doors with a fine look. Also my ramps and get under it. 

NOHOME said:

That looks like an awesome ride for anyone of any age. I think you might be living vicariously here

 

The only caveat is to look for structural bondo.  This is where bondo is used to sculp a car over rust holes. There are people who are artist at  this and a shiny car is no indication of  how solid the car is. 

Bodymen are lazy so get down and look at the lowermost potions of the body and see if you can find bondo stalagtites. 

Look in the trunk for signs of how the new quarter panels might have been attached.  Half panels to the bodyline, 3/4 panels to the top of the quarter or a full quarter panel sub-assembly? Bonus points for original tin.

Floors; what do they look like from under the car?

 

Pete

Absolutely!! I drove to high school in a $250 MG Midget that I subsequently owned for 25 years and totally regret selling. This could be awesome for my dude .And maybe a little from his college fund, but maybe the only part of it that appreciates. Haha .

My biggest concern is that the first sentence of the ad is... 

This is a rare rat rod.

Rare, okay but why is the seller calling this stock looking car a "rat rod"?  The term is often synonyms with "jumbled together heap". 

As Cooter said, these had severe issues with rear frame rot. It's part of the reason my father hasn't gotten to restoring his '67 Galaxie 500 Convertible.

Also, if you do need any parts, nothing is really reproduced for these. And Ford was on a cycle where they completely changed the full-sizes every year. A '65 shared nothing with a '66, and a '66 shared nothing with a '67. And even in the same year, there were major differences. For example, my father has a '67 Galaxie 500 convertible, and that has a stamped aluminum grille, whereas the '67 LTD has a stainless steel grille.

The last two pics seem to show the original interior.  My main concern is while these go in a straight line fairly well, stopping and turning weren't great attributes (as were their contemporaries).  While one could be a DD, doing so in modern traffic would require some respect and arguably experience.  Especially if your son is learning in one of your modern cars with entirely different driving characteristics.

Lastly, these cars had pretty much zero thought given to safety. A '66 model might not even have seat belts. Make sure his mom is OK with that.

I get the feeling the seller is WAY out of his element and may have little familiarity with the car.  (This can obviously be good and bad for you.)  He's heard the term "rat rod" and grasps that it has something to do with trendy old cars, so he uses it.  The ad makes no mention of the new (Mustang?) seats, even though, presumably, a lot of work went into them.  There are no pictures of the passenger side of the car, or the interior, or the top.  (Kinda important on a convertible, even in CA, I would think.)

Yes, it's gorgeous, but Proceed With Caution.

Norma66 has a build thread on his 1966 Galaxie in the project car folder, you could check with him on what to look for:  https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/build-projects-and-project-cars/norma-1966-galaxie/132261/page1/

That rat rod reference in the ad is pretty puzzling.

Ian F said:

The last two pics seem to show the original interior.  My main concern is while these go in a straight line fairly well, stopping and turning weren't great attributes (as were their contemporaries).  While one could be a DD, doing so in modern traffic would require some respect and arguably experience.  Especially if your son is learning in one of your modern cars with entirely different driving characteristics.

Lastly, these cars had pretty much zero thought given to safety. A '66 model might not even have seat belts. Make sure his mom is OK with that.

Actually, for the time Ford was fairly proactive on safety - seat belts were mandated by then anyway, but they also had a padded steering wheel hub and a few other things the other manufacturers weren't doing yet.  Of course they were nowhere near the standards of today.  Also, the frame and suspension from the 1966 Ford were the basis of NASCAR race cars for many years, they were a cut above the rest in that regard.

Dual reservoir master cylinders weren't government mandated until 1967. 

A dual circuit brake system swap is something that would be a mandatory if any of my loved ones were driving it. 

im interested in the lambo golf cart in the last picture

I'm with everybody else on the ad copy.  "Rat rod?"  Peculiar.  Don't buy it unless you (or someone else who knows what they're looking at) get under the car and check the frame carefully for rust.  Any car of this age can be badly rusted and convertibles are obviously more vulnerable than tintops.

There are a couple similar cars for sale on my local CL.  One needs a top, and the other is a six-cylinder.  The price looks to be in line, but perhaps a little low for a 390 in a solid car.

Make sure to drive it on first start-up with everything cold. The old Ford cast-iron Cruise-O-Matics develop an issue where the pump wears and then until they get up to operating temperature, they will not shift up into high gear no matter what you do. My father's did that, as did a friend of ours that was just restored (that car also had the severe frame rust issue in the rear kickup).

