Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

1929930932934935

Comments

  • berriberri Posts: 4,141

    You guys have got me thinking Route 66 now :p

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,603

    I've never seen a 57 De Soto with quad headlights!

    I know that in 1957 it was possible to get quads on Chryslers but only in the states that permitted them. It looks like the same applied to De Sotos.

    Looks like it's going to worth the wait and expense. Just don't make it a Trailer Queen!

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,603

    Speaking of Trailer Queens...

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509

    I assume that red paint is just oxidized, and will shine right up.

  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,641

    very nice Andre!

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849

    @isellhondas said: I've never seen a 57 De Soto with quad headlights!

    I know that in 1957 it was possible to get quads on Chryslers but only in the states that permitted them. It looks like the same applied to De Sotos.

    Looks like it's going to worth the wait and expense. Just don't make it a Trailer Queen!

    Funny, I think I've seen more '57 DeSotos with quads, than without! But yeah, it varied from state to state. Apparently, Pennsylvania legalized the quads that year, because that's where mine came from originally. While all Chryslers had the option of quads, with DeSoto, it was all models except the Dodge-based Firesweep, which used a DeSoto body on a shorter Dodge frame, and up front had Dodge fenders/hood, with a DeSoto grille stuck on. Oh, and a 325 poly instead of a 341 Hemi.

    I think they could have put quad lights on if they wanted to, though. The '57 Dodge (and Plymouth) were set up where a big turn signal mounted inboard of the single headlights gave the car a somewhat quad-headlight look. And, for '58 they all went with quad lights.

    One thing I just realized...I don't think I've ever seen a 1957 Adventurer with single headlights. Not in pictures, nor in person. I think the Adventurer came out somewhat late in the model year though, so maybe quad lights were legal nationwide by then?

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    edited May 18

    @fintail said: I assume that red paint is just oxidized, and will shine right up.

    Yeah, a little oxidized, and VERY dusty! Here's a pic of the body, up on the lift where it's been for a good 4 years by now...

    It will still show flaws and age once it's washed and waxed, but it should look fairly presentable. I think all the handprints in the dust on the trunk give it a nice, horror movie touch. Like something's trying to get out. Or in...

  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,603

    So, on a restoration like this id it pay as you go with periodic payments?

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,416

    Nothing that $20,000 wouldn't fix up real nice. :)

    What's with the lower rear quarter panel? Paint has been stripped off for some reason?

    MODERATOR

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    edited May 18

    @Mr_Shiftright said: Nothing that $20,000 wouldn't fix up real nice. :)

    What's with the lower rear quarter panel? Paint has been stripped off for some reason?

    Oh I wish I was only into it for $20K... :'(

    As for the lower quarters, they were rusty and had bondo in them, so they were cut out and patched. Here's a closeup of each side:

    The passenger side was worse, and needed a bigger patch.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,416

    Oh I meant $20K for paint and bodywork and chrome.

    MODERATOR

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509

    Is it original paint? Originality and patina are huge right now - if it waxes up nice enough, I'd leave it be. Body and paintwork are ridiculously expensive anyway.

    @andre1969 said:

  • fezofezo Posts: 9,328

    $20k in a sit would vetch on the open market.......?

  • berriberri Posts: 4,141

    I'm a big fan of 55-58 Mopars and I'm particularly fond of the Desoto's back then. I think they just really carried the designs well.

    On another subject, I was stuck in a big traffic jam today immediately behind two white cars next to each other. One was a new Malibu, the other a new Fusion. Like the cover of an auto magazine! I think that Malibu looks kind of sharp in the rear. The Fusion seemed to kind of have a dowdy rear end. Hadn't really noticed that before. Made it look narrow and tipsy. I think they should put the current Focus rear on it instead of those dinky tail lights it currently has. OTOH, I like the Fusion front end better and I think the side profile is sort of a draw depending on whether you prefer 4 or 6 window sedan design. One rear end I really don't care for is the current Camry. Those tail lights look like it's someone in a Halloween costume.

