Howdy, Stranger!

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


andre1969 ·


Last Active
  • I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!


    I asked because the '57 Skyliners are rare. I've seen one at the car shows that I recall. I've seen 4-5 '59s. Don't recall any '58s.

    The Skyliners always have a good turnout at the Ford show in Carlisle, PA. Here's a '58 that I snapped a pic of back in 2006...

    I just noticed; I've gotten really lazy about uploading my old car pics. I haven't uploaded Ford show pics since 2008! :o

    Anyway, from what I remember, the '57 and '59 both seemed to have a good showing of Skyliners, and fewer for '58. The 1957 had the highest production, but the '57 Ford in general was poorly built, so a lot of them rusted away. The '58's weren't much better, and sold in much fewer numbers. In 1959, Ford had a pretty big resurgence in sales, but the Skyliner fell off again. However, the '59's were better built, so I think they have a better survival rate than the '57. I think a lot of people really go for the more formal, Thunderbird-inspired look of the '59 as well.

    As for production figures, it looks like they made 20,766 Skyliners in 1957, 14,713 in 1958, and 12,915 in 1959.

    All things considered, I think the Skyliner was pretty inexpensive, when you factor in how complicated it was. In 1957, a Skyliner started at $2942, compared to $2505 for a regular Fairlane 500 convertible. Of course, with options the price went up fast. My grandparents bought a '57 Fairlane 500 4-door hardtop, which had a base price of $2404, but I remember Granddad saying that sucker was around $3500, optioned up.

    I think the Skyliner came with a standard 272 V-8, whereas the other models would have had a 223 6-cyl standard. So, part of that increase in price was having a standard V-8 engine. I believe a 292 and then a 312 were optional.

  • 2015 Ford Expedition Priced at $44,585 |

    My only beef with this is calling it "Redesigned". Is it really redesigned? Or is it just a facelift with new engines and powertrains, shoved into the existing body? But yeah, rigs like this do have their place. Actually, if Dodge would make something like this, say, bring back the Ramcharger nameplate, and base it off the Ram, I'd consider one.

    In the past, I'd always been a car guy, although I've had my Granddad's old '85 Silverado around as a spare vehicle since 2002. But, about two years ago I bought a leftover 2012 Dodge Ram, and it's my daily driver now. It's real easy to get accustomed to the higher seating position, improved view, etc, but then when I go back to a car, even a big car, it just feels awkward. At 230+", my Ram is a pain to park in tight spaces, so if I go into DC, for example, parking can be a bit of a pain. But, if you spend most of your time in the suburbs, these bigger rigs aren't that bad to handle.

    If I had to drive a lot for my commute, I don't think I'd have one of these monsters for a commuter car. But, I'm only logging about 7,000 miles per year, so the ~14.5 mpg average isn't killing me too bad. And if I had a long commute, with highway driving, that would definitely improve.

    So, I'll give Ford credit for trying to improve the fuel economy on these things. I'm a bit leery, of relatively small, high-tech engines trying to move a lot of bulk, though. I have a feeling they won't age well. And is the EcoBoost V-6 going to be the only engine in the extended version, as well? That really seems like it's going to be pushing it.

    BTW, does Ford (or did Ford) ever offer the Expedition XLT in 3/4 and 1-ton versions, like GM has done with the Suburban? I know for awhile, Ford had the Excursion for the 3/4 and 1-ton market.
  • Project Cars--You Get to Vote on "Hold 'em or Fold 'em"

    @stever said: (I suspect the '69 C20 was the main reason people recognized you - there's probably a running bet on when it'll finally die. Sort of like the ice classic - when will it go out).

    I still get that, occasionally, when I drive my Granddad's old '85 Silverado, which has been in the family since it was new, and spent most of its life in the area. The only exception was from around 1997-2002...Grandmom gave it to my Mom in Southern MD, and then she sold it to me.

    I'll have people say to me "Is that Jesse's truck", or "Isn't that your Grandfather's truck". Although, it's happening less and less, as Granddad died in 1990. So most of the people who would remember him have either passed on, themselves, or moved away. But, because we kept the truck for so long, for awhile, I think people thought Granddad was still alive.

  • General Motors Fans

    Imidazol, you nailed it...just plugged in the code reader. P0446! I tried looking it up online, looks like it could be the evaporative canister, or a fuel pressure sensor.

  • I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

    Well, the 1960 Valiant was a pretty popular car. It came in well behind the Falcon, but only about 60K units behind the Corvair. A pretty good showing, considering that Chrysler lacked the capacity of Ford or GM. Style-wise, I'd consider the Valiant to actually be pretty radical, compared to the Corvair or the Falcon, especially. The Corvair was radical in its engineering, but other than the grille-less front-end, it was rather plain. As for "plain", well you could almost go to Google, type in the word "plain", hit "I'm feeling lucky", and get a pic of a 1960 Falcon! ;)

    I think the problem back then is that GM reacted, and not in a good way, to the 1957 Mopars once the designs got leaked. And the end result was the 1959 GM cars. Meanwhile, Mopar countered by reacting to the '59 GM cars, and their result was what we saw from Mopar around '60-61!

    Actually, that overly styled, "European" look of the 1960 Valiant sort of worked. But it didn't apply as well to the larger cars, like the '62 Plymouth/Dodge, or the '63-64 Chrysler. I have to admit though, that I think the '62 Dodge Dart/Polara models are kind of cool, in an offbeat sort of way. That turbine-inspired styling is at least interesting on them, whereas I think the '62 Plymouth is just ugly.

    It must have been hard as hell to sell a standard sized '62 Plymouth, when they were new. The Chevy that year was downright gorgeous, and the Ford is handsome, in a more conservative sort of way. And by then, they were even facing competition from within, as the Dart lineup pretty much matched the Plymouth lineup. It started off as Seneca/Pioneer/Phoenix against Savoy/Belvedere/Fury, but by '62 I think they went with Dart/Dart 330/Dart 440.

    I guess drivetrains were probably a good selling point for the Mopars though, as the 225 slant six, mated with a 3-speed Torqueflite, were more than a match for the 6-cyl/speed combos that Ford and Chevy were pushing. And in V-8's, with Mopar you jumped straight to a 318, while the others were messing around with stuff like the 283 and 292. So the Plymouth probably drove better, accelerated better, and got a bit better economy than it s direct GM and Ford counterparts. If only you could put a paper bag over it! B)