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

andre1969

in Southern MD (went down there for Mother's Day), I saw a '67-ish Ford Fairlane wagon at a used car lot! I didn't stop to look, so I didn't get much detail other than the big "$1500" written on the windshield. It was white, and, going past at 60 mph or so, nothing really nasty, like rust-out, jumped out at me.

Also saw one of those full-sized Honcho-era Jeep pickups, deep red, looked to be restored. And sitting out in front of a junkyard was an AMC Concorde wagon! It had a few body parts stripped off.

seminole_kev

stripped off or fell off?

:P

jlawrence01

I saw a Morris Mini 1100 that was in decent shape - not a restoration but still in use.

I also saw four teenagers in a 1957 Chevrolet. The way that they were driving it (and the open containers of beer) indicate to me that the car is not long for this world.

jrosasmc

They would probably get caught sooner or later...isn't it illegal to have open containers while you are driving a motor vehicle?

Now LBJ, that's another story because he was a powerful man who got away with just about everything.

fintail

The new Seat thread reminds me...I saw a Seat this weekend. I've never seen one in NA before. It had Mexican plates, I spotted it on the WA coast of all places. A bright yellow Golf-sized hatch, very sporty lookinh.

ghulet

...I keep seeing strange old vehicles in pairs, this weekend was no exception, this time both International Scouts. The first was a short wheelbase with the top off and white striping with 'Rallye' on the side. Very '70s. The second was faded black or brown, also with lots of adhesive or paint striping on the side of the same variety, no 'Rallye' and with definitely a longer wheelbase, but still appeared to have a removable hardtop.

What engines would those have had from the factory? I imagine they bought engines from someone (I'm guessing AMC or GM) else.

lemko

...International's version of the Suburban - the Carryall?

bumpy

Travelall. My dad had a white one for a while; had it towed away after reverse broke on it one day. 1979 was an inauspicious time to be putting money into a gas-guzzling 3-tank beast like that.

alfox

Yup - (Travelall) and every single one of them was the same dark tan color, as near as I could tell. Prolly cause that way the rust didn't show as soon, lol.

andys120

A couple of 50s hitters, a '57 Nomad, Tan roof over Red-orange body and a black '55(?) Chrysler on a flatbed.

andre1969

that International Harvester built their own engines for the Scout and Travelall. They were probably antiquated things that should have been shot in the 50's, though!

fintail

Did the Travelall have some kind of design flaw that made them dangerous in regards to the gas tank? I saw a very early one once (it even kinda had fins) and my dad said they were deathtraps, but he couldn't really elaborate.

kyfdx

A friend of mine in high school.. his father got Internationals for company cars... We were always bombing around in a Travelall or a Scout... You can do about 35 MPH in reverse gear in a Travelall..

I seem to recall a lot of open containers, as well.. It is a wonder we survived..

lemko

...what was the name of the Dodge truck that used fenders from a 1957 Dodge wagon? I remember seeing these as a kid and thought they were pretty cool.

andre1969

that was called the Dodge Sweptside, and was produced from 1957-59. IMO, the Dodge trucks back then were homely looking beasts, although the tailfins were pretty cool! Here's a link...

http://www.sweptsides.com/

I had no idea the trucks were so rare...looks like only around 180 were produced for 1957, 975 for 1958, and 100 for 1959.

I always thought that the Chevies and especially the GMC's were the best looking trucks back then. And while they might not have always been pretty to look at, the Fords often looked the most modern IMO. While a '57 Mopar CAR made most of the competition look about 4 years old, I think a '57 Ford TRUCK does the same to its competition!

kyfdx

Wow... is that homely!

andre1969

here's a '57 Ford pickup.


While I don't think it's particularly sexy looking, it's still a nice, clean, modern looking truck. With the broad, flat hood and wide cab, where the greenhouse part is almost as wide as the lower part, it could almost pass for a 60's truck, were it not for the wraparound windshield.

Here's a '57 GMC...


While I think the Ford is much more modern looking, and this is more typical 50's in style, I think this is one good looking truck.

The '57 Chevy pickup ain't bad looking...


...only thing I really don't like is the grille. Whereas the GMC has an upscale look to it that vaguely evokes a Cadillac, the Chevy's grille looks like it's just trying too hard, and comes off as a bit garish.

debaser853

A '67 Corvette convertable. Had a 427 motor in it. Chatted with the owner for a few minutes, he was telling us about the costs associated with having "correct" pieces like windshields and carbueators vs. having something "non-correct" that works just as well.

