Steve439

The 67 collapsible steering column could save your life.

DansYellow66

The above and the L-72 enginer are the reason I've owned two of them.

Dan

Mark_Milner

No matter how you try, you won't find this type of insanity with a '66.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Corvette-CONVERTIBLE-PROJECT-1967-ROADSTER-REAL-427-435-HP-67-...

You have to look at the ad. I hope this isn't some members car. The trim plate is gone. He admits it. So NCRS judging is going to lose a LOT of points, since the reproduction tags are very detectable and you lose many of your paint and interior points.

The frame center cross member is cut up. The original engine is gone.

And you have to read the questions to see what he has for a buy it now.

Mark_Milner

Bet this guy wished he'd had a '67. Maybe not, I doubt the steering column had any effect.

SIXt7

Perhaps higher value for 67 is due in part to the last year for the body style.

Shumdit

I personally find the 63 SWC to be the best looking of all the mid-years (yes, because of the friggin bar that blocks your rear vision!). I also really like the 63's because of the hood grilles and other ornamentation (although I do not like the side strakes as much as the 67's), and particularly for the interior differences (fancy glovebox door, fancy deep gauges with bent needles and brushed cones, fancy center console, slightly different spokes on steering wheel, and I even like the door lock ***** that camoflauge themselves as reflectors (shared with the 64). That said, I really like the clean styling on the outside of the 67 (and again, for some reason I prefer the coupe again, even though I am a convertible kinda guy). I guess it's that the styling of the coupes is truer to the intent of Mitchell and the way the boat tail blends and accentuates the rear fender peaks just has always "done it" for me. That said, there no losers as far as year models go, so find a car you like, make sure there are no "surprises" and enjoy.

lt1dude

They removed the chicken bar on the 67s for the passenger to hang onto .. do not like that in the earlier midyears, Looks out of place. Plus...the ralleye wheels look great in 67.

65GGvert

I don't like the 5 slot gills, the non power antenna, the hand brake in the center that gets in the way, and I don't care for the loss of insignia on the front fenders, nor the rally wheels, or the high mounted rear backup light. Other than that the 67's are fine. I'm partial to the 65 mostly for those reasons, but also the 65 was my first Corvette, and the year I graduated from high school. I also prefer the blacked out slotted grill that the 65 has. That said, given the choice of 65, 66, or 67 in the same condition at the same price, my order of preference would be in that order, 65 66 67. A simple explanation might be that I had a 65 for so long that the 67 was too much change, and I don't like change. For me, it's not so much the value as, I'd pay more for what I really wanted.

futura

Attended a new car show with my father in the fall of 1966. I picked up and still have dog eared 67 Corvette and Camaro sales brochures. I've now owned the Camaro for 23 years and the Corvette might be a retirement goal.

That being said, I sold a 64 convertible last year and it was a wonderful car. The best mid year bang for the buck out there.

SledgeHammer 2.0

wonder if the value has changed since 2006?

this is a 9 year old thread

ifitgoesfast

small block convertibles

If we're talking SB convertibles only, 67's have always had greater value of all C2's.

Maybe last year models always are valued higher for any car?

Maybe final year refinements, though small, make a difference?

Maybe they like the side louvers best on the 67?

Maybe bragging rights cause the Smiths have to have a 67 if the Joneses have a 67?

I personally don't like the rear back up light that was forced into the body in the center between the tail lights. Think it looks like an aftermarket add-on. Why couldn't they have just kept the T86 inboard taillights for the back-up lights? I personally don't like the side louvers on the 67 vs the 65'66, but others do.

Or it could be the stinger hood. That thing is awesome ... but the '65 396 hood is the best of course.

Gary's '66

Are you saying that currently you have to have a '67 smog tested in Az.?

Gary

ifitgoesfast

You might be waiting a while for a response, Last time panchop posted was 2008.

Gary's '66

Thanks, didn't look at the original post date. New members suck me in from time to time.

Gary

OHSIXX

About 99.999 percent of people do not know one from the other. I like them all.

jrm5657

If you have collector car insurance in AZ, then no emissions test is required on 67's.

desertpilgrim

[QUOTE=Donny Brass;1557915695]'67 carry about a 10% - 15% premium because thay are still building 427/435 tri power cars in St Louis with documentation.........

.....and at 20 or 30 other locations, with and without documentation

SI67

...is a feature you NEVER want to use: Collapsible steering column!
Actually, you can get a little use out if without crashing if you install a Borgeson steering conversion---you collapse the column slightly instead of having to cut it.

I think it's the first year for dual master without power brakes. IIRC, '66 had a dual MC on power break cars.

I happen to LIKE the '67 backup light! Of course I have a '67....

Gary's '66

I've probably had a half dozen, out of hundred or so, that actually know or have guessed the year my car was produced.

Gary

vettebuyer6369

I'm guessing posting to a thread thats been dead for 9 years about current "value" might be unproductive.