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

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

I always moan here about how I don't like fake scoops and things of that nature. Here's my opinion as to the ones I always say "Someone thought THIS added styling?", LOL:

Late sixties Rambler Rebel SST quarter scoop:


Ford Five-Hundred upper front-fender scoop (and later Tauruses I think, as well as some Cadillacs and aftermarket ones seen around here on everything):


...and I was just reminded of this by my commenting on how I like '67 and '68 Mercurys....except this front fender ice-cube tray:



All of those cars are good-looking basic designs IMHO. "Stylists" just can't leave well-enough alone so far as the small details of course. None of my moans are general styling things, just tiny add-ons that seem like a last-minute thing.

That Mercury looks just like my grandmothers car. When she passed my mom and uncle sold it, much to my chagrin.

fintail

Fake scoop:



I remember being disappointed when my dad told me it was just gingerbread (I still remember the car we were looking at, a blue and white 58 Country Sedan). But as it is from 1958, I suppose that alone justifies it.

Here's a great fender vent, but these are real:

andre1969

One trim piece that bugs me for some reason, is the fake exhaust port looking thing on the '58 Impala, low on the rear quarter aft of the rear wheel opening. But, in googling pics of them, I notice that most of the pics coming up actually don't have them. Here's one that shows it, though...



I don't mind the other embellishments, such as the 4 slashes on the front fender just after the headlights, or the 4 little discrete slashes on that crease just ahead of the rear bumper. And I know Uplanderguy HATES that fake scoop on the rear quarter just ahead of the rear wheel, but even that doesn't bother me. I don't think any of these add-ons improve the style, but I don't think they detract from it, either. But, that little fake exhaust port just bugs me, for some reason!

Oh, one other detail I don't really care for, is the way the chrome speak has that detail, texture, or whatever, that darkens it, four a couple of feet, over the front wheel. None of these complaints are enough to make me hate the car, but I just think it could do without them.

What is the story behind that fake exhaust port, though? Was it just part of an optional trim package?

uplanderguy

That fake exhaust port is an accessory, thankfully, and it is egregious!

At least the above car doesn't have skirts and continental kit, which to me just muddy up the basic good styling.

I'd like that car so much better without that 'comb' behind the doors.

For some reason, since I was a kid, I always associate '58 Impalas with a light steel blue metallic color.

andre1969

Is this the blue you're thinking of?


If so, then we're on the same wavelength! When I was a kid, I had a 1/25 scale model of a '58 Impala, and it was that shade of blue. At least, I'm thinking it was. I'll admit, sometimes my memory plays tricks on me.

I never really noticed it before, but when you said "comb", now I look at that fake grille and I see the attachment that goes on a pair of clippers, to fade your haircut on the sides!

uplanderguy

That is the color!

imidazol97

The blue is different than on the Ditzler color chart.

uplanderguy

fin, I'd say the '70-72 'Vette scoops are meant to imitate the 'Benz's. I always thought the flat-at-top C2 wheel openings were designed to ape (a bit) the brows on that 'Benz too. For some reason, I don't mind those things on the 'Benz, but back then domestic and European styling was usually pretty separate.

stickguy

now that was when companies offered good color options!

andre1969

Sometimes those paint chart colors lose something in the translation when they're scanned in. And, sometimes pictures lose a bit of their original color as well, although I have a feeling that '58 I posted was repainted at some point. At least, it looks to me like the driver's door is slightly mismatched.

Here's a '58 in the "Aegean Turquoise"....


That color is drop-dead gorgeous to me! This particular car had a 348 with a 3x2-bbl setup, and 3-speed manual. 280 hp. One thing I'm curious about though...with a tri-carb setup, that would imply "high performance" to me. But 280 hp out of an engine that size doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. For comparison, that same year the Mopar Wedge big-block debuted, in 350 and 361 CID configurations. The 350 had 280 hp with just a 2-bbl carb, and 295 with a 4-bbl. The 361 was good for 295 hp with a 2-bbl, 305 with a 4-bbl, and DeSoto division got 345 out of it with dual quads, 355 with the troublesome Bendix electronic fuel injection.

Seems to me that something the size of a 348 should be able to put out around 270-280 hp without even trying. As in, with just a 2-bbl.

andre1969

Chevy had some really beautiful greens and blues in '58, but I gotta say, I'm not so crazy about the red. It seems washed out to me, and with a tint to it that seems to somehow sway towards slightly orange, and slightly pink, at the same time.

ab348

Funny thing, when I was a kid I built an AMT scale model of a '58 Impala and sprayed it light blue. It might have been the color pictured on the box, I don't recall.

stickguy

for the time not bad looking, but the 57 seemed much better proportioned.

andre1969

Thinking back, I can't remember if the '58 Impala model I had was Revell or AMT. I just remember you could build it one of two ways, stock or custom. I don't remember much about the custom look, except that if you went that way, the grille had strong horizontal bars, sort of like those custom grilles that they offered on 70's GM pickups. My Dad and I built it...well, mostly my Dad! I can't remember if it was molded in that silver-blue, or if we painted it that color. But I do seem to remember the picture on the box was of a silvery blue one.

uplanderguy

I had a '58 Impala AMT kit when I was a kid and it was molded in sort-of a baby blue. I liked it at the time.

A Studebaker friend of mine bought a Cay Coral and white '58 Bel Air two-door sedan six-cylinder, rust-free and bone-stock, for a song (can't remember what, but cheap) about 30 years ago I think it was. He's sent me pics. He says it's the one old car he's owned that he regrets selling.

imidazol97

The Chevy on the cliff is beautiful. It's a blue. On the color chart the aegean is turqoise and shows a lot of green.

The first Chevy I think is like the colorized pictures of cars that popped up on FB when I was on there as classics. Other things int he pictures showed similar coloration. In that photo the sky shows the same violet tone that the paint does to my eye.

Maybe I need a new monitor!

At car shows occasionally a car has been repainted with a modern version of a color with clearcoat and the depth of the paint and the pigments changes the color from the originals back in the 50s and 60s.

I wish there was some way to show all the interior colors available on some of these beautiful cars. Today it's black, or almost black, or kinda black for the choices. LOL Occasionally a lighter tone is available with certain exterior colors on or a fancy model. I just started looking through cars since my son thinks he'll buy a replacement a few months from now.

imidazol97

I'm searching for paint chips 1958 Chevrolet on duckduckgo. Is there s website dedicated to colors and chips that are more accurate?

fintail

Speaking of Impala model kits, when I was a kid, I had a kit of a 64 Impala SS (a car I really admired when I was in my early teens), and I wanted it to be this color (but without those regrettable fender skirts):



I ended up painting it a darker blue with a light blue interior

I probably got the idea from the kit box, but I do like that color too:

fintail

Out on the road today, saw an immaculate looking earlier Pontiac Trans Sport, white, getting pretty thin on the ground these days.

ab348

imidazol97 said:

I'm searching for paint chips 1958 Chevrolet on duckduckgo. Is there s website dedicated to colors and chips that are more accurate?

Try autocolorlibrary.com

uplanderguy

I saw probably a '94 Camaro today, in dark green. None of the spoilers/stripes/etc. of the later versions of the same car. Nice original wheels too. I always thought that was a good styling exercise.

Body panels of the same composite materials as the 'dustbuster' vans. For whatever reason, those panels still look good today, even in my area, and didn't have the paint adhesion issues somewhat commonplace to that period.

I've only ever ridden in one, ever, and the worst thing was the right floor being high to clear the converter, which put your knees in the air.

uplanderguy

Speaking of '58 Impala, I was reminded that I bought this small piece originally from my hometown dealer, on eBay a few years back for I think $4:

fintail

The weird mirrors and inset headlights on the Camaro really bugged me back in the day (I preferred the Firebird), but bugs me less now, maybe as the car is 90s nostalgia in a way. Never ridden in a dustbuster van or a 90s Camaro. My paternal grandparents bought a new Lumina van in ~1994 (facelift model), but I never rode in it - I remember it had fancy "directional" wheels similar to on a period Beretta.

uplanderguy said:

I saw probably a '94 Camaro today, in dark green. None of the spoilers/stripes/etc. of the later versions of the same car. Nice original wheels too. I always thought that was a good styling exercise.

Body panels of the same composite materials as the 'dustbuster' vans. For whatever reason, those panels still look good today, even in my area, and didn't have the paint adhesion issues somewhat commonplace to that period.

