Window Sticker for a 66 Chevy Impala and 65 Ford Mustang

Midpack

Midpack

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
23,908
Location
NC
Just amusing to see not only how low base prices were, but options for less than a McDonalds meal for a family today. 1965 Mustang 2+2 Fastback base price $2589, AM Radio $58.50, Knockoff Wheel Covers $18.20. 1966 Chevy Impala Convertible base $3097, automatic trans $194.85, power steering $94.86. The good ol' days...

As an aside I remember walking around a mall with my Dad in the mid 60's and we came upon a brand new Jaguar XKE. Sticker price was around $5000 - we both thought 'who in the world would pay that much for a car!'


 
This is great, Midpack! Fun stuff.

What continues to impress me is that today's vehicles have so many more features. When looking at average price of vehicle versus average wage, it isn't too different and there's a whole lot more safety and comfort.

For comparison is the census wage numbers. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1967/demographics/p60-51.pdf

1768847687440.png
 
Just crazy when looking back at the past. I have the window sticker from an old 4x4 extended cab 1994 Toyota truck I bought last summer. The MSRP of around 14K. Even though Toyota were more expensive of a vehicle in those years it still today holds a value of that and more. Never get a loaded 4x4 extended cab anything for that now.

Thanks an interesting thread.
 
JoeWras said:
This is great, Midpack! Fun stuff.

What continues to impress me is that today's vehicles have so many more features. When looking at average price of vehicle versus average wage, it isn't too different and there's a whole lot more safety and comfort.

For comparison is the census wage numbers. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1967/demographics/p60-51.pdf

View attachment 61154
Click to expand...
Agree. A base mustang today sells in the low $30k range which is the same number I got when I put the dollars from 1965 into an inflation calculator. The car today, even the base model, is way more advanced than the 65 no matter what options it had.
 
JoeWras said:
For comparison is the census wage numbers. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1967/demographics/p60-51.pdf

View attachment 61154
Click to expand...
That feels a bit... high. If a relatively upmarket muscle car cost $3000, but median household income was $6900... well, that's less than 50%. Today, a somewhat upmarket vehicle - nothing ostentatious, but not exactly a Nissa Versa either - is $50K or $60K, the proportional income would have to be $120K or more... but the actual number is around $75K.

If we made a similar comparison about housing - the cost of housing then vs. now, vs. salaries then vs. now... we may find an even more provocatively disturbing ratio.
 
Diogenes said:
If we made a similar comparison about housing - the cost of housing then vs. now, vs. salaries then vs. now... we may find an even more provocatively disturbing ratio.
Click to expand...
Agree, but cars back then didn't have electric windows, airbags, and so on as standard. Similar with housing. The new houses are just too big with too many features. Homes with 1 bathroom are unsellable today. Back in 1965, they were typical.

It is a difficult problem. I understand why nobody wants a 1 bathroom home or a 60 amp electric panel. But that's what the "rich boomers" grew up with that the kids today are so mad about. Likewise, my grandmother grew up in the city of Chicago and used an outhouse under the street sidewalk (yes, under the sidewalk). Dad used the community park shower, as did everyone else. My grandma took a bath once a month. It is why I still have a memory 55 years later of "grandma smell."

No way would I have put up with that sh*t. But that's one way they lived on less.
 
Yea... the complaint about how we had it easy just irks me... how about 6 kids and 2 parents in a 1400 sq ft house... dad bought in a neighborhood that had 2 bathrooms... sad part is if he had bought in the other are of town his gain would have been 20 to 40X.... I sold the house for 3.5X as if became a bad part of town...
 
It's all relative. We bought our first new car in late 1970...a 1970 Ford Maverick. The ONLY option we could afford was an AM radio. Manual trans, plastic floormats and seats. I tried to teach my wife manual shifting. Didn't go well but we are still married.
 
JoeWras said:
Agree, but cars back then didn't have electric windows, airbags, and so on as standard. Similar with housing. The new houses are just too big with too many features. Homes with 1 bathroom are unsellable today. Back in 1965, they were typical.

It is a difficult problem. I understand why nobody wants a 1 bathroom home or a 60 amp electric panel. But that's what the "rich boomers" grew up with that the kids today are so mad about. Likewise, my grandmother grew up in the city of Chicago and used an outhouse under the street sidewalk (yes, under the sidewalk). Dad used the community park shower, as did everyone else. My grandma took a bath once a month. It is why I still have a memory 55 years later of "grandma smell."

No way would I have put up with that sh*t. But that's one way they lived on less.
Click to expand...
The house next door to my parents sold last Fall above asking and it is 2bd, 1ba and only 900 sqft
 
Back in the late 60's, I remember seeing a new 426ci/425hp 1968 Dodge Charger on the showroom floor. Price was ~5k and it came with a 90day or 4k mile factory warranty.
 
Midpack said:
Just amusing to see not only how low base prices were, but options for less than a McDonalds meal for a family today. 1965 Mustang 2+2 Fastback base price $2589, AM Radio $58.50, Knockoff Wheel Covers $18.20. 1966 Chevy Impala Convertible base $3097, automatic trans $194.85, power steering $94.86. The good ol' days...

As an aside I remember walking around a mall with my Dad in the mid 60's and we came upon a brand new Jaguar XKE. Sticker price was around $5000 - we both thought 'who in the world would pay that much for a car!'


Click to expand...
One thing I can tell you: those old cars didn’t have crumple zones. And I can also tell you from sad experience recently, crumple zones are really important. My car— after a recent mishap —looked like a bomb went off. I wasn’t hurt at all and neither was anyone else. Very fortunate. They build them better now than they used to. They’re not as attractive and they’re more boring, but they’re definitely safer.
 
Midpack said:
As an aside I remember walking around a mall with my Dad in the mid 60's and we came upon a brand new Jaguar XKE. Sticker price was around $5000 - we both thought 'who in the world would pay that much for a car!'
Click to expand...
Around that same time one of my friends had a rich cousin who actually owned that car. He probably had to wash it a lot because we all drooled over it whenever he was around. IIRC, he said it used a quart of oil per 100 miles.

 
braumeister said:
Around that same time one of my friends had a rich cousin who actually owned that car. He probably had to wash it a lot because we all drooled over it whenever he was around. IIRC, he said it used a quart of oil per 100 miles.

Click to expand...
Interesting. My boss had a mid '60s XKE 6 cylinder and had no issues with oil. He upgraded a couple of years later to the V-12. Again, no oil issues. BUT routine maintenance was outrageously priced.
 
^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the site. Fun reading.
 
In 1973 I paid $600 for a 1966 Mustang Convertible with the 289 V8 K code. Drove it for 4 years then a family member took it as I moved on to a new car. If I only had that car today.
 
hmmm. so much for inflation. I just replaced my 98 vw jetta i bought for 19k with a 2025 jetta for almost 20k. almost 30 years, monetary destruction, much more features, and price is virtually unchanged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom