My guess is it will be relisted... The timing of it leads me to believe he will try to get at least 30K out of it...

 

Saw that car yesterday and it is just disgusting! Gorgeous.
Also there are 2 TTAs on right now, 1,9xx miles for $29,999 and 8,1xx miles for $26,999.

 

How does a "remaining factory warranty" work on the 607 mile GTA?

 

The big picture here is that the sticker on these cars was almost $25k. So with that in mind the 607 mile car is going to be a total loss if they don't get at least $30k because no one ever got the enjoyment of driving it. They could of put the $25k in a savings account and get more interest than that. Someone must need the money because its not really the time to sell that car yet. You would think to hold on to a car that long you would want to make some Real money on it. At least the guy selling the BJ car got to drive it a little and still make a small amout of money. And $5k profit is a small amout if this car was supposed to be an investment.

 

what? i dont get what you said...

 

88gta wasnt 25K new... I have buyers guides from back then.. they were more like 17K loaded

 

My '87 TA (not a GTA, LB9, WS6, hardtop) stickered at $17,648... so I believe that the ~$25k figure is more correct for a loaded GTA at the time...


Why does everyone assume that lower mile cars (the 607 mile one being a potential exception) were bought as "investments"? I'd venture to say 9 times out of 10, they were bought as a 2nd car, or a "toy", and they just didn't get beat up on daily... why is that so strange of a concept?

And in regards to that 607 mile car - as nice and clean as it looks, I wonder why the nose sitting on the ground, and the back end jacked way up?

 

Oh my.... I want that!!

 

$25k is correct i bought my ta in 1990 and sticker for my car was $19,767 to be exact. The reason i don't have a GTA today is that the other ones in the showroom were stickering for $25k. I don't think i could of gotten the deal done at $18k like i did on my TA. If i was only going to spend $17k i would of had to settle for a loaded plain firebird. As for being Loaded, they were all pretty much loaded with not many options avalible. Leather being one t-tops another. As for it being an investment or not personally i would put more than 33 miles a year on a "Toy". Just a cruise here and there would put a few hundred miles a year on. Kind of like the BJ car which would make more sense as someone's "Toy".

 

O.K i did some research on the GTA source site and looking through all the magazine articles from 1987 to 1992 you could buy a GTA for as little as $20k up to $27K with 1987 being 20k-24k and working your way up to 1992 23k-27k. This is not counting 1989tta.

 

30k omg

 

yea I have the invoice on my 88GTA and it comes to something around 23-24k.

so like someone already said. not crazy I suppose for it to sell for that but not a good investment.

 

I meant disgustingly gorgeous!

 

WOW>>> I guess the guide I have is either wrong or what the Dealers were paying on invoice.. Ill have to go look at it tonight... Probably an invoice sheet..

 

My red '88 GTA stickered at $19,938 and has everything offered except:

AA8 - Notchback - $700
U52 - Digital Gauges - $275
822 - Leather Seat Trim - $375

The T-tops are officially listed as NA on the 5.7L V8, so we'll leave that off. The VATS system is listed as a mandatory option and is priced at $75.00 on the sticker, so we'll add that back.

That adds up to a total of $21,363.... that figure should be pretty close to what a loaded '88 GTA would have priced out at. In contrast, by 1992 the GTA's base price alone was $26,370.

 

umm yeah....thats a bit excessive lol. i thought you meant it looked disgusting. i know people say "dude that looks so BAD!" "that looks sick!" but ive never heard disgusting used like that

 

OK, so here's the value of that $21,363 1988 car, shown in each year since then, if you had taken the $21,363 and invested it in a mutual fund making an annual average of 7½% and just left it sitting there (the financial equivalent of a 20-yr-old car with 600 miles on it). A conservative estimate on the rate of return, actually.

1988 21363
1989 22965
1990 24688
1991 26539
1992 28530
1993 30669
1994 32970
1995 35442
1996 38100
1997 40958
1998 44030
1999 47332
2000 50882
2001 54698
2002 58800
2003 63210
2004 67951
2005 73048
2006 78526
2007 84416

So, how good of an "investment" does that GTA look like now??? If the guy sells it for $30k, basically he's taking a bath... to the tune of

$55k

So somebody explain to me how a car, ESPECIALLY one of these cars, can be considered an "investment".

And keep in mind, that's the asking price; whether it will "sell" for that, is anybody's guess. Judging by the # of cars that come up on that show that sell for stratospheric prices and end up being re-listed, seems like there's an awful lot of stupid money on there, that suddenly gets smarter at checkbook-whooping-out time.

 

Why do people keep jumping in on the "investment" bandwagon?

We can only speculate as to how that car came to be offered for sale at this time... maybe it was in a museum, and maybe the owner passed away for all we know, and they are just trying to maximize what they can out of it?

Buying a "new" car is never a good "investment"... I don't think anyone in this entire post ever said it was?

 

No, they're just talking about how much more they can get for their car than they paid

 

WOW!!!, someone is using my arguement of Investments...

1) NO CAR IS A GOOD INVESTMENT - not yelling just emphasizing, that is the case.
2) Finding a 7.5% APR on in a mutual fund is kind of a stretch, just an FYI, 7% about doubles your money every 10 years and 10% about doubles every 7, unfortunately the only way you would have gotten that kind of return would have been to invest into microsoft back in the early 80's

3) Barret Jackson like it or not is an indicator of things to come, there were NO performance cars to speak of in the 80's except for the F-body, Mustang and Corvette, there were some obscure cars like the Dodge Omni GLH & GLHS, but they were unattractive at best. Style wise the 3rd gen f-body really has most 80's cars beat for style, then you add the performance aspect of the 350 offering in the late 80's and early 90's and the handeling ability nothing really compares from the era... When we can turn about .9g in stock form with good tires, and there are very few cars that are not all out performance cars that can really do that in todays numbers, the 3rd gen really had some intersting charactists.

Because of this and some other high sales from BJ it will push up the values of our cars like it or not. I personally love it...

BTW, I will keep my one of 42 Formula 350 Convertible for a while now

John

 

BTW, the rims appear to have the correct offset as it appears that the rears have less of an offset than the Fronts. The GNX used 4 Black painted fronts from the Trans Am. If it is a Late year 87 then it may have gotten the different rims, but I can never recall whether the extra little hole is 87 or post 87, these rims obvously have the little notch. The lugs are definately a Chrome aftermarket lug, considering how inexpensive the original style lugs are I am surprised someone did not keep them. However these may be a Gorilla lug that only takes the Key to unscrew, mine are that way...

John

 

RPM LOT, man your car is so beautiful, I saw the thread with your link, nice ride! Anyway, we are a dying breed, are F bodies are not worth much, try selling your car ( not a beat up junkie ) and see the garbarge you get and price crying. I paid 10,0-00.00 in December 2002 for my 1991 Formula 5.0, from a collector in Michigan, like NEW in and out with 8,900 miles. Andy

 

The offset is too deep, front and rear. Maybe the fronts were widened, if in fact a GNX rim is the same offset as a TA front... but I know a GNX had a deeper offset (I know they came black - painting the mesh is not a difficult task...)

The rear rims on that car are clearly deeper than normal rears (which is why I am thinking that they are fronts), and the fronts are clearly deeper than those rears... so whatever they're from, they are deeper than stock fronts...

I am attaching a pic to show what I mean (no, the other car pictured is not mine... but it is an '88 that I found, and the picture illustrates my point pretty well)...

Oh, and 88-92 has the "notches"... '87 did not.

On second look, that '87 is also missing the "FUEL INJECTION" on the door handle...

Here are 2 GNX pics I found online... the rear offset is HUGE on a GNX... and even the front on a GNX appears wider than a Trans Am spec rim... so I maintain my position that they were definately not 4 black "Trans Am" rims all around... but lookin at these, they are also the pre-'88 style meshing... hmm...





So basically, I have no idea what rims are on that GTA - maybe they were widened, who knows... but they DEFINATELY are not stock offsets front & rear...

 

I had no idea that car has such low mileage! That is nice, how many miles are on it now? Do you have more pictures???

 

BJ is for people with more money than sense.

I don't care how bad I wanted that '70 HEMI CUDA convertible or how much money I had I wouldn't be dumb enough to pay what was it 2 million ?

These people are retards for doing that. Mommy dropped them on their head when they were children.

 

RPM, sadly it is my daily now for over 2 years, it just passed 40,000 2 weeks ago. Send me your email as I have more at my home computer (this is my work). Is your car always stord in there? Thanks! ANdy

 

I've read that GNX rims are stock TA/GTA fronts but seeing them in person... that isnt true. They are unique.

I think the rims on the car in question are the correct offset front and back.

 

I wouldn't go that far... Think of what some art work goes for. If someone has the $ to spend,then let them spend it....I would argue that many do have a 'brain' that works, or else they wouldn't be in the position to spend that type of dough.
My problem is that people start to compare their 318 car to that Hemi, thinking that since the Hemi car is worth xxx dollars then the 318 has to be worth a pile also. The rare and or extremely renoun artists pull $$ because of the 'special' nature of their work, a real HEMI, COPO, L88, W30, 428SCJ,etc...are rare and the 'special' versions of otherwise base cars.... There is no reason (IMO) that a 383, 318 or even a 340 (non-6pack car) should pull the money that they do at the BJ auction. (In the real market, I would argue based on tracking the regular car mags, traders etc..that they don't, but people try and will argue that their car is worth it because they saw that price at the BJ auction).
This is why in my original reply to this post, I felt that the BJ has poisoned the car market. Base cars are pulling extremely high dollar figues at the BJ auction, but at other popular and prestigeous collector car auctions, like RM's, and Mecum, the cars either don't sell because of the reserve price being extremely unresonalble (is this because of BJ), and or they don't fetch near the value(s) that are being seen at the BJ auction, instead they sell for a lot less! If we look at that GTA at BJ, many on here have stated that the car was not even a perfect example of one, yet it pulled big $$ - in the real world, many of you suggest that the car was worth xx dollars not a penny more. Will this anamoly (the BJ GTA) make us all believe GTA's in similar condition are worth the same amount? Does this example prove that the car (GTA) in the e-bay listing provided is worth even more? We will have to wait and see....I will argue that this is just another example of unrealistic prices that the market is not willing to accept or bare. Agian, as support for my argument, look at all the even nicer thirdgen's for sale, (1LE's B4C, TTA, and Firehawks) that can't even touch the prices that are achieved at the BJ auction.
-Andrew

 

Did you look at my attachment above, below the GNX pics?

 

It isn't stupid to pay $2M for a Hemi Cuda if you can afford to gamble that it might be worth $3M a couple of years later. I remember when the first one sold for $1M. When that same car sold for double that a couple of years later, it doesn't look so stupid does it?

I'd pay $1000 for a cat turd if I knew someone was very likely to pay me $2000 for it this time next year :-)

 

LMAO, I can probably get a hold of some turds if you need them!!

But seriously, a very good point.

 

I think what you are seeing at BJ is the fact that so many car enthusiests attend.

Fortunately or Unfortunately, depending on your point of view these extreme collectors who pay top dollar for the perverbial cat turd, once they begin playing games, and if someone really wants a car they will play with them just to jack up the price. I have been to auctions and that is really the case. I happened to go to this auction and some old lady had died, she had a 1982 Caviler 4 door with no options, Keep in mind this was around 1996, the car only had 30,000 miles but it went for $4000... I watched these two guys and they were stupid, both of them thought the other wanted it so they were playing a game. In the end one got stuck with it, his jaw dropped when the other smirked glanced over and waived off.

Another aspect is that there are alot of serious car buyers in one place they come world wide, in your local area there are not that many serious buyers, mostly tire kickers and why most cars sit a long time before selling.

----------------

As for the GNX using black painted GTA rims... I fail to see the difference in the pix and what I have pix of...

The REASON why they look like the 86-87 style cross laced rims is the GNX was made in 1987... ALSO keep in mind that the RWD Regal did not require 2 different offset rims. IIRC OUR 16" front rims are considered zero offset in factory form, our rear rims are about 3/4" offset to the outside. Regals, Monte Carlos, Cutlass & Grand Prix all used the zero offset. If someone is local with a set of cross laced rims and wants to argue we can go the the Buick Museum across the street from me and we can settle it.

