Build Your Own 50s-60s Dream Car

grbeck · February 2003

My preference is the reverse of argent's...I prefer the fastback. The convertible is also nice. The coupe is, well, distinctive. Let's leave it at that.

All of the 1967-69 Barracudas seem much higher than a contemporary Camaro/Firebird, but I still like their flowing lines and distinctive nose. As for the hood scoops...it was the 1960s, and scoops and spoilers were to the time period what tailfins and dagmars were to the 1950s.

Interestingly, the 1967-69 Barracuda marked the last time that Plymouth was given a distinctive model not shared with either Dodge or Chrysler.

ndance · February 2003

...can be good or bad (oh boy, I'm delving well into the personal opinion universe here).

Good (just a random list):

1969 Camaro ZL2 hood
1970 Chevelle cowl induction hood (well, ok, 70-72 sort of)
1971 and up Camaro rear spoiler
Shaker hoods (Mustang/Barracuda/Challenger)
69/70 Mustang rear spoilers...hey, at least they were on the race cars
70-73 TransAm stuff except for the decals
Mark Donohue Javelin rear spoiler
Later AMX cowl induction
etc.

Bad:
*Any* hood tach
Fake brake scoops on Mustangs
Those useless scooplets on early Firebirds/GTO's/Skylarks (which actually pull air out of the carb)
Giant rear spoilers on Judge/442
Hood scoop on SC/Rambler (oh man...what can I say)
L88 hoods
etc.

andre1969 · February 2003

...one reason they sat up higher was probably that Chrysler didn't have the resources to differentiate them further from the compact Dart/Valiant, whereas Ford and GM could afford to almost totally make over their compacts to come up with the Mustang and Camaro.

At one time I had Barracuda interior trim (door panel inserts and the inserts in back) in my '68 Dart 270. They fit almost perfectly, which is a pretty good indication of how similar the cars are. In back, the Cuda panels were about 3" shorter than the Dart panels, although that discrepancy was still hidden by the backrest of the seat. I guess that'd make sense too, since the Dart was on a 3" longer wheelbase than the Barracuda back then.

With me, it's kind of a hard call on which body style I prefer. Well, the convertible would be my first choice! But then I'm kinda torn between the notchback and the fastback. I like the notchback because it doesn't seem like you see too many of those, but then the fastback is just radical enough to be cool, too!

bhill2 · February 2003

of this discussion, I was having fun. Or did my idea of a '58 Rambler Ambassador hardtop wagon with a Chevy small-block in it make everyone want to just forget the whole thing?

argent · February 2003

How 'bout a Hot Rod Lincoln, to commemorate Lincoln's efforts in the '53 Carrera Panamerica?

Take a '53 Lincoln hardtop like this Capri:

...remove its old 317 engine and Hydra-Matic, replace them with a '67 428 Police Interceptor engine (with the aluminum manifold) and C-6. Add disc brakes (at least in front, borrowed from a '65 or later T-bird or Continental, or a Boss Mustang).

grbeck · February 2003

That would be a neat "hot-rod Lincoln." The stock taillights and rear bumper look surprisingly clean for 1953.

argent · February 2003

The '52-'55 Lincolns (which were only mildly facelifted from year-to-year) are quite tasteful, especially compared to the monstrous '58-'60 models. I think the '53 has the cleanest bumper and tail treatment, although the visual differences between '52 and '54 are modest.

They competed with impressive results in the Carrera Panamerica road rallying of the period, and were often considered the most roadable American car of the time, their chief rival probably being the Hudson Hornet (the Olds Rocket 88 was perhaps a bit faster, but didn't handle as well, according to period testers). Sort of a Lincoln version of Chrysler's 300. I think they're attractively and tastefully styled, although I've heard that the original Lincoln engines of that period (Ford's first OHV V-8s, similar in principle but not in block to the early Y-blocks) are less than stellar, with endemic oiling/lubrication problems, so the substitution of a later V-8 seems wise.

andre1969 · February 2003

...I never really liked those things. It's hard to explain why, because they're certainly more modern-looking than equivalent GM and Chrysler products of the time. I guess they're just too conservative looking, although I always thought a conservative-looking car that could blow the doors off its competition was a good thing! I dunno...for some reason, I never really cared for the Fords in that period either, at least not until '55. Maybe it's just that they were all too stubby looking. That Lincoln just doesn't *look* impressive enough...looks more like it would compete with an Olds or Buick or DeSoto, instead of Imperials and Cadillacs (although back then, Cadillac definitely was a step above Lincoln in price, and I believe the Imperials were, too).

argent · February 2003

Yeah, Cadillacs and Imperials were a little more expensive than the Lincoln. Lincoln sales were in the dumps back then in part because there seemed to be a conflict between the engineers and designers--who really did seem to be competing with Buick, Olds, and Chrysler for the upper-middle market--and the marketing and sales force, which pushed the Lincoln as a Cadillac competitor (and priced it accordingly). If you compare the Lincoln against a Caddy of the same vintage, it doesn't have the same gravitas (it's also more tasteful, to some extent, but it doesn't scream "wealth" in the same way), whereas if you look at it against an Olds Ninety Eight or Chrysler New Yorker, it acquits itself better.

argent · February 2003

Back to the topic at hand...
In some respects I like the Mercedes sedans of the 60s. They drive surprisingly well (especially for the time), and they've got that old-money gravitas that newer, prettier Benzs don't manage. And the old 300 SEL 6.3 was eye-openingly muscular -- low 90s in the quarter mile, 0-60 in under 7 seconds, top speed around 135 mph.

But '60s Benzs had crummy air conditioning, the Benz four-speed fluid coupling autobox (no torque converter, like the old GM Hydra-Matics) was clunky, and the six-cylinder engines were sluggish (the 6.3L engine was quicker, but finicky and _very_ heavy -- it weighed almost as much as a big Lincoln 430/462, well over 700 lbs.)

So here's a heretical thought. Take a 250 SEL or 300 SEL sedan and dump the Benz engine and transmission for a '66 or '67 Cadillac 429 and switch-pitch Turbo Hydra-Matic. The Caddy engine was LIGHTER than the Benz 6.3L (595 lbs. versus maybe 730 lbs.), the TH400 a lot smoother. It had enough muscle to push a 5000-lb Cadillac with fair alacrity, so in a 1200-lb lighter Benz, it should be brisk.

I'd also imagine that late-sixties Cadillac climate-control A/C would be vastly better than the Mercedes system, which even Benz fans generally admit was crap.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

I don't think you'd gain anything by such a conversion and in fact would end up with a considerably slower car I'd imagine, due to slower revs, less torque, sloppier transmission (softer shifting) and hardly enough HP gain to make a difference.

So you'd lose 0-60 speed, top speed and fuel mileage. What you'd gain is getting rid of Benz's lame a/c and the expense of having to rebuild a 6.3 engine (probably about $15,000)

The 6.3 would go 0-60 in 6 seconds or less and due to a 2.85 diff delivered respectable fuel mileage. It could use this economy diff ratio because of its massive grunt, 434 ft. lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. (Source: Nitske's "Mercedes Benz 1946-1995).

The 429 is no match for this engine but it was a nice engine for a Cadillac-type of car.

argent · February 2003

What I meant actually was using the Cadillac engine in a six-cylinder 250SEL (same mechanicals save the engine) or non-6.3 300, not _converting_ an existing 6.3L.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

Oh,gotcha...yeah, that makes more sense, although I'm not sure there's room in a six-cylinder Benz. The 250SE, or the later 280SEL, are both Type 108 cars, while the 6.3 was a type 109. So a different species there.

The reason Cadillacs were so wide is partly because of the engines they used.

argent · February 2003

Hmm. A good point, that. The upshot is more "Benz sedan with a cheaper, potentially more powerful, if less sophisticated American powertrain." I recall seeing somebody who'd done that with a 250 SE and a Ford 289 some years ago. I don't remember how much of a hassle it may have been, though...

wq59b · February 2003

"The reason Cadillacs were so wide is partly because of the engines they used."