He was happy to have the car and drive it with his non-correct parts.

Mr_Shiftright

Corvette owners are a bit nutso about "matching numbers". I don't know how that got started but it is unfortunate. Ferrari and Porsche owners could care less if the manifold or engine or carburetors were the actual ones dated from the factory. Anything reasonably similar will do.

What's really galling about some car collector guys is that they will remove an improvement, like disk brakes, and re-install the drum brakes and the bias-ply tires to be "correct", thereby cutting driving enjoyment in about half. Huh?

kyfdx

It is great, if you just want to drive a vintage Corvette, and you really don't give a crap what everyone else thinks....

However, the 350 V-8s in the Jags.. I just don't get that...

PF_Flyer

Outside of a hanger at the airport I saw a pristine 64 Vette looking really sharp!

andys120

Actually I'm not sure what it was but I saw a 68-69ish Coronet coupe go by me w muscle
car scoops in the hood and a white stripe across the rear. I think it was the Dodge equivalent of the Superbee. :confuse:

I also saw a decent looking '48 Ford Tudor (black).

seminole_kev

well part of it is the Ferrari owners don't have to worry that their engine might have come from a NYC Taxi! :P

Not that it should matter anyway though.

bumpy

Two of the three possible gas tanks were outside the frame under the front seats (the filler caps were at the rear of the front fenders) so a side collision wouldn't be much fun. The third tank was behind the rear axle Suburban-style. IH did have their own engines which were famously thirsty, 288, 304, and 345 V8s among them.

Mr_Shiftright

Ferrari matching numbers are not important especially with the older Ferraris because it was expected Ferraris would race and that engines would be destroyed. Ditto the 6 cylinder Porsches that were trackable, like the early S, RS models, etc. Jaguar collectors are a bit more fussy but Corvette owners are quite anal about all numbers everywhere matching and being dated. I think their large prouduction numbers is one reason---you need ways to differentiate your car and make it special for the collector.

bumpy

That Ford still has that '50s look with the bottom of the cab glass sitting higher than the top of the bed. You didn't get the "level" look with the top of the hood and bed and the bottom of the cab glass all at the same height until the adoption of fishbelly frames which let the cab sit lower, GM in 1960, Ford and Dodge 1961. Trucks today are still built with the same proportions as those first "level" trucks, very different from the '58s and '59s.

lancerfixer

What's really galling about some car collector guys is that they will remove an improvement, like disk brakes, and re-install the drum brakes and the bias-ply tires to be "correct", thereby cutting driving enjoyment in about half. Huh?

Well, in defense of those wanting to be historically accurate, Shifty (and whether you find it galling or not, a significant subset of restorers/collectors prefer historical accuracy over driving fun) I can see why some collectors would want a vehicle "as it left the factory."

It's like when I was in fifth grade, and we went on a field trip to Plymouth Plantation on Cape Cod. Those houses wouldn't have been very "historically accurate" with running water and electric lights, now would they?

lemmer

I see your point, but isn't that why we have car museums?

As for the analogy, everyone I know who owns a historic house upgraded to electricity and indoor plumbing at some point.

Mr_Shiftright

Well those are "dead" lighthouses and lemmer's point is well taken. If people were living in those lighthouses, you KNOW they would have running water and electric lights.

The Europeans have a much more rational attitude about merging past and present...you will often find an ATM machine in the wall of a 250 year old building.

Taking the disk brakes off a 350 HP muscle car and putting back the 8" drum brakes is, IMHO, totally nuts.

Keep the drum brakes in a box and sell them with the car---fine----and don't make any mods that cut or weld...fine...

Even MORE galling to me is when a restorer insists on putting on a known DEFECTIVE oem part.

If a $1,000,000 Bugatti can have modified brakes (which they do, but they LOOK historically accurate from the outside of the drum), then a $25,000 Corvette can have them.

lancerfixer

The Europeans have a much more rational attitude about merging past and present...you will often find an ATM machine in the wall of a 250 year old building.

Oh, those rational Europeans, always schooling us on everything...
You don't travel to the east coast much, do you, Shifty? As well, it should be noted that the Europeans have a great deal many more 250 year old buildings than we do, especially outside the eastern seaboard (insert snide comment about there being many more Corvettes than Ferraris here.)

I agree with you about adding technologically superior equipment (like disk brakes) for any old car that you're going to, you know, DRIVE. Just like it's fine to put electricity and plumbing in a 200 year old house that you're going to, you know, LIVE IN. But if a restorer's ultimate intent is NOT driving enjoyment but instead historical accuracy (who cares if the car's in a museum or not...to the restorer, the museum could be his own garage) then I see no problem with it.

Having said all that, it brings to mind the interesting question, what with all the 'resto-mod' stuff going on now: At what point did the '67 Camaro with the crate 350, six speed manual, four wheel disks, coilovers, four point harnesses and a CD changer cease being a '67 Camaro?

Mr_Shiftright

Oh the "bring on the clones" routine.

Well I'm okay with completely busting up a more common Camaro, say an old 6 cylinder automatic car, or one with a 307 in it, and beefing it up into a Z-28 clone or an SS, as long as you're up front about it.

But if it were an authentic rare car, I'd be much more discreet about the modifications.

There is a definite trend away from "authenticity" since people are beginning to wake up to the fact that trailering your muscle car to a show, and taking off the tire mittens, and then bragging all day about how authentic your car is, is actually pretty boring for 98% of the auto enthusiasts around. The other 2%...well... they can talk to each other all day, that's fine.

Things have to change. Old people and old cars have to die and make way for new trends, ideas and ways to do things. Nothing worse to my eyes than a spotless performance car sitting behind velvet ropes with a "do not touch" sign. I mean, drive the damn thing, because your widow isn't going to--LOL!

stickguy

I watch Dream car garage (when I remember to) and they deal with this topic. Currently, they are restoring a Judge convert, and seem to be doing the authentic routine. But, they are also doing a Mustang "challenge", where they are going to race a '65ish Shelby GT350 and agiainst a Fox chassis "stang. Both are being upgraded for the race.
\
Now, on the newer car, they are just cutting and pasting (that is, not trying to keep it origianl). But, the owner of the Shelby wants to keep it authentic, so whatever changes they are making seem to either be period correct, or reversable. Stuff like a modern battery and radiator that can be swapped out later for the originals.

If I ever got a muscle car, it would likely be a clone/resto mod with modern stuff (brakes, etc), to make it driveable, and still way cheaper than a rare original, but just as much fun.

Mr_Shiftright

Actually MORE fun by a long shot. Many muscle cars, (REAL muscle cars, not 289 Mustang coupes) while noisy and exciting, aren't much fun to drive at all. You have very heavy clutches, lots of interior noise and heat, and the high compression engines make your head move like a bobble-toy in traffic. Some engines tend to bog at low rpm and need a lot of clutch slipping and some overheat in a snap if they aren't moving on a hot day.

andre1969

to restoring an old house. At one end of the spectrum, you can have an old house with no wiring, no water/sewer, no insulation, etc. Authentic, but not much fun. Then, you can do some things to it to modernize it, such as putting in electric, but with vintage-looking fixtures, put in a bathroom and kitchen sink, but again, give them a vintage look. You can put in insulation, maybe install an unobtrusive HVAC system, but overall, the place still has an authentic, vintage look. This would be similar, IMO, on a car to doing inobtrusive improvements, such as improved tires (I'm sure even the bias ply tires of today are light-years ahead, quality-wise, of what they built 30-40 years ago), batteries, maybe disc brakes up front, some insulation here and there, a sound system that doesn't cut up the interior of the car, perhaps a switch to electronic ignition, and so forth.

Or, you can go all the way with that old house and put in a space-age kitchen that would make Jane Jetson feel confused, throw Pergo over the vintage hardwood floors, ditch the old fashioned windows for some trailerpark/Brady-bunch sliders, pull out all the old hardwood moldings around the doorways, windows, corners and such, but at what point does it stop being an old house? It's the same with cars.

Mr_Shiftright

Who WANTS an old house to live in? That's why old houses mostly got torn down or remodeled. I doubt they use clay pipes in Williamsburg.

lancerfixer

Who WANTS an old house to live in? That's why old houses mostly got torn down or remodeled. I doubt they use clay pipes in Williamsburg.

Again, you apparently don't get out to the east coast much...

jaserb

I liked this Edmunds article:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Columns/articleId=105526

The gist of the article is that there was a reason so few Hemi Mopars were built. They were lousy cars.

-Jason

Mr_Shiftright

So people living in houses in Williamsburg use out houses and buckets? Kinda doubt it.

Worse yet are cars where known factory defects are repeated. Yeah, let's put in those fragile fiber timing gears instead of aluminum repos because it's "authentic". Dumb....you don't see it, so what's the point, right?