JOhn

 

If you fail to see a difference in the pics, between the offset on the GNX rims and the GTA (TA crosslace) fronts, and I mean this in the nicest of ways... I think you need to look closer.

I realize you are the "Formula Guru" around here... but I have to say, I've personally owned (3) three WS6 TA's (two '87's and an '89), all with factory Crosslace wheels over the years... and I have a pretty good handle on what is "correct" for these cars...

 

So I'm thinkin this is a good deal! He's down to 5400.00 this week.
Looks pretty nice. Somebody buy it so I don't have to!

http://www.mfba.org/showthread.php?t=45493

 

all i can say is wow..the seller made out great..it is a nice gta..very nice and perfection is overrated.aside from that my gta conv.puts that car to shame ,but i f someone offered me that price it would be sold also.. there is always someone who will pay whatever it takes..remember a fool and his money are soon parted..but congrats to all involved with it..i have seen some cars go through bj that are in as good of shape as an old police car...and pull in crazy money go figure....but it is really nice to see a few thirdgens in there .....every where u look chevelle , nova etc..

 

As for the GN-X wheels, this should settle it:

http://home.att.net/~buickGNX/GNX/susp.htm

 

Thank you for verifying it. I thought so.

 

Yea I did. The rim isnt clean, to begin with. Take another look at the photos of the BJ car, the front and rear offsets are clearly different. I dont see any issues with the offset. Some of it is distance, some is reflection, and some is photo angle. You should know how much perspective in a photo can fool you.

As for GNX wheels, go see them in person and park some thirdgen crosslace wheels next to it. The difference is obvious.

 

Regardless if it's clean or not, it's the same difference in any other pic you will find. I posted that one because the angle was similar... the lack of depth is not a question of the "cleanliness" or "reflection".

Here's a picture of a "clean" rear WS6 wheel for you. Yes, it's an '87 rim, but the offset didn't change '88-92, either. I don't care what angle you look, the ones on that car are clearly deeper.

I know it is. That was my point the whole time. Others on here kept stating incorrectly that they were the same as TA fronts...

 

Here's what the BJ car is, inner lip shown in cad. Please note the dimensions are actual with no correction made for the isometric view of the car or actual size (although I might be able to pull that off without too much difficulty). Also note the origin points of the 2 axis I have shown and the actual dimensions should be sized up accordingly, making the front lip that much wider than the back.

Also, here's a picture of my TA, the rear rims are rear rims... correct offset and all.




Personally if you really think they are wrong, go track down the car and measure for yourself. The picture isnt going to prove a thing and I'll bet the actual measurement will only show you they are correct.

 

And that proves exactly what, besides that you can draw lines across a picture?

 

GN-X wheels = NOT GTA cross lace wheels.

 

They had three 1989 Turbo Trans Ams at BJ that went for between $15,600 and $21,000

 

Do you (or anyone) know or have a link to those listings - I am having trouble downloading any of their most recent cat items-
-Andrew

 

Ok, actual dimensions.

Without lines... the photo is useless. All you're doing is guessing. If you dont know where the viewpoint is and its relation to center, you cant determine the size difference. If you took any serious photo classes or drafting classes where they teach isometric views, you can determine the size of a distant object in relation to a close object. Anyway, based on the rims being 16" (1'-4"), the widths are as shown... actual size. They seem to match my GTA and TA pretty close, at least as close as you'd ever get from a photo.

 

Keep convincing yourself, madmax...

Nobody is arguing the fact that the fronts are deeper than the rears...

However, the rears do appear deeper than normal rears...

 

Something to note. The first GTA wheels in 1987 where two piece construction with the centre crosslaced area welded into the hoops. In 1988-onward, the wheels were cast one piece.

So my point ... the GN-X could have easily had different off sets. Just a spec change on the orders rather than a re-cast for a new rim.

Mark.

 

...and it begins...

"this model just sold at barrett-jackson for 30,800.00"

 

OK, After looking at the pictures it does appear that the GNX has a slitghtly deeper offset than the Front TA wheels... I Stand corrected... At least I am willing to admint I was wrong. If someone wants to send me $5.00 to go into the museum across the street I will go measue the GNX wheels...

JOhn

 

wow I actually like that piant job. I wouldn't do it to my car but thats not half bad.