I'll take another tangent here:  Does your kid really want a 52 yr old car?   Is this more something you see as cool but maybe he wont see it the same?  

It has been my experience that kids are not much interested in cars older than "the beginning of time" with that beginning being the year they were born.  At best you might convince them of a car that is "older" which means 10yrs before the beginning of time.  

As an example, your profile says you were born in 1976.  This means you were 15 and dreaming of a first car in 1991.  At that time, would you have been interested in a car that was 52 yrs old or a car from 1939?  I'll bet you were more interested in cars from your beginning of time or even 10 years older meaning 1966 as the 10+ or 1976.  What model year was that beloved MG Midget?  

So, Jr is now 15 meaning he was born in 2003.  I would wager that he sees anything older than 1993 as pre-historic or from before the beginning of time.  There is still a lot of cool stuff from '93 and newer. Puts you into some great Miatas as well as a Camaro/Mustang.  If not those there are some neat Toyota, Nissan, Mitsu from that era.  

In reply to John Welsh :

You sir, make an excellent point.  Also not to be discounted is the safety advantage inherent in more modern automobiles--always relevant, but especially relevant with a new driver behind the wheel.

Interesting that there are no pictures of the right side of the car.

trucke said:

Interesting that there are no pictures of the right side of the car.

Could it be that the right side of the car is a little "ratty?"

John Welsh said:

I'll take another tangent here:  Does your kid really want a 52 yr old car?   Is this more something you see as cool but maybe he wont see it the same?  

 

It has been my experience that kids are not much interested in cars older than "the beginning of time" with that beginning being the year they were born.  At best you might convince them of a car that is "older" which means 10yrs before the beginning of time.  

As an example, your profile says you were born in 1976.  This means you were 15 and dreaming of a first car in 1991.  At that time, would you have been interested in a car that was 52 yrs old or a car from 1939?  I'll bet you were more interested in cars from your beginning of time or even 10 years older meaning 1966 as the 10+ or 1976.  What model year was that beloved MG Midget?  

So, Jr is now 15 meaning he was born in 2003.  I would wager that he sees anything older than 1993 as pre-historic or from before the beginning of time.  There is still a lot of cool stuff from '93 and newer. Puts you into some great Miatas as well as a Camaro/Mustang.  If not those there are some neat Toyota, Nissan, Mitsu from that era.  

Interesting take- I will say that this is all him. He really like a 65 continental but those are $$$$ .what I'm concerned about is that he loves the idea of the thing more than he could love really being with it. But that's the thing I like about a car that could potentially increase in value, and if it ain't our thing, move along without a major loss. 

Also, we live in CA now, and I worry about 90s cars and smog. But I guess that's as ridiculous as not worrying about reliability and safety of older cars. 

Thanks for the advice everyone. I'll let you know how it shakes out. 

Teh E36 M3 said:

 But that's the thing I like about a car that could potentially increase in value, and if it ain't our thing, move along without a major loss. 

I wouldn't count on these cars going up in value anytime soon. There has never been a market for post-1964 Galaxies and they don't seem to be gaining in value either, except maybe for the 7-Litre cars. That's the problem our friend is having with trying to sell his. His '67 was nearly destroyed when he got it, and he restored it so that it is pretty much immaculate, there was at least 2 straight years of body work and hunting down parts cars, and now he wants to move onto something else, but nobody will even look at it for $18k.

Another ditto on the frame rust being a huge concern on these. I've seen reasonably clean bodies on perforated frames.

Also no one has mentioned the FE "they are all 390s on sale day" phenomenon. Ford FE engines have no external clues as to their displacement. While it is reasonable to expect this one is, and always has been, a 390 the 352 and 360 are physically identical. Only way to know for certain is the measure the piston stroke.

The FE is a giant lump of cast iron made to move heavy cars and trucks. They aren't generally 'fast' and building one into a tire scorcher will cost cubic money. Also, the intake end gaskets WILL be leaking and it will look like a rear main seal. It won't be.

Pertronix ignition helps them start much better.

FoMoCo carbs can get wobbly throttle plate shafts which lead to drivability issues.

These cars have avoided popularity but they are creeping up in value as more popular models become too expensive for the casual collector. I don't think you can go wrong with any convertible from this period.

In reply to ddavidv :

I had a 70 XL convertible with a 390 as my second car. It barely beat a friends non-turbo Impulse in an impromptu drag race. 

Is that a Lamborghini Diablo golf car next to it?