Cars

It’s 1966, you have $2,500, and you’re looking for a compact economy car. Which one would you pick?

It’s 1966, you have $2,500, and you’re looking for a compact economy car. Which one would you pick?

by Key_Budget9267

30 Comments

  1. Bubbly_Positive_339

    So my grandfather did this. Had a Volkswagen in 1966 and the minute he started making good money bought a bad ass 442. But the answer clearly is Volvo.

  2. gubanana

    Can’t decide between the ambassador or the beetle

  3. Legitimate_Lack_8350

    The volvo or either of the slant 6 cars. Both fit the category of slow (i’d get the 4 speed on the slant 6s), but at least where I grew up, there were distance drives on highways where the low power would get exposed – but driving on local roads was a lot more common and 100 hp would get you anywhere you needed to go.

    Same year, my mother got a galaxie 500 fastback with a 390. Not a rocket ship, but better fit for the highway, I guess. Seems unlikely it would last as long as a 170 slant 6. there is still equipment on farms running on those, albeit antique.

    My dad drove a valiant with a slant 6 same year – he has nothing but praise for it – always ran, never trouble. He didn’t have much money and was working two jobs entering college so that he could get go to college and pay for it at the same time with no debt leaving (which he did). Showing off going fast wasn’t on his list of things to do.

  4. MatthewG141

    I’d take either the Volvo or the Saab.

  5. oldsoul6465

    The 1966 Chevy 2. With either a 283 or a 327 (which were options) it goes from being an economy car to a quick little terror on the streets and drag strip.

  6. DeNomoloss

    Beetle for the familiar engine and handling of a go-kart. That’s a positive for me. I prefer a highly mobile small car.

  7. Strength-Certain

    Plymouth with a slant 6. Save up and later buy the Hyper-Pack go fast goodies

  8. WorkerEquivalent4278

    Volvo or the Chevy with the 250 straight 6.

  9. The beetle cause it’s sure not confortable or fast but it’s going to be dead reliable

  10. Cornholio231

    My grandfather went for a used Nash Metropolitan

  11. RedditVince

    Chevy II please, some had V8’s and you can easily drop in a modern LT and 6 speed.

  12. sea_king67

    You could get a pretty well-optioned Corvair Monza for $2500 in 1966. $2520 would get you an entry-level Corsa. The later Corvairs were great.

  13. AlienSporez

    Volvo 124. Because my step dad had one and gave it to me in 1987 to drive to school. Her name was Annabelle. That car was absolutely unstoppable; never broke down, everything worked, and it was a tank in the snow. It wasn’t fast but damn it was a fantastic car. Still miss Annabelle

  14. chinmakes5

    Volvo, but if you want a car that would last forever the slant 6 Dodge. A friend had one he and his brothers drove it, had over150k miles on it in the day of getting 100,000 was impressive. We joked that the engine would never die. Eventually his brother rolled the car. it was totaled but the wheels were still spinning as he walked away from the car. The engine truly never died.

  15. Falcon all the way. I have reliability questions on the rest except perhaps the Beetle.

  16. CookingDrunk

    Ford Falcon to keep until now; Volvo purchase would depend on parts’ availability where I lived back in 1966.

  17. WrongnessMaximus2-0

    That Falcon would run forever, I still saw those growing up in the 80s. I think people got rid of them when they were tired of them, not because they had to.

  18. oim8itsme

    I’ll go With the saab 96 only to confuse petrol heads when i say my cars got a v4.

Write A Comment