Completely untrue. There is no correlation between engine width and body width: Cadillacs are no wider than any other full-size domestic of the same time period. Case in point- 1964 Cadillac: 79.5" wide, 1959 Buick: 80.75" wide.

In fact-- even a 472/500 Cadillac engine is only 2 inches wider than a Chevy small block:

W L H
Cadillac 472 28" 30.5" 28"
Chevrolet 327 26" 28" 27"

andre1969 · February 2003

...the reason those old cars were wide was because that's how people wanted them, not because of any engine size. Those old engine bays were huge, with plenty of room on either side, and often in front, to work on the cars. I'd guess that most full-sized cars from the late 50's on up to when the final overblown '79 Lincolns often flirted with the 80" width.

Besides, wasn't the Cadillac 472/500 the basis for the later 425 and 368? Well, those 368's ended up in cars as narrow as 70-72", which is close to modern Accord/Camry/Altima territory!

BTW, don't (or didn't) some states have a law regulating the maximum width of a passenger car? I thought it was 80" (although a few cars have gone over that)

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

I think you both misunderstood what I meant. Probably I didn't phrase it properly.

The dimensions of the engine heavily influence the height and width of the car, this is inescapable. Also, a powerful engine tends to encourage a bigger car since it can push it along.

The Olds rocket 88 engine of 1948 made car big in other words.

With a monster V8 of large dimension, like a 429, you need extra width for the suspension, a big transmission hump since the engine is usually set back to make the car driveable and somewhat balanced, and then a huge trunk to compensate for all the room it took to house the monster engine and transmission.

Some cars slanted the engines (Dodge Dart, Mercedes 300SL), why others have to add bulges or hood scoops (carburetor clearance). But most cars just wrapped the engine in a big body.

Even today the V8 /V10 makes for a wide car. Look at the Corvette or Viper for instance, or the Ferrari for that matter. Their engines are about as squished as you can make them right now, height-wise, but still require a wide body.

Fuel injection helped all this somewhat on modern cars because now we don't have to make carburetor clearance; also alloy V8 engines can be smaller and lighter.

More to the topic, this is why our dream cars might not be so easy to build, as we often can't chop into the suspension to accomodate wide engines....and MOVING suspension on a car is a major, major project.

People don't dictate styling. I have never ever believed that. They vote on the styling after the car is built, with their checkbooks.

wq59b · February 2003

Sure a powertrain creates an 'envelope' that must be worked around, that's a no-brainer.

But plenty of models started out as straight 6s or straight 8s then went to V-type engines and NEVER had to widen the car because of that. This clearly proves that most cars have enough room underhood and that most appreciable engine displacement increases (or even cylinder configurations) do not directly influence each other.

I see your problem: a 429 is not a "monster" engine, being only 2 inches wider than a 327 small block. It may displace a lot more cubic inches, but externally it's very compatible. That's how people decades ago could create 'Studillacs' and 'Fordillacs' and even a few 'Mercedillacs' without widening their much narrower cars.

So statements like "The Olds rocket 88 engine of 1948 made car big in other words" are terribly misleading. The '49 Olds (the Rocket V8) is not any wider than the inline 6 & 8 Olds's of '48, in fact, the front track got narrower in '49 (57" vs. the '48's 58").

Case in Point III: 1965 Ford Galaxie 500 XL 427: 77.3" wide. If the 77" was a necessity of there being a 427 V8 underhood, pray tell how were 356 Cobras built with a 427 when they were only 61" wide at the front fenders (only a half-inch wider than a '66 Beetle).

andre1969 · February 2003

...that cars went to wider engine bays was simply that's how the styling advanced. In the 30's, cars had separate fenders and narrow hoods covering their engines. As styling advanced, the fenders got larger and filled out, becoming wider and ultimately in-line with the passenger cabin. As the cars got lower, the hoods also got lower, wider, and more integrated to the flow of the fenders. As a result, this opened up more room in the engine bay.

Why did cars get wider in the first place? The market demanded it...people wanted 3-across seating. Well, you really need at least 57" of shoulder room for that (according to CR...I'd say more like 60" to be considered a "true" full-sized car). So, unless you want your doors to be one inch thick, with no crush space whatsoever and noplace for the windows to roll down into, you're going to need a car that's around 75-80" wide if you want a full-size interior. If the car's 75-80" wide at the passenger cabin, it's going to be close to that across the front fenders, as well, unless it's severely tapered like some cars are today.

argent · February 2003

Two points, and then I'll move on...

First, one of the reasons I was thinking a Cadillac V-8 is that the Caddy 429 was one of the lightest and most compact engines for its displacement -- the engine block was redesigned in '63 to make it more compact and lighter, and it weighed only 595 pounds dry, only about 50 pounds more than a 327/350 Chevy and only 30 pounds more than an Olds 330/350.

On the other hand, even a few inches of width can make a substantial difference in terms of wedging something into an engine bay, as anyone who's ever tried to change the spark plugs on a 390 or 428 engine '67-'68 Mustang or Cougar can attest. (Or seen the work Kar Kraft had to do with repositioning the front suspension towers to fit the 429 semi-hemi to '69-'70 Boss 429 Mustangs.)

The Ford 260/289 small block fit pretty readily into the AC Ace to create the original Cobra. But stuffing the 427 side oiler into it went along with a total redesign of the suspension for the big-block Cobras... (Not only because the 427 was physically larger, but also to account for the fact that it weighed something like 200 pounds more than the small block.)

argent · February 2003

So many American cars, or American-engined cars...

So how about a BMW 2800CS convertible? There were a very limited number of 1600-based cabrios built by Baur, including I think an even smaller number of '71-spec 2002s, and some weird-looking later models with fixed "targa" bars. I've always liked the six-cylinder coupes, and it'd make a snazzy cabriolet.

(Although perhaps not...the best part of the styling, for me, is the sharp C-pillar shape, so maybe it would be better not to lose that.)

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

Maybe a nice Supra twin turbo in there? Or Mazda rotary? Hoodline is too low for a V8. And speaking of which....

RE: American V8s --you cannot design a car without knowing the type of engine that goes into it---that's about all I'm saying.

One reason for the growth of the monster V8 was the need to power all the accessories being sold to people. You can't have a/c, power windows, auto trans, power steering, etc, with a puny flathead six that's for sure. And these accessories are often wider than the engine, and certainly longer. So the engine/accessory package dictated very large cars.

It was, in the 50s and 60s basically the philosophy of excess. The designs were not very rational, but rather highly emotional in content. The idea was not only "bigger is better" but "bigger is dangerous", as in battering ram or set of teeth that will eat you.

rea98d · February 2003

"bigger is dangerous"

I think that's the mentality used to sell SUV's nowadays. Or at least, "Bigger is Macho!"

I just realized my dream car was in production since 1968, so I can include it just the way it came off the factory line. '68 Jag XJ6. Much better looking than about 99% of what BMW had, has, or will have, IMO ;-) And being a '68, it was made before the British Leyland days when the quality control guys took a coffee break and never came back. It's also a design that stayed around, in one form or another, until 1992, so Sir William did a pretty good job on the car's styling.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

So would you keep it stock or modify it to improve reliability/performance?

rea98d · February 2003

I'd modify it. (I'm a car guy. It's genetic. I have to modify anything with four wheels and an engine. I want to built a miniature supercharger for my lawn mower.) Not sure what I could do to keep it in the '50's-'60's time frame. Most of what I would want to do would be to add fuel injection from the later cars, a Chevy transmission with an overdrive, and things of that nature. I guess keeping it within the 1950-1969 time frame, there's not a lot of modification I could do. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'd rather take an XK-120 FHC, drop in a fuel injected 4.2 L XK engine, and upgrade the suspension to XK-150 standards. That would take what is, IMO, the most beautiful car ever built, give it more power, and slightly better suspension than when in debuted in 1948. Of course, the fuel injection didn't come around until the late '70's, so that would be out on this list. Still, with an unlimited budget, I could have fun hot rodding a classic Jaguar and still keep it "in the family."

argent · February 2003

Another appealing Jaguar idea from my tastes... I like the Mk II compact sedans of the mid-sixties better, stylistically, than the XJ6. The XJ has a lot to recommend it aesthetically, but somehow the earlier version seems purer to me.

My favorite Jag saloon iteration, though, was the XJ6C/XJ12C, the mid-70s pillarless two-door:

So the mind starts thinking -- what if there'd been a '66-'67 vintage Mark II 2-door hardtop? The pillarless design is more of a 60s phenomenon, which seems fitting. With the 3.8L engine and up to 265 gross hp, the Mark II was pretty brisk for its day, although one might wonder if there was a better proprietary transmission available than the Moss 4-speed or the B-W auto.

I'd probably be asking for trouble with such a thing. The reason why the XJC coupes of the '70s didn't last long was because Jag build quality (never a strong point to begin with, especially in those days) could never sort out the window sealing problems of the pillarless design. And the reason for the vinyl top -- the one element of the design I don't much like -- was to cover the nasty weld line left by the surgery. But if it could be accomplished (we are _dreaming_, after all), it sounds like the makings of a very pretty car.

rea98d · February 2003

The Mark II's are beautiful cars, no doubt about it, but it's the "compact" part that gets me. As much as I love Jaguars, I grew up in the back seat of an American land yatch from the '70's, and I like big cars. The XJ is by no means big, but it's at least "mid-size" and not "compact." But the Mk II's styling does come from the XK's, which is a major point in its favor. I tend to have a love-hate relationship with cars such as the XK, '55 T-Bird, Corvette, and the like. Cars that are beautiful, performers, or both, on one hand, but smallish and lacking a back seat on the other. On one hand, I want one, on the other hand, I want a car that is XK-120 on the outside, Town Car Limo on the inside. Maybe I just need both my '78 Grand Marquis and a little British sportscar.

andre1969 · February 2003

...that Jag hardtop. I'd imagine that the trunk and back seat are practically non-existent, though!

bhill2 · February 2003

You are not the only two with the thought of a Jag Mk 2 hardtop. I have seen a custom job advertised recently, I am sure in Hemmings. I was not interested myself, but there was a picture and it is a handsome piece.

andre1969 · February 2003

...the hardtop I liked was that real one that Argent posted, that sexy XJ. I never really liked those little Mark II's. I could probably whip up a hardtop Mark II in Photoshop though, if anybody's interested to see what it might have looked like. I'll try to do it on Monday if I have some free time. (No Photoshop at home) :-(

rea98d · February 2003

The XJC is a nice car, but having driven both 2 and 4 door cars, my preference is for 4. Despite the sporty image, does a lack of back doors really make an XJC faster than a short-wheelbase XJ sedan? I didn't think so. I still prefer the sedan, but wouldn't cry if someone gave me the coupe version ;-)

As far as the vinyl top goes, some owners have ditched the top, had a little body work done to clean up the seams, and repainted. The car looks good without the vinyl. Some cars, like a '78 Mercury, look better with Vinyl. Jags don't. The C-pillars just aren't substantial enough to pull it off, and they flow into the body too much. If you're gonna do vinyl right, you need an upright, formal looking roofline that hasn't rolled down the assembly line sinse the 80's to make it look good. When Ford redesigned the Crown Vic in '92, they quit making the last car vinyl looked good on. This is going waaayyyy off topic I know. Thus is the internet!

andys120 · March 2003

I grew up on the 4-door pillarless HTs of the 50s and 60s so I never could figure out why the Jag coupe didn't look as good (to me) as the pillared 4-door.

I think the Mk II was one of the best looking, sportiest sedans ever made anywhere by anyone and I loved the overall size.

There are outfits in the UK that rebuild them from the ground up with modern electrics and brakes etc. I wish I could afford one.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2003

Jaguar coupes don't work for me, and it seems like the majority of buyers agree with me, since the Jaguar coupes do not seem to bring much of a premium as used cars. Mercedes coupes face the same problem--they do not attract too many people.