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,416

    I have seen careful color sanding bring paint back to an amazing standard--but it has to be "intact" of course.

    MODERATOR

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849

    @berri said: I'm a big fan of 55-58 Mopars and I'm particularly fond of the Desoto's back then. I think they just really carried the designs well.

    I tended to prefer the DeSotos to the Chryslers as well. I don't know though, if I'm simply biased because of the '53 Firedome sedan my Granddad got back in the late 70's, but for the most part, year for year I just tend to prefer the styling details of the DeSoto.

    @berri said: On another subject, I was stuck in a big traffic jam today immediately behind two white cars next to each other. One was a new Malibu, the other a new Fusion. Like the cover of an auto magazine! I think that Malibu looks kind of sharp in the rear. The Fusion seemed to kind of have a dowdy rear end. Hadn't really noticed that before. Made it look narrow and tipsy. I think they should put the current Focus rear on it instead of those dinky tail lights it currently has. OTOH, I like the Fusion front end better and I think the side profile is sort of a draw depending on whether you prefer 4 or 6 window sedan design. One rear end I really don't care for is the current Camry. Those tail lights look like it's someone in a Halloween costume.

    When I first started seeing pics of the new Fusion, I liked it alot, while I wasn't impressed at all with the Malibu. But, over time, I've found I'm liking the Malibu more and the Fusion less. I agree on your assessment of the Fusion's rear-end...I think that's its weakest point, whereas I think the Malibu's rump is one of its stronger features! I think the Fusion has a more youthful look to it, whereas the Malibu is more conservative, and a bit more upscale in profile.

    As for the Camry, IMO its taillights look to me like two designs got stuck together. I think they should gone one of two ways: 1) keep it off the trunk lid entirely or 2) keep the part on the trunk lid, but then get rid of the part on the rear quarter that drops below the part on the trunk.

  • berriberri Posts: 4,141

    My dad had a 54 Desoto Firedome, but I don't think that really influenced me. That car was actually a bit of a lemon. I always thought the 55 Desoto and Dodge were just nice designs. I liked the full tail lights on the 56 and 57 Chrysler, but not the partial tail lights on the 58. But maybe I like those Desoto's because they had the 3 tail lamps vertically like Impala had horizontally. I think those lights just filled the tail space very nicely. Formal, yet sporty too.

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849

    I didn't like the shrunken taillights on the '58 Chrysler, either, but I like its front-end. In fact, to me it looks like they tried to make the Chrysler look more like a DeSoto up front in '58...perhaps they did this to try and distinguish it a bit more from Imperial?

    Maybe that was also one reason DeSoto sales fell off more in '58 than Chrysler did as well, because the cars looked more alike, so people just went for the prestige of the Chrysler name? DeSoto dropped from around 117,500 units in '57 to about 49,000 in '58. Chrysler fell from around 125,000 to about 63,000.

    I'm not sure, but I think DeSoto also raised prices a bit faster than Chrysler did around that timeframe, so that may have put the cars closer, price wise. For instance, I think the Firedome sedan went from around $2958 in 1957 to $3234 for 1959, a 9+% increase in just two years, but I'll have to look up and see if an equivalent Chrysler went up as much.

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    edited May 19

    Going back to the comparison of the Malibu versus the Fusion, I was just thinking...in terms of mainstream midsized cars, I don't think there's anything out there that really gets me excited, when it comes to style. Maybe the Mazda6? I also saw one of those new, Dart-based 200C's up on a turntable at the DC auto show, and it looked pretty good in person. Better than I thought it would.

  • fezofezo Posts: 9,328

    Too bad you couldn't take the front end of a Fusion and the rear of the Malibu. That's where their strengths are, but I can't imagine the finished product would be too good.

    The other day, there was this all polished up black Fusion sneaking up on my left. I'm really digging the front. Looked great. When he passed me and I got a look at the tail talk about a disappointment. Of course I've seen that before but somehow this really stuck out.

    Andre - our 57 Custom Suburban had those giant turn signals to give the quad light effect.

Sign In or Register to comment.