But outside appearances should be maintained if possible, yes.

fintail

Today I saw a lovely silver 240Z (a non-orange one...wow) and a gold Volvo 1800ES sportwagon or whatever they were called.

andre1969

you can't just put all old houses into one broad blanket category. Just like there were old cars that were crap, and there were old cars that were great, and everywhere in between, the same is true for houses. Some of 'em were built like crap and just slapped together and mass produced, some of them were built with a little more care, some of them were over-built, etc.

Often you get a sort of intricacy with an older house that you're just not going to find with a newer home, unless you pay a small fortune. For example, Pergo, or even a real hardwood floor which is brand-new, just isn't going to have the look of one that's had 80-90 years to age. Or the detail in the woodwork around the doors, windows, corners, etc. In some ways, it's kind of like an old car. Just look at how complex the grillework was a lot of the older cars. Even something hideous like a '58 Buick, you have to admire the effort that they had to put into it to make something with 160 individual chrome squares! Nowadays they just stamp something quick and easy in a simple molded plastic, maybe put a little peel-away chrome on it, and call it a day.

Or, perhaps you bought an older home because of the more rationally-sized rooms. Maybe you got 3 decent-sized bedrooms in an older home instead of the big Master suite and two walk-in closets that they're trying to pass off as "bedrooms", that seem to be the norm in most "affordable" housing today.

Now of course, most people wouldn't buy a house with no electric, no water/sewer, no insulation, etc. But you can at least retrofit an older house with stuff like this. Newer houses just have a generic feel to them, sort of like newer cars. For the most part, you go into a neighborhood and they have maybe 5 different models. The cheapest usually has a name that starts with "A" and the nicest usually starts with "E". When I lived in my condo, they just cut through all the ostentation and called my model "Unit E" :surprise: Older houses, like old cars, are more unique. Even though my house may not be the best looker in the world, it's a safe bet that there's not another like it. Unless my grandmother's uncle mass produced them, which I highly doubt! :P

BTW, in Colonial Williamsburg, in the historic section, I think they have electricity and limited plumbing, but for the most part the houses are period authentic. Most of them are set up like museum pieces or dioramas...I don't think people actually live in them.

andre1969

well, when it comes to the 426 Hemi, yeah, they were lousy as everyday transportation. Remember, the Hemi was little more than a thinly disguised racecar engine. It wasn't meant to be a passenger car engine. It's kind of like the Dodge Charger Daytona, Plymouth Superbird, Ford Torino Talladega, and Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS Aerocoupe...they were never meant to be mass-produced items, but just have enough built so that they could be raced, and bring some fame.

There are many reasons that more 426 Hemi cars weren't built. First off, the Hemi was an $800 option. Now that's NOT to say it was $800 more than the 440 wedge, as that article erroneously states. It was $800 over the base engine, which was usually a slant six. FWIW, a 1968 Dodge Dart with the Hemi package was around $4,000. The Dart had to be modified and customized to take the Hemi, though, which is why it ended up being relatively expensive. But then, to put in in perspective, I had a '69 Dart GT with a slant six, and it had a sticker of $3600.

Second, IIRC, you couldn't get power steering or power brakes with the Hemi. And no power brakes pretty much insures no disc brakes. Want a good idea of how hard disc brakes are to stop without power? Well, turn your car off while driving, pump the brake a few times to deplete the vacuum reserve, and then see how much fun it is to stop! You also couldn't get air conditioning with the Hemi, which, in later years became a bigger factor.

Now I'm not saying that the Hemi WASN'T lousy as a passenger car engine. It was. If all you wanted to do was driver around everyday, a 440 or 383 was a much better choice. However, to be fair, it was that way with just about any top-of-the-line performance engine. And the smaller the car was, the worse it was. Even way back in 1957, when you bought your 300C, unless you were going to race it, they recommended you stay away from the 390 hp 392 Hemi, and go with the more sedate 375 hp job, which was more suited to street use. But the fact that it was a lousy passenger car probably did nothing to kill sales. The high price and lack of options was probably the real killer.

Also, by 1971, about the only car you could still get a Hemi in was the Dodge Challenger/Plymouth Barracuda. These cars, while desired today, were considered serious losers at the time. The Challenger had an especially bad rap because a Challenger Pace Car wiped out at a race (I don't think it was the Indy 500), and crashed into the grandstand. As a result, it picked up a lot of "name baggage" very quickly. These cars were also viewed as clunky and outdated at the time, compared to the sleek, almost European looking Camaro and Firebird. And the Mustang was still sailing mainly on name equity. These cars were just too little, too late, losers at the time, and one of the few examples that buck Shifty's general rule of "loved when new, loved today/hated when new, hated today" Or something like that.

merckx

..when someone would make this comment about those Challangers and Barracudas. I wasn't driving in 1970,but I did love cars...and I had zero interest in these cars...they just seemed so big and dumb....i did really want a '68 Roadrunner,though...really nice lines....I also used to admire the '69 Judge..

On the restoration topic, can someone make an arguement for "having correct overspray"? The guys at the Barret auction kept going on about 'Vettes having this,and being a good thing...I'd call overspray a mistake...

And they also liked cars not "overrestored". I can't quite embrace this either, unless they're just talking about engine compartments that are totally chromed...

seminole_kev

Well overspray occured at the factory originally too, but how someone can tell between "factory overspray" and a "new" overspray, I have no idea.

I've seen the term "over-restored" used for a few different things, but mainly I think it means making a car "too perfect". Basically making a car (while still being original and not modified) just to perfect. Body lines too exact, paint too perfect, things of that nature.

Then again, I've seen it used for someone going through the trouble of having all the original factory grease pencil marks put on and things of that nature.

merckx

Being a massproduced item,some overspray was inevitable. But to painstakingly try to recreate it during a restoration just seems obsessive and silly.

How could straight panels be an undesireable flaw?

seminole_kev

well if they're going for 100% originality, those things count to those people. Not something I would ever get involved with, that's for sure!

wimsey1

A gosh durn real, honest-to-Issigonis, RHD Mini Cooper S. Red, white roof.
I tried to stuff it in the basket under my daughters stroller and take it home but my morals got the better of me!
My in-laws saw a green Austin Mini later that night so I wonder if a club was in town.

andre1969

when I was a kid, I really didn't like the Barracuda/Challenger, either. To me, they always looked like a hasty reply to the '67-69 Camaro. And someone else must've thought there was at least a passing resemblance, because in the movie "Vanishing Point", the white Challenger turns into a '69 Camaro for the final crash scene! :surprise:

Back around 1990, one of my neighbors had a 1970 Barracuda hardtop with a 318 for sale. It was in great condition, but a not-too-attractive light olive green. Didn't do a thing for me. All things considered, I liked the '69 Dart GT hardtop I was driving at the time ALOT more!

I've started liking the Challenger/Barracuda much more now that I'm older...and one of my Mopar buddies gave me a ride in one. They actually are a well-thought out car, in the front seat, at least. Since they were based on midsized cars, whereas most "pony" cars have compact origins, the Challenger/Barracuda are huge up front, compared to something like a Camaro, Mustang, Firebird, or the pre-1970 Barracudas. Comfy, too. But I just can't get over the tiny back seat and miniscule trunk, an affliction all pony cars had, and probably always will have.

Back in those days, you were probably better off just getting a Demon or Duster with a 340. They were more utilitarian and humble than a Challenger/Barracuda, but much more versatile and, engine-for-engine, better performers and just easier to live with. And, by around 1975 or so, the Sport (they dropped the name "Demon" because Bible Belt residents stayed away in droves) or Duster with a 360 was the best domestic performer around, able to take on any big-block from Mopar, GM, or Ford with ease.

Mr_Shiftright

Cars are restored to a much higher standard today than 20 years ago, In 1985 they were restored pretty much the way Detroit built them, which is to say, somewhat carelessly.

I'm with the "overspray" guy to some extent, if by that he means that cars are over-restored by American collectors. That is certainly true. But I wouldn't purposely make a gross error on a car. But some orangepeel and goop dripping out of seams underneath and slightly mis-aligned panels and irregular stitching---sure, that was all part of mass production before robots came into power.

I don't think cars look good over-restored. They look like older people who had too much cosmetic surgery. There is something...I don't know how to say it exactly---eerily unreal about them. Sterile perhaps is the word.

It's like putting a big sign that says "DON'T EAT!" on a plate of the world's best chocolates.

wimsey1

Interesting analogy.
I know I have no interest in having a car that was so "perfect" that I found it a big hassle to drive it and then get it back to "perfect" again. This is mobile art in my mind. There maybe a few irreplacables I wouldn't mess with, but I don't think I would really want to own them then either.

Reminds me of my brothers maxim "Never trust anybody with perfect hair".

TTFN

Mr_Shiftright

People put $1 and even $3 cars in serious jeopardy ALL THE TIME in vintage racing. What really is the sense of owing a car you are afraid to drive? If you are insured (not for racing but for tours, etc), a good body shop can fix just about anything.

Restore 'em, drive 'em, bust 'em, restore them again. Good for everybody.