Mark II prices are going through the roof. It's not a car you'd want to chop up for a project. Better to molest an XJC as it's going nowhere in value.

andre1969 · March 2003

...is that the hardtop is such a uniquely American innovation. The very first ones were merely hatchet-jobs, taking a convertible and actually attaching a fixed roof to it, but after a few years, cars were designed often with the hardtop style in mind. As a result, the hardtops usually looked good, but then the sedans looked ungainly.

With Mercedes and Jag, it's more like the hardtop never really got past the "hatchet-job" stage, although they're finally learning. The latest Mercedes hardtops have beautiful rooflines. Still, with the Jag and Benz, 4-door sedans are their focus, so that's what they concentrate on, and those hardtops were probably created with as little added expense as possible.

The Jag hardtop's biggest problem is that the C-pillar just doesn't blend that well into the beltline of the car. The car itself is actually somewhat angular, in the '60's tradition, where that hardtop roof would've looked at home on a 50's car. Both parts look good by themselves, but just have trouble blending.

Mr_Shiftright · March 2003

Yes, you're right...they just look awkward, like the hardtop was trying to hard to be a hardtop.

andys120 · March 2003

IIRC the classic HTs of the 60s used shorter windshields and lower rooflines to give the impression of "Longer, lower..."

If they weren't lower they suire created the illusion pf being so.

andre1969 · March 2003

...I don't know if all cars used a different windshield for the hardtops, but I think most of them did. Even the fairly upright windshield on my '68 Dart is lower and more raked-back than it is on the sedans (found this out when I needed to replace the windshield). I think usually hardtop coupes, sedans, and convertibles shared one windshield, and 2-door and 4-door pillared sedans and wagons shared a more upright one.

There really aren't that many cars anymore that have a similar 2-and 4-door bodystyle...usually there's a big difference (I'm thinking along the lines of, say, Camry and Solara here). I wonder though, if the Grand Prix coupe and sedan share the same windshield?

andre1969 · March 2003

...how's about something like this?

I lowered the roofline a bit, made the windshield a bit more rakish, and brought the C-pillar forward a bit.

rea98d · March 2003

First thing I think of when I see that is an XK-150 FHC. The 150's just seemed to have that porkiness that the sedans did to me. The 120's and 140's (especially the 120's) seemed a bit more sleeker, a bit better looking to me. Now, mind you, the 150 is not an ugly car by any stretch of the imagination (the only ugly Jag I've ever seen are the early XJS's), and would probably rank in the top 10% of cars as far as looks goes, but when it comes to other Jaguars, the 120's and 140's are, to me, the very best ever made, as evidenced by the fact that their design is still having an influence on modern Jaguars. (Compare the front end of a 120 with a new S-Type, and tell me if you can't tell where the S got it's DNA.)

argent · March 2003

Andre--very nice job, that's exactly what I was talking about. It does look snazzy, I think.

(Keep in mind, I'm presuming this as a _dream car_ -- a sort of "what if Jag had had more development money and did a Mk2 spinoff" -- and NOT proposing a customization of an existing Mk2 sedan. That would be economically foolish and probably functionally dire; I wouldn't go there.)

andys120 · March 2003

Yeah it does remind me of the XK-150 Coupe my freind had.

argent · March 2003

I've been intrigued at reports that in the early-to-mid sixties Cadillac was playing around with the possibility of a new V-12 engine to replace the venerable OHV V-8. They eventually gave up and developed the 472/500 instead, but they apparently had at least tentative plans for a _SOHC_ V-12. It would've been a 90-degree engine with an uneven firing interval (90 degrees is not optimal for a V-12), presumably so it could share at least part of the existing tooling.

So let's imagine what that might have been like. Take the redesigned thinwall 390/429 V-8 of 1963-1967 with its existing bore centers (which I believe were 4.59"), letting the new engine share some of the basic V-8 tooling lines and components. As Ford did in converting the 427 to SOHC, replace the original cam with a plain shaft driving the oil pump. Reduce the stroke from 4.00" to 3.50" and shorten the block height to compensate for the taller heads. With the 429's 4.13" bore, that gives you a short-stroke engine with relatively light reciprocating weight, but 562 cubic inches displacement! Because the 429 was not very heavy to begin with (595 pounds), even though a V-12 would be heavier than the V-8, it probably wouldn't be any heavier than a Lincoln 462 or 426 Hemi, while trumping them mightily on cylinder count, power, and torque.

Although it'd be adequate enough, a paltry four-barrel carb somehow seems out of place, so why not top it with an aluminum manifold with three two-barrel carburetors with a progressive linkage (something like the tri-power 1967 Corvette engines)?

Where to put such an engine? It would be no wider than the V-8, just longer. So how about the 60s Cadillac most noted for its long hood--the Eldorado? What if rather than being a Toronado-based FWD coupe, the slick 1967 Eldorado was actually a RWD "luxury GT" powered by the new engine, a sort of Grand Lux Cadillac Grand Prix?

It's not hard to imagine a V-12 engine beneath this massive hood:

...and I've always thought the original '67 Eldorado was the best looking of all.

So going even further than that...what if Cadillac designed to break the mold a little further? For starters, fitting the Eldo with the big 11.75-in discs (ala Corvette Sting Ray) and rally wheels, rather than the Eldo's totally inadequate drums or so-so optional front discs. And how about an IRS Caddy? Something analogous to the Sting Ray suspension (i.e., using the differential half-shafts as the upper control arms, adding separate lower control arms and a locating link to make it a multi-link IRS), but with Cadillac coils rather than the Corvette's transverse leaf, and a modest rear anti-roll bar to reduce some of that traditional plowing understeer. With some careful attention to spring and shock tuning, it could've produced vastly better handling without a jittery ride.

Stylistically, there's not much to be said about the exterior, although the creased rear window does nothing goood for rear vision. Inside, I'd prefer a proper gauge cluster and a console shifter to the standard Cadillac ribbon speedo and warning lights (even the dash from a '67 Impala Super Sport would've been an improvement, although its egregious fake wood was not so pleasant).

wq59b · March 2003

Apparently Cadillac Engineering built 6 SOHC all-aluminum V-12s in the early 60s. Split distributors were mounted horizontally on the cam ends, and all sorts of different induction set-ups were experimented with: 3x2, 2x4 and FI. I've seen a number of the sketches/models of the V-12/V-16 revival side project (1959-1966) and some were pretty cool looking, like a rakish 2-seat roadster with wrap-around flying buttress windshield and 16 intake pipes rising just above the hoodline.

The 1967-68 Eldorados are unsung designs, beautiful from every angle, a tour de force. I love that peaked backlight, the way the windsplit carries thru the glass all the way down thru the bumper. I don't think there's a 1960s design that can make me walk around & around it like this one does. I spend 20 minutes circling a tired but willing '68 at a local gas station a few months back (for sale but a little too much bondo). So classy- it'll always look great. Some day I will own one.

argent · March 2003

1965-vintage model of Cadillac coupe (XP840) --

...and the recent Cadillac Sixteen showcar.

wq59b · March 2003

Right- the XP-840 was supposedly the final V-16 concept. 'They say' when a concept gets an "XP" number & reaches the fiberglas stage- it's under consideration, but Chuck Jordan contended it was never a serious candidate for production- but more a statement recognizing Cadillac's heritage. I think it's 'non-Cadillac' styling supports that pretty well.

I too thought of the XP-840 when I saw the Sixteen! The C-pillar/rear quarters have a similar feel, the way the glass is flush-mounted & well-integrated and of course they share the long hood look. I wonder if indeed anyone working on the Sixteen was aware of the long-forgotten XP-840.

lynchpin · October 2009

1960 dodge town panel, installing 1967 truck 383 4bbl with 727, four captian chairs from a dodge van 19??, and pushbutton shifter, going to remove bumpers to give a slicker look.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2009

Sounds nice. I drove a similar truck all the way to Guatemala one time. No problems, and handled those awful roads easily.

andre1969 · October 2009

Is that one of these beasts?

I always thought they were kinda cool...beefy and rugged looking. Someone in my Granddad's neighborhood has two of them.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2009

Yep, very similar. Very rugged truck.

Build Your Own 50s-60s Dream Car

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles