Build Your Own 50s-60s Dream Car

chris396 · February 2003

I have a tripower that I'm getting ready to put on my RS SS L78 convertible, along with a pair of aluminum heads. The guy who rebuilt the carbs says I shouldn't have a problem with them for the street if they are rebuilt right. I ditched the bias ply's for radials, replaced the front sway bar, and put new springs on the car. It still has the stock look for the most part but drives so much better. The heads should balance the car out more. I like the gauges even though they aren't very practical.

hudnut2 · February 2003

How about pre AMX..have any pics of a 54 Italia?

bhill2 · February 2003

but I still say that in a gag-off with a Kaiser Dragon the results would be mixed.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

Now you can understand why the '55 Chevrolet was such a smash hit when it came out in 1955--it was one of the first clean, rational designs to come out of America after WW II, and it sold like crazy.

rea98d · February 2003

And yet, designs like the '59 Cadillac get top billing as a classic, right up there with the '55 Chevy. FWIW, '55-56 Fords also had a very "clean" looking design for the era, especially the T-Birds. My personal opinion is that there were the guys who wanted a clean design in the '50's, as well as those who wanted something with a little more flair. Kinda like how we have Toyota Camry buyers today, as well as (while I still haven't figured out why!)guys who buy such outlandish vehicles as Honda Pilots or lime green Azteks.

grbeck · February 2003

Funny thing is, the 1958-59 "regular" Ramblers (which were face-lifted versions of the all-new 1956-57 Ramblers) were a huge sales success at the time. The wagon, in particular, was a big hit.

The 1958-60 Rambler Americans were also a big sales success, which is even more remarkable considering that, to produce it, American Motors merely dusted off the dies from the 1953-55 Nash Rambler and made a few changes (new grille, no skirted wheels).

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

I really don't know any knowledgable car person who bills a '59 Cadillac as a classic, but sure, media types or the general public might use the term "classic" in a careless way. That's just because they aren't applying any standards of discrimination. It's like the Academy Awards, which are voted on by film people, not the audience who goes to see Police Academy II. No matter if you like '59 Caddies or not, there's no argument that it is "good" styling, only that it is noticeable. It's kind of like the Anna Nicole Smith of 50s automobiles, isn't it?

It's always a hundred times easier to be outrageous than to be brilliant.

But hey, "classic" is neither here nor there...we are talking about YOUR dream car, which can be anything you want it to be--even a nightmare is fine if you want to go to the Dark Side.

argent · February 2003

Here's an Italia:

I love the step-down Hudsons, but the nose of the Italia's a little out there even for me. I prefer the Hornet, especially in "Hollywood" hardtop form. Here's a snazzy '54 Hornet hardtop:

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

I wouldn't mind these cars if they'd scrape some of the chrome off the noses. All that chrome way down low in the nose really makes these early 50s cars look heavy, doesn't it?

something like this perhaps:

argent · February 2003

So here's another. How about an all-wheel drive coupe with a 426 Hemi, four-wheel disc brakes, AND ABS? Not possible within 60s technology? Not so.

The 1966-1971 Jensen FF --

.. was a descendant of the various Euro-American hybrids of the late 50s and early 60s (Facel Vega, Iso Rivolta, et al). It was based on the more conventional Interceptor, but the FF was unique in its drivetrain: it had all-wheel drive. It was the first road car so equipped, fully 15 years before the Audi Quattro.

The system was based on Formula One (hence the name, from "Formula Ferguson") technology. It had an epicyclical (planetary) center differential to split power front and rear. It was a lot simpler than Audi's Quattro set-up (see http://www.lupine.demon.co.uk/centreclutch.html for pictures and an explanation of how it works).

It was combined with big four-wheel disc brakes and the Dunlop Maxaret mechanical ABS. Maxaret was primitive compared even to the rear-wheel anti-lock systems that GM and Ford briefly offered in the early 70s (it had one mechanical sensor, which was attached to the driveshaft, rather than individual wheels. But it did work.

Power for the Jensen FF was not actually a Hemi, but it WAS a Chrysler engine -- the 4-bbl 383, with a Torqueflite automatic. Replacing it with a Hemi would add some weight to the nose (I don't know exactly how much more a Hemi weighed over a wedge engine, but I think it was more than 100 pounds), but I think the wider heads would fit.

The Jensen is one of those cars that looks a lot better in person than in photos. In photos the Vignale-styled body looks clunky and the big rear lift-up glass resembles a '64-'66 Plymouth Barracuda, but when you see one close up it works quite well (I've never seen an FF, but somebody in my area has a black Interceptor, which was largely the same externally). There was apparently one prototype convertible built at the end of the run, which would've been cool. The interior, with a dashboard full of gauges and Conolly leather upholstery, is very lavish.

I suspect the FF would've benefited from having an independent rear suspension, or at least a De Dion (the rear was still a live axle), but no less than Stirling Moss thought it the best-driving road car of the time. It did not sell well (only 320 FFs were made) largely because of its price -- it cost something on the order of L6100, which was about $18,000 U.S. and Ferrari money in those days, and it looked much the same as the more conventional interceptor, which was only two thirds the price.

ndance · February 2003

Ugly hardtop, pretty convertible.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

Also the first car to use ABS brakes.

It may have been simpler than the Quattro system but the Quattro system was a lot more reliable.

STill a most remarkable and signficant car the FF1 and never given the recognition it deserves.

argent · February 2003

Well, it was the first car offered for public sale with ABS (with only 320 FFs produced, I hesitate to call it "regular production"...). Dunlop had been playing with the Maxaret system for cars since 1956.

As for the Ferguson drivetrain, the owner's club insists that its image of unreliability is unjustified. I have no idea, being as I've never owned one (and am unlikely to even if I strike it rich). Looking at the photos of a dismantled drivetrain, if it WAS unreliable I have to assume that was because of poor manufacturing or assembly rather than design, because there certainly isn't a hell of a lot to go wrong; in its _engineering_ (if not execution) it seems robust.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

Well of course the owners club is going to say that, they are not disinterested parties.

Let's just say that evolution" speaks to the question by having allowed the strong to survive and the weak to perish.

argent · February 2003

True, but there were lots of reasons the FF perished that didn't have anything to do with whether or not the drivetrain was a sound idea (costing more than twice as much as a substantially sexier E-type Jaguar, for example), and there were certainly plenty of OTHER things wrong with it. Slipshod build quality, for example, especially on the early ones Vignale assembled--it says something about Italian industry in the 60s when British manufacture was actually superior--and a propensity to rust that's alarming even by period standards.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

No I meant the AWD system. Just about all British cars were doomed in the 1960s, which is why most are now owned by someone else.

Italian buld quality varies by coachbuilder. Some were very very good but small production runs had their inevitable problems, like concept cars do today for instance.

rea98d · February 2003

"which is why most are now owned by someone else."

I thought when Rolls and Bently sold out to the Germans, they were the last ones. Are there still independant British makes? Do they just not sell cars in the States anymore?

argent · February 2003

There are a couple of very tiny British makes that are still independent--TVR springs to mind, making thoroughly mad (if somewhat dubiously constructed) sports cars with serious performance (TVR Cerbera, Tuscan, et al). Rover, having been bought and regurgitated by BMW, is once again independent, although their survival is a big question mark, and they no longer have Mini (still owned by BMW) or Range Rover/Land Rover (now owned by Ford).

argent · February 2003

I rather like the very Thunderbird-like, Englebert Engle-styled Chrysler turbine cars, of which Chrysler built 50 for long-term testing in 1963.

Although the Chrysler turbine didn't work out (the third-gen turbine in these cars made 425 lbs-ft of torque from 0 rpm, with a maximum of around 130 shaft horsepower, burned almost anything _except_ leaded gasoline, but got dreadful fuel economy and had irritating throttle lag), the car itself is pretty snazzy. According to some accounts I've read the design Chrysler had in mind for its fourth-gen turbine car became the 1966 Dodge Charger...so what if Chrysler had produced this turbine car with a conventional powertrain, as a straightforward Buick Riviera/Ford Thunderbird competitor? (Chrysler didn't really have that until the 70s Cordoba...the 300 letter series and Imperial were too expensive and not distinctive enough, nor was the Dodge Monaco).

I'm picturing a _convertible_ version of this car with a conventional but robust 440 engine, Torqueflite, and heavy-duty suspension.

grbeck · February 2003

Someone brought a 1963 Chrysler Turbine car to the 2001 Fall Hershey meet. It was in beautiful condition. The car caused quite a stir when the owner drove it to the show parking area. It was parked next to a one-of-a-kind 1955 Imperial CONVERTIBLE specially built for Chrysler head K.T. Keller.

argent · February 2003

I saw one of the Turbine cars at the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles. It's a cool-looking car. I'm not terribly fond of the roofline, and I loathe the padded vinyl top look, which is why I think it would make a swanky convertible.

rea98d · February 2003

Well, I like the profile of the Turbine. The front end looks like a cutesy sci-fi robot, though, and what they were doing with the tail of that car....
Looks like with a little more work, though, that could have been a good looking car.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

It could be cleaned up mostly, it has some nice lines, but that tail has to go if you really want to get serious about car design.

Still it's excusable in a project or concept car.

Didn't Rover race a turbine car?

andre1969 · February 2003

...that by the early 70's Chrysler was starting to regret that the turbine program didn't work out. I think one of the top brass said something like "suddenly a 4000 lb car that can seat 4 people in comfort, do 0-60 in 13 seconds, and get 14 mpg suddenly sounds promising!"

argent · February 2003

The ridiculous jet-exhaust backup lights of the Chrysler turbine car are the best part! The nose is a bit too Robby the Robot, I agree, but losing the tail would defeat the whole purpose. The point is fanciful whimsy, after all.

Rover, which worked on its own turbine project for passenger cars through the 50s and 60s, did indeed race a BRM turbine car at LeMans in '63 and '65 (the car was damaged in transit in '64, which kept it out of the race), driven by Graham Hill, Richie Gunther, and Jackie Stewart. It was not officially a competitor in '63, although its performance would have placed it eighth. In '65 it scored 10th place, with an average speed of 99 mph.

The '65 engine was rated 126 hp. It had been fitted with a heat exchanger, which significantly improved its fuel economy (it averaged 13.5 mpg). That was not enough to make up for its lack of power in the long straights against its class (it was placed in the 2 liter category), or for the acceleration lag caused by the turbine's spool-up.

Andy Granatelli and STP also took a turbine car to the Indy 500 in 1967, 1968, and 1969. He was handicapped by rules changes that sought to force it out of the race, and the turbine was banned outright after '69.

Chrysler kept working on its turbine program up until 1980-1981, although their financial straits in the 70s kept it backburnered.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

Fanciful whimsy is okay for a concept car, I got no problem with that, but I think we were talking about how it would work as a production car, and that's when I suggested nixing the Atomic Cockroach rear end. I mean, car building IS a *business* after all.

Besides, it would not have been good for Chrysler to return to the "Virgil Exner Reign of Terror", with drug-induced styling exercises. Not in the 60s anyway. Look what GM had in the field as competition!

argent · February 2003

The topic of discussion is "Build your own 50s-60s Dream Car." This is _my_ dream car, so if I want jetpipe taillights, by god I'll have 'em.

If you tone down the tail, and make the nose more normal, and otherwise make it more rational, what you end up with is the rather conventional C-body Dodge Monaco 500:

The Monaco is a reasonable tasteful but eminently forgettable hardtop, a sort of mild-mannered amalgam of Buick and Oldsmobile styling cues (the nose is pure Oldsmobile, the profile says Buick Wildcat). The "personal car" Monaco 500 hardtop didn't sell well against the Riv, T-Bird, et al.

Given the public's dissatisfaction with rocketship styling cues by the early sixties, I don't disagree that a Turbine-styled production car wouldn't have gone over very well at the time. The '61-'63 "Bullet Bird" Thunderbirds (which are only moderately less Flash Gordon) didn't do all that spectacularly, either (it sold well, but not as well as the Squarebirds or the '64-on "Glamour Birds"), for much the same reason. But would such a car be a desirable collector's piece now? Oh yes. And would I want one, if only as a rolling example of fifties/sixties kitsch at its best? Absolutely.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

I think T-Bird styling went like this

UP
DOWN (square birds)
UP (round lights)
DOWN (was it 64s that started the new garish style with landau bars and the fat beltline?)
WAY DOWN
WAY WAY DOWN
BACK UP (turbo coupes)

argent · February 2003

Yeah, the '64-'66 "Glamour Birds" introduced the Landau models with the phony landau bars:

(There were two variations; the Landau coupe, like this, which still had small quarter windows behind the front doors, and the Town Landau, which had wider C-pillars that completely eliminated the rear side windows.)

Every awful styling cliche known to 60's man: fake hood scoop (vestigial chrome); fake side scoops (ditto); "skeg line" lower body fins; vinyl top; fake landau iron; pillarless hardtop; sequential tail lights (on '65-on); fender skirts, you name it.

The Glamour Birds are not _nearly_ as bad, however, as their successors, the '67-on big Birds. There are a couple of two- and four-door '67-'69 Town Landaus around L.A., and they're appalling in every way, even as kitsch.
This is a '68 Town Landau four-door, in a particularly awful color:

grbeck · February 2003

Even those four-door Thunderbirds were better than what followed. The Thunderbird hit bottom with the truly awful 1980-82 models. Ford tried to squeeze boxy, formal styling and garish Thunderbird design cues on to the Fox platform. I remember thinking how awful that car looked when I first saw it in the fall of 1979. If anything, it looks even worse today.

The 1983-86 "aero" Thunderbirds were a complete turnaround. Those cars (especially the Turbo Coupe) were sharp, and still look good today. After years of the starchy "formal look," those Thunderbirds were a breath of fresh air.

Of course, the new two-seater is also sharp.

rea98d · February 2003

grbeck, I think the buying public agreed with you. '77-'79 T-birds sold like hotcakes, (I beleive it was '77 when Thuderbird sales hit a record), and dropped off dramatically with the 80-82 Birds. The '83 and up aero Birds, however, were a smash hit that probably saved the name (or at least prolonged it until 1997). But I still say you can't beat the '55-'57 Birds (Especially the '57's), as the best looking cars to carry the name, although if we can get the 460 qualified as a '60's engine, and drop it in a turquoise '63 ragtop 'Bird, I'd take one of those in a heartbeat!

argent · February 2003

Wasn't the 460 just an enlarged version of the 385-series 429 engine (not to be confused with the semi-hemi Boss 429) introduced for '69? The Continental Mark III had the 460 for '69, so putting it into a T-bird would seem to be within our parameters.

argent · February 2003

...and yes, the square 1980-1982 T-birds send sales plummeting. The '79s sold 284,141, while 1980 dropped that to 156,803, 1981 down to 86,693, and 1982 to 45,142 (the lowest since 1958!). The 1983 aero 'Bird recovered to 122,000, still not anywhere near the late-70s height, but much better.

andre1969 · February 2003

...I'd imagine that in 1980 the T-bird was still near the top of sales in its market. Maybe the Cutlass Supreme coupe beat it out, and the Regal coupe may have been close, but that recession in 1980 sent everybody in general plummeting. It was probably the recession, coupled with rumors of Ford's demise (they really weren't *that* far behind Chrysler at the time) that hurt the '80 T-bird more than any failings of its own. When I was a kid, I thought they were cool...the '80 Bird was the first car commercial I can remember showing a digital display.

In '81, GM did a heavy aero restyle on its personal-lux coupes, which probably killed whatever demand there might have been for any Ford or Chrysler competition. This restyle probably doesn't seem so drastic nowadays, but for the time it was. Of course, Ford really took it to an extreme with the '83 T-bird/Cougar, and these twins managed to sell well even after demand for personal luxury coupes tapered off.

Also, considering how bad the market was in 1983 (there really wasn't a really big recovery until 1984), 122K units for an '83 T-bird is actually pretty impressive.

argent · February 2003

The Thunderbird was pretty consistently at the top of the heap for domestic personal coupes throughout its four-seater history. It wasn't necessarily the best-driving, best-looking, or most luxurious, but it'd been around long enough to have a familiar name with a certain amount of cachet and image, but wasn't as expensive as, say, an Eldorado or Lincoln Continental Mark. In many periods, it was quantifiably inferior to competitors like the Buick Riviera, Pontiac Grand Prix, or even the Chevy Monte Carlo, but it almost always outsold them.

grbeck · February 2003

The Thunderbird may not have always been the best, but it invented the "personal luxury" market in the U.S. with the 1958 model. It's image was always stronger than that of the GM and Chrysler competition.

From 1983 on, though, I'd say it definitely WAS the best...and Ford kept improving it while Chrysler gave up and GM fielded downsized intermediates that were all too obviously two-door versions of its family sedans. The post-1986 Eldorado, Riviera and Toronado were even worse. The 1983 and newer T-birds - right up to the end of the four-seaters - are still good looking cars today.

argent · February 2003

(and other popular songs)

In the 80s and 90s, I certainly agree the T-bird was superior to its GM and Chrysler competition. I was thinking more of the 60s. In most respects, I think that, for example, a '64 Buick Riviera or '69 Pontiac Grand Prix was dynamically superior to the contemporary Thunderbird, and more tastefully styled, to boot (the late-60s/early 70s Grand Prixes are still way too rococco for my tastes, but they're certainly better than the T-birds of the same vintage). But the T-bird still sold better.

andre1969 · February 2003

...who would pick a Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Regal, etc over a T-bird in the 80's, at least as long as GM was offering RWD versions of those cars. My reasoning is pretty simple though...simply that I fit more comfortably in the GM cars than the Fords. There's just enough difference in room to tell on the fact that one's a midsize and one's more compact. I wish that GM put more effort into improving them over the years, though, as Ford did theirs, instead of just letting them become obsolete.

As for the '60's, I don't know why, but for some reason the '64-66 T-birds have always appealed to me. Even the '67 and later models have kind of a grotesque charm to them. I'd take a Riv, Toro, or full-sized Grand Prix over any T-bird, though...just a lot more class to 'em. There was something about the '69-72 GP that I just didn't like, though. Maybe a bit too pimpy, even for my tastes?

argent · February 2003

I tend to agree. It's odd -- I like the '64-'66 Glamour Birds _because_ they're glitzy and absurd, whereas I dislike the '69-'72 Grand Prix for exactly the same reason. I much prefer the '63-'64 GP, which seems vastly more tasteful.

Perhaps it's the change. The '63 GP (like the contemporary Riviera) was a reaction against the chrome and glitz of the late 50's. It had clean, simple, elegant lines. The '69 had an ostentatious, vulgar quality, with the contrived pseudo-30s detailing, the excessive hood length, and the "power beak" nose. I'd rather have the '69's 428 HO engine than the '63's 389, and the TH400 Turbo Hydramatic is vastly superior to the '63's Slim Jim (Model 375 Roto Hydra-Matic), though.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

There arent' many cars that "got better" as we went from 1960 to 1970, so this is why I picked the 50s & 60s for our "dream car".

andys120 · February 2003

I've been a fan of the early Pontiac GPs ('62-'64)
since I first saw them. There's something about those clean lines and those eight lug wheels that makes me forget they're basically just cleaned up, luxed-out Catalinas.

IIRC the 421 was available as well as the 389 (including the Tri-Power).

argent · February 2003

Yeah, GPs were available with the 421, either in single 4-bbl form (353 hp) or Tri-Power (370 hp), and you could get a 4-speed box, but I imagine most of 'em were sold with the base 303-hp 389 and Hydra-Matic. There were allegedly three GPs produced with Super Duty 421s, although that wasn't a regular production option. Most people who were going for the street-racer probably bought the cheaper Catalina. Personal luxury buyers weren't that interested (almost no T-bird buyers went for the tri-power 390 option, for example).

argent · February 2003

On a different subject, here's another 'never was' dream car idea -- a '67 Cougar fastback.

I kinda like the Cougar, and the idea of a Cougar grille (and those sequential taillights) and trim...

...with the '67 fastback Mustang roofline:

Sounds nice. I like Ford's dark green color (ala Bullitt's Mustang), and the tan XR-7 interior. I'm not enamoured of any of the '67 engine choices for the Cougar, so I'd rather use a '69 351 engine -- even the 351 Windsor seems like a better tradeoff than either the 289/302 or the 390 engines.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2003

Well you could plop the 351 Cleveland heads and a high rise on the 302 and have yourself a Boss Cougar! Oh, 4-bolt mains, too, I guess.

argent · February 2003

Nah... there were some Cougar Eliminators with the Boss 302 engine, I recall (I recently read a CAR LIFE review of one), but the Cougar seems like it needs easy torque, not screaming horsepower. The 390 engine is a stone, though, both in terms of output and in the extra heft it puts on the nose.

grbeck · February 2003

Another sharp fastback is the 1967-69 Plymouth Barracuda. It has handsome styling and tough drivetrains. The 273 (for 1967) and the 340 (for 1968-69) were just about perfect - powerful, but light enough not to hurt the balance of the car.

wq59b · February 2003

A decent percentage were manuals: 5157 units in '63, 3124 in '64. Not sure which was more common, but somewhere I found this stat: in '66 there were 386 4-spds & 531 3-spds.

There WERE 3 '63 GP SDs- none known to have survived... but none of the 16 '62 GP SDs were known either, yet in the last 8 years or so 3 have surfaced. Find a '63 GP SD and you'll have made a MAJOR find.

Yes- the GP & Cat share the same 'small' B-body, but theres a great deal of differences between the Catalina & GP besides just trim. The whole package comes off as much more upscale; the unique roofline, the buckets/console/floorshift, vacuum guage & other guages, upholstery, wood trim, grillework front & rear, lighting, etc. The early GPs (63-66) are beautiful cars.

andys120 · February 2003

the GPs do come-off as more upscale than a Catalina or even a well-optioned Bonneville.

The '65-'66 restyle did nothing for me but it's interesting that Pontiac beat Buick, Olds, Cadillac and Chevy to the draw with a credible competitor to the T-bird by a couple of years.

The early-mid 60s were truly the golden age of the Tin Indian.

argent · February 2003

I like the '67-'69 hardtop better than the fastback. The 2nd-gen fastback looks better than the earlier Barracudas (which are ungainly from many angles), but the hardtop seems classier. Oddly, there are a bunch of first-generation fastback Barracudas around Los Angeles, but I've only ever seen one 2nd-gen, and it was so obviously rusty that I was amazed it was driveable.

This is a '68 notchback hardtop:

And this is the rear of a '68 fastback:

ndance · February 2003

Both versions of the pre-1970 Barracuda fastbacks are, um...., beauty impaired. I think they are much more archaic looking than say, a 67/68 Camaro. The notchback is OK, but those little scoops are silly looking (ranks right up there with hood mounted tachs).

For that matter,I've always wondered what was going on through the minds of a designer looking at a clay model at an early Dodge Charger (aka the Rambler Marlin). Ooh lah lah, maybe.

Build Your Own 50s-60s Dream Car

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles