58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

[Greg L.]

I know that a 4spd is generally more desireable than a 3spd but where does the PowerGlide fare in this regard?

The reason I ask is because I ran across a PG car that caught my eye but I don't really know if the PG should detract from the general value of the car or if they make any difference.

I know that from a driving perspective some may prefer the PG and some will prefer the manual but from a value perspective on a car in driver condition is there really much difference and if so by about how much?

Thanks again.

[Greg L.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

Anyone care to touch on this?

[Chuck G.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

FWIW, makes no difference to me.

My 63 is a 4 speed. My 69 is a THM 400. My 54 was a powerglide.

After I sold the 54, I bought a 56 Chevy. It's a Muncie 4 speed.

As soon as I get relocated, the Muncie is coming out of the 56, and a 700 R4 overdrive automatic is going in.

Chuck

[Stewart A.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

That's a good point. I'm surprised to see that there hasn't been more on this thread. If I had my time again I would of went for a power glide. It's just so much easier. The C1's are very cramped and tall people struggle getting their knees under their chin to change gears. The cost of a Borg W and getting it right is time consuming and expensive. I have a mate who loves 58's but can't drive mine because he can't change gears. He's a big boy around 125 kilo. He could drive it if it was an Auto. A good car with an Auto should fetch a similar price than with a 4 speed.
Stewy

[Jim L.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

I know that a 4spd is generally more desireable than a 3spd but where does the PowerGlide fare in this regard?

I know that from a driving perspective some may prefer the PG and some will prefer the manual but from a value perspective on a car in driver condition is there really much difference and if so by about how much?

I'd bet money that 4 speed cars will always command a premium over PowerGlide cars simply because people feel they should. It certainly won't be because they have any greater intrinsic worth.

As to driving perspective, well, that's another matter entirely. I've got two ground pounding, fire-breathing 4 speed cars that put a big ol' grin on my face every time I light one of them off. However, I also have two milque-toast PG cars, a '54 and a '63 roadster that no one will ever pry out of my hands.

So, 4 speed vs Powerglide? Depends on what you want.

Jim

[Greg L.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

kilo? Are you guys on the metric system down there too? And here I thought Canada was the only "english" country that was metric.

My 69 has a base 427 and THM 400 and I know that all things being equal, it would bring more money if it was a 4spd. I don't know if this holds true for the C1s though. My personal preference in a C1 would be a 4spd but I wouldn't pass on the right car just because it had a powerglide either.

I'm wondering if the PG cars are generally worth less than the manual cars or if they bring the same prices....

[John M.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

More people want 4 speeds in Corvettes and old muscle cars than automatics. This is pretty much a fact.

The superiority of performance of a 4 speed over a vintage auto is pretty obvious.

I acknowledge that this is like discussing religion, but I, and many others would not even go to look at a PG car for sale. Roughly 80-90% of 56-68 new Corvette buyers felt the same way.

I think a PG value would be a 15-25% less than a manual. You're simply selling to a much smaller market.

kilo? Are you guys on the metric system down there too? And here I thought Canada was the only "english" country that was metric.

My 69 has a base 427 and THM 400 and I know that all things being equal, it would bring more money if it was a 4spd. I don't know if this holds true for the C1s though. My personal preference in a C1 would be a 4spd but I wouldn't pass on the right car just because it had a powerglide either.

I'm wondering if the PG cars are generally worth less than the manual cars or if they bring the same prices....

[Jeff G.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

I think a PG value would be a 15-25% less than a manual. You're simply selling to a much smaller market.

I would tend to agree with this statement if all things were equal. This leads me to a story about a car I saw this past weekend. It was a 67 435 horse Red/black with the options PS, PB, PW, AM/FM, AC, and yes Powerglide. This car was original from bumper to bumper including the paint. Original owner even has the original tires (at home). At this point the car was such a unique specticle that the value would overcome the PG.

[Patrick H.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

I would tend to agree with this statement if all things were equal. This leads me to a story about a car I saw this past weekend. It was a 67 435 horse Red/black with the options PS, PB, PW, AM/FM, AC, and yes Powerglide. This car was original from bumper to bumper including the paint. Original owner even has the original tires (at home). At this point the car was such a unique specticle that the value would overcome the PG.

I would suggest that it was a 400 horse car, not a 435, as the 435 was not available with a Powerglide.

Patrick

[Jeff G.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

Thanks Pat, yes 400...

[Stewart A.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

I think some of you guys have never driven a C1. It's not in the same league as a 427 425hp car.
Try 230 hp and the most uncomfortable sitting position known to mankind, they ride on tires that are skinnier than my mountain bike. If your 5 foot it's probably great, anyone 6 foot and over it's to small and not a performance car. It's plain uncomfortable and to be changing gears in stop start traffic with your knees up around your neck with a steering wheel bigger than the Titanic is not my thinking of performance and an auto would be nice.
I own a 1960 and drive it every day with a 4 speed and every time I pry myself in it I wonder what the design team were thinking. It's all of what I said that make it ultra special but the difference between an auto and a manual in a C1 would not make a cent difference in a base model Corvette.
290 or 270 hp then yeah to get the best out of it a manual would probably be the way to go and I don't think they made any autos in the high hp models anyway. Personally I would pay the same amount of money for an auto as a manual in a base C1, that's just my 2 cents worth. Make mine black
Stewy

[Edward B.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

As the cars (and owners) get older and are driven less, it would seem as if the difference in value between manual and automatic would decrease. Most owners aren't pushing their C1s for maximum performance and the driveability of the automatic is hard to dispute. Perhaps the automatic will demand the premium price in the years to come?

[Tom P.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

My viewpoint is VERY skewed, and VERY straight forward.
I think there should be a federal law prohibiting auto trannys in Corvettes-------------------as well as performance cars from the Muscle Car era.
It's just wrong! An SS454 Chevelle (or GTO, or 442, or Road Runner, etc, etc) is just wrong without 3 pedals!

[John M.]

Re: 58-60 Manual trans versus PowerGlide value

How about this theory:

New cars are like 95% slushbox equipped, so as manual transmission get more novel (rare), they will become even more attractive (valuable). OK maybe not.

Any, I am a stick shift freak, I have not owned an auto in 20 years, and every time I drive one I get kind of sick to my stomach. I think it goes back to my first vette purchase 20 years ago. The seller had a '74 BB Roadster AT, and a '73 BB Roadster MT, the AT '74 was a whopping thousand dollars cheaper ($11,500 as I recall). I thought I'd save some money and bought the AT. About 5 miles down the road I started regretting not getting the MT '73. Sold the car 2 years later and have not had an auto anything since, ruined me for life.

On the theory that it does not effect the price of a base car, I disagree. It just does not affect it as much because of the percentage of a lower value.

I don't agree on the "driveability" of an auto either. I prefer a car that slows down when I let off the gas, and does not smoke the brakes when I go down a long hill. No offense intended.

As the cars (and owners) get older and are driven less, it would seem as if the difference in value between manual and automatic would decrease. Most owners aren't pushing their C1s for maximum performance and the driveability of the automatic is hard to dispute. Perhaps the automatic will demand the premium price in the years to come?