I've only ever ridden in one, ever, and the worst thing was the right floor being high to clear the converter, which put your knees in the air.

andre1969

I had to look up a pic of the '93+ Camaro to see the mirrors, and yup, the way the fender swells up, to sort of blend them in, does have an odd look about it.

One reason why the headlights might not seem so bad nowadays, is that while they were weird by 1993 standards, they don't seem so "off" today. Most cars back then had fairly simple, flush composite headlights that had sort of a glazed-over, "cataract-ic" look about them, so with the Camaro having exposed rectangular lights, even if they were smaller than normal, just seemed old.

But nowadays, cars have gone to more intricate headlight assemblies that, to me, sort of resemble a 1978-79 Dodge Magnum, where you often have the suggestion of rectangular, or even round headlights, just behind a clear cover. Or, at least, clear until they start to haze over. So now that Camaro's style, while out of date when it was new, seems closer to the norm, these days.

fintail

I think that's a big part of it, and at the time, I liked a front end to have a flush design - the headlights seemed to ruin the Camaro aerodynamics, to my eye. Today, I am not so concerned, they seem tolerable.

I am surprised rectangular inset lights (but with costly adaptive laser or LEDs) haven't came back, just to be "different". The headlights on my wagon are intricate under the plastic cover, round main beam lenses with a few LED strips.

uplanderguy

Found a pic of my friend's old '58 Bel Air in Cay Coral that he sold for "around $1,500" in 1977, and "made money on it".

There was a Bel Air Sport Coupe (hardtop) in '58, which didn't have the 'comb' and extra 'vent' over the back window, but I do think the Impala roof is longer and I believe the entire car is longer,and that looks nice despite the added trim crap on it.

BTW, the first car I can remember my local grandparents having, was a two-tone green '58 Brookwood wagon. In fact, I was in it when my 19-year-old (or so) aunt had a minor fender-bender in it. It was replaced with a new '63 Bel Air wagon, then a '67 Impala Sport Coupe, and then....with the very first Vega our local dealer, Dart's, got in.

ab348

That '58 BelAir coupe looks nice and was probably not a bad choice if you were in the market for a new 1958 car. In general 1958 styling was not good for most domestic makes and the BelAir at least shows some restraint.

imidazol97

Here's a good comparison. Although the high model Chevy had some extra glitz.
But to teenager me at that time, the two taillights on Chevies compared to the three
on the high model always looked cheap.

andre1969

I don't think the Impala is any longer overall than the Bel Air or lower end models. I looked online and I'm finding the figure of 209.1", for the Impala and the Bel Air. However, the roofline is lower, and shorter, with a correspondingly longer rear deck, so that gives it the impression of looking longer. Also, although the styling is very similar, I've heard that the Impala's sheetmetal aft of the doors is completely different.

For comparison, the '58 Roadmaster is 219.1 inches. That's hardly petite, but to me the car looks a lot bigger than that! It's just weird to think that my grandmother's old '85 LeSabre was close, at around 218", and my '79 5th Ave is actually longer, at something like 221.5"! Those newer cars have their lengths puffed up though, by those protruding 5-mph bumpers of the era.

I think it might be because, subconsciously, I use my '57 DeSoto as sort of a baseline, and it's about 218" long. And, to my eye at least, that Roadmaster looks hulking compared to my DeSoto. It's odd...normally a lower car, shorter passenger cabin, and longer hood/trunk make a car look bigger in my eye. But that Roadmaster is the opposite...taller, larger passenger cabin, correspondingly shorter hood and trunk, all visual tricks that should make it look stubbier. But, it still manages to look monstrous and imposing to me.

texases

That air vent on the Impala's roof is impressive, they went to a lot of trouble to stamp that out. And why is there now a seam on the roof, and not on the lesser model?

uplanderguy

Boy, you just HAD to have three lights on each side! I remember that plainly through the years, LOL. Chevy made it so you even knew it was a cheaper model when you pulled up behind it at a light and saw only the two lights on each side!

The '58 wagons had only one round light on each side.

fintail

The roof vent on the Impala has always caught my eye as well, nice detail, not sure if it has real function.

58 Olds and Buick might be the most "1958" cars out there, gingerbread poured on:

uplanderguy

So over-the-top, and 'chubby' to my eyes. I've seen cartoons over the years of these with musical notes in the quarter panel trim.

If someone willed me even a very nice one, I'd have to put it on eBay, LOL.

Of course, the '58 Studebakers (non-Hawks) are nothing to write home about, except they are trim (not a sale point then I'm sure). The fin-on-a-fin in the back of the Packard sedan, wagon, and hardtop are horrible IMHO.

uplanderguy

Hey fin, apparently the Studebaker-MB association went on longer than we knew!

Michaell

uplanderguy said:

Hey fin, apparently the Studebaker-MB association went on longer than we knew!

I posted that yesterday in the Studebaker thread.....

fintail

Looking at 58 models, maybe the forward look Mopars were the least insane. Still wild, but they seem cleaner, too. A 58 Lincoln is also kind of crazy, and of course there's the Edsel (but I like the 58 Edsel).

That Studabenz wagon is amusing, I wonder about the story behind it. Cuba has a vibrant car culture, I can't imagine someone didn't know the makes have a link - or maybe the passing resemblance had by Studes to period MBs was the encouragement.

uplanderguy

I posted that yesterday in the Studebaker thread.....

Thanks, how'd I miss that? The son of the fellow who restored my former '63 Studebaker posted this on a Facebook page.

Due to brand loyalty (LOL), I'd most-likely get a '58 Golden Hawk first (and I don't really even love those, except three-figure production that year), then probably a '58 Impala Sport Coupe and grin-and-bear the 'comb',
a '58 Ford Fairlane 500 Victoria, then probably a '58 Dodge two-door hardtop of some model. I don't know why, but I've always liked the shape of the front wheel openings of a '57-'58 Dodge (and whatever lower-line DeSotos shared that feature).

I like the '58 Edsel too, as long as it's the lower-line, Ford-based ones. I think there is some truth to the remarks about the front having a bit of a genitalia look, LOL.

texases

fintail said:

Looking at 58 models, maybe the forward look Mopars were the least insane. Still wild, but they seem cleaner, too. A 58 Lincoln is also kind of crazy, and of course there's the Edsel (but I like the 58 Edsel).

That Studabenz wagon is amusing, I wonder about the story behind it. Cuba has a vibrant car culture, I can't imagine someone didn't know the makes have a link - or maybe the passing resemblance had by Studes to period MBs was the encouragement.

Yep, not much to like here, IMO:

uplanderguy

Ugh.

I will say, one that will turn my head is the long-wheelbase "Town Car" sedan, with vinyl top, rarely seen.

sda

According to Motorious, this was Carroll Shelby's personal car. It is being put up for auction and has 8k mi.

andre1969

One thing I always thought was a bit odd about the '58 Olds, is that, despite that style, it was fairly popular. 1958 was a bad year in general, with a mild recession. The auto market had gotten someone oversold in '55 and '56, and was starting to cool a bit for '57. In '58 it hit hard. I believe the only domestic brand to actually see a sales increase was Rambler. The middle-priced market, which was getting over-crowded already, and got even worse when Edsel hit the scene, got slammed particularly hard.

Among middle-priced makes, I always thought the '58 Olds was the most "uglied up" for lack of a better term, compared to '57. Yet, among mid-priced makes, it suffered the least, sales-wise. Well, unless you want to argue Nash (gone) and Packard (a shell of a shell of its former self by then). IIRC, the '58 Olds sold about 311,000 units, down from 388,000 in '57. So, it was down about 20%. Meanwhile, DeSoto plummeted about 58%, selling around 49K, versus 117.5K in '57. I believe Mercury and Dodge were down by more than half, and Chrysler, about half. Buick and Pontiac were hit pretty hard, but I forget how far they were down. Amidst all this mayhem, the Edsel actually moved about 63,000 units. According to my Consumer Guide auto encyclopedia, their forecast was for 100,000 units. So all things considered, missing that by about 37% in a recession year wasn't *that* bad!

The Edsel does take a lot of flak for its style, but for the most part, I think most of its sin lies in the front end treatment. And oddly, not in the "horse collar"/"toilet seat"/"female anatomy" that most people focus on. It's hard to do a vertical grille/central theming on a car like that, but it can be done...witness the Facel Vega. And I think the Packard Predictor show car could have looked good, if they had time to massage it out more. I think most of its awkwardness is in the body design, not the front-end.

With the Edsel, I think if they gave it a bit more of a forward thrust around the headlight bezels, rather than being so flat, it would have looked better. And, perhaps moved the grille/turn signals forward a bit, so they didn't undercut the front-end so much. The way it's inset like that, makes me think of old people when they take their false teeth out

Anyway, with Olds doing comparatively well, I guess it shows that beauty is only skin deep, and even back then, people weren't so shallow that they'd only buy a car based on looks. Unless, that look actually appealed to buyers, at the time!

As I recall though, Oldsmobiles were pretty well-built cars back then, and fairly good performers as well. I've heard that Buick's Dynaflow transmission was a love-it or hate-it thing. Also, Buick had had great sale success earlier in the 50's, but supposedly their quality was starting to slip, and they were getting a bad reputation. Their reputation didn't get wiped out as quickly what the '57s did to Mopar, but by '57 Buick was cooling off, and would drop even further for '58. Oldsmobile, meanwhile, seemed more consistent.

I think Olds might have been cooling off a bit in '57 as well. To a lot of buyers, the '57 Olds and Buick just didn't look "new" enough, too much like the '56 models they were replacing. And those 3-piece rear windows on some of the models caused some detractors to twist around that famous Plymouth slogan and say "Suddenly it's 1949!"

sda

The 58 Olds are my least favorite as they were just gaudy. From what I've read the Dynaflow transmission that Buick liked to brag about was oozie smooth but sapped a lot of power from the engine which resulted in slower acceleration times than Olds and just horrible gas mileage. Not sure they were very durable either. The Hydramatic the Olds used was a 4 sp but started in 2nd gear unless the gas pedal was floored or I think you could manually select 1st gear.

fintail

That one is just bizarre. Maybe a few too many conflicting angles and surfaces, rather than being slathered in random chrome trim.

texases said:

Yep, not much to like here, IMO:

uplanderguy

The Edsel reminds me of what may have come from Packard had Nance stayed in power. Like Packard, they were two lines of cars, in the medium-and medium-upper classes. Ironically, Nance became VP of the Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln division after Packard. Ironically, Studebaker did well with the bargain-basement Scotsman in '57 and '58, and the Lark in '59 provided the Corporation's largest profit in its 107-year history. Didn't last long, but kept them around for another several years. Nance was fired by Ford and in 1960 went to work for a bank in Cleveland. He lived in tony Chagrin Falls, about twenty miles due north of me. I wish I knew his address; I'd like to just drive by his house and take a gander from the street.

As has been mentioned many times, I grew up GM (Chevy), but other than the Chevy, I am not impressed with any '58 GM model, truth be told.

fintail

For 1958, it's almost like a bunch of stylists from the big 3 got together and had a secret contest, who can be the most wild. Ford even launched a brand for the occasion! It's also remarkable how quickly things toned down - by 1961 it was hard to tell anything had happened (although Mopar could be somewhat weird that year).

andre1969

Often, it seems like the first year of a new model is the best, and then it goes downhill from there, stylewise, but for some reason, I think those Lincolns got better looking each year.

I think the '59 definitely looks cleaner, with the headlights and the grille integrated, rather than those oval pods that '58's headlights were in...

Although, the bumper looks more poorly integrated than a lot of those 70's 5-mph bumpers!

And the '60 doesn't bother me at all. I think the front bumper is a bit better integrated, and I like the fuller grille.


I think the '58-60 Lincolns might have set some kind of world record at the time, like longest unit-body car ever built? It might still hold a record, for unit-body wheelbase, which I think was 131". They were 227.2" long, according to Automobile Catalog. The Unibody Imperials broke 229" for 1969, but were on a shorter 127" wheelbase.

tjc78

sda said:

According to Motorious, this was Carroll Shelby's personal car. It is being put up for auction and has 8k mi.

We were just talking about these in another thread. I like the Omni version but wood rather have one of these.

uplanderguy

I used to get Omnis and Horizons frequently as rentals in the early and mid-eighties. I much-preferred them to K-cars. Of course, I never got a GLH version.

At the time, I hated getting Renault Alliances and Encores. Slow, and to my eyes dopey-looking.

uplanderguy

For lots o-chrome, hard to top a '57 or '58 Cadillac Sixty Special. About the bottom half of the rear quarter was bright metal. I'll have to look for a pic online. Really waaaay over-the-top.

EDIT: Here's one. Looks like something Homer Simpson might design.

andre1969

The regular Sedan DeVille models looked downright restrained, in comparison....