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

fintail

Nice pics, that show has some amazing variety, not like anything I have seen out here. Unless it is a judged concours, it seems all local events are either make-specific or made up 90% of Tri-Chevies, Mustangs, and hot rods.

imidazol97

I'm having trouble opening the link for the Rockville pictures.

Is anyone else getting it to open?

tjc78

Opened ok on my iPad.

Andre. Thanks for sharing the pics.

imidazol97

I rebooted and the picture collection showed up for me.

Thanks for the pictures.

I liked the white Eldorado with the rich red interior convertible and the Bat Man Dodge station wagon in the wine color (photo 65).

Why do so many cars have a fire extinguisher under the wheel and others have wheel blocks? A requirement of the show?

andre1969

cool, glad you were able to open them. This showfield is a little valley with the hillsides rising up pretty steeply on either side, so they want all the cars secured in place. As for fire extinguishers, I think most car shows require you to have one in your car (gotta confess I didn't, as I left mine in the LeMans )

This show does have a good variety of cars from all years. In the past, I've tended to take pics of mainly the 60's, 70's, and occasional 80's car, but this time around, I tried to get out a bit more. Oddly, one of my friends was whining that he wished there were more 70's cars there! Almost sounds like something I'd say! But, a lot of money comes to this show...you can almost smell it on a lot of the people. And for the most part, people like that don't buy 70's cars!

stickguy

went out yesterday morning early, and at a light, there was a nice burgundy '67 Vette convertible. Super clean. And stopped right behind it, was a bright red (looked brand new) '62 (I think) T-Bird. Just like you might have seen 45 years ago. except for the Kinkos and Olive Garden they were stopped in front of!

ab348

Always enjoy your pics. I always know when I'm looking at one of your picture sets because the first pic or two is always that of your car!

I was impressed with the number of Italian cars and with the number of exotics. Don't often see them at a typical show featuring older domestic cars, at least not around here.

omarman

Another "wow!" reply from my third gawk at that collection. Funny thing is that every time I go back for another look, my eyes are drawn to that Fiat 124 AC coupe. If I had one of those "back in the day" I'd still want to drive it.

ab348

I bet people that actually own those Fiats still want to drive them too. Unfortunately I suspect that desire is thwarted most of the time because they are in the shop.

fintail

Is it free admission?

andre1969

It's free for spectators, but you have to pay to put your car in. It's $10 if you register early enough, and either $14 or $15 if you miss the deadline. Still a pretty good deal, IMO. It's also a non-judged show, which I think is cool because that takes away some of the pressure and makes for a more relaxed atmosphere.

Alas, I did have a foot-in-mouth moment yesterday. My friends and I were chatting with a young guy who had a '66 New Yorker 4-door hardtop at the show. I thought it was really cool that a young person would be into cars like that, and gave me a bit of hope for the future. But then I mentioned about how I wonder about what's going to ultimately happen to a lot of these really old cars on the field, the ones that are owned by guys who are three days older than God?

Well, some old guy behind me overheard that, and said to one of his friends "Hey, he's talking about US!" But then, I went on to mention about how the younger generations just won't appreciate those real old cars in the same way, and worried for their future. At that point, I think the old guy understood where I was going with this...not that I was insulting the old people, so much, as showing concern for what's going to happen to those old cars in the coming years.

Mr_Shiftright

They'll just go to new owners--I see this all the time in my work. The family calls me up to assess dad's or grandpa's old car, that was left to them. They don't want it usually, or, worse yet *everyone* in the family wants it and the only way to make peace is to sell it to a stranger. Most often, a family member insists on having it, and then, in a few months, changes their mind. THAT happens a lot.

As long as the car is running and is realistically priced, someone will want it---even another old person perhaps.

I'm more worried about the high end cars, where maintenance and restoration costs can punish family members and which newbies in the hobby simply cannot handle. Once a car sits dormant for a few years, bad things happen quickly.

if it's an "entry level" collectible, and not running and needs a lot of work--these are the cars in danger of being destroyed.

berri

Andre - when you go to these shows do you find the spectators are more interested when you show your Catalina or your DeSoto?

fintail

That's not bad at all, and not being judged makes for a better show, too. Unless it is specified as some kind of concours, it should be casual. No dress code, no white gloves, no inspection sheets.

Shifty is right, the cars will always have buyers - but prices will be interesting. A lot of prewar common cars are worth no more in raw dollars today than they were 30 or more years ago - the enthusiasts have pretty much died off.

andre1969

Well, the DeSoto hasn't been to a car show in ages, and it was always small, local shows. It always got a good deal of attention, but at some of the shows, it would often be the only DeSoto there, so it stuck out like a sore thumb. In one of the other shows I used to go to, the Maryland DeSoto owners club would always have a good turnout, so my car was sort of lost in the crowd.

Nowadays, if I took it to the Mopar show at Carlisle, I think it would simply get lost in a sea of Forward Look cars, as the Forward Look Mailing List, National DeSoto Club, etc, have a huge turnout these days. Those cars do draw a good crowd in general, though.

As for my '67 Catalina, it seems to get lost in the crowd a bit at the GM show in Carlisle, as there's usually a couple other '67's that show up, and they're Bonnevilles that are bigger, more luxurious, and have had a lot more money put into them than my car. Interestingly, the LeMans used to get more attention when I took it, I think partly because it's not something you really see that often at car shows. In fact, I've actually found pics of my LeMans posted online, that other people have taken, so apparently it's catching somebody's eye!

I do have a feeling that, at a car show that wasn't Mopar or GM-specific, the DeSoto would get more attention. '67 Pontiac convertibles seem like they're a dime a dozen, relatively speaking, but a '57 DeSoto hardtop is fairly rare. Normally, hardtop coupes and convertibles tend to have a better survival rate as they're more desirable bodystyles, but for some reason, it seems like an awful lot of 4-door DeSotos survived. Part of it may have been that the build quality was better on the 4-doors.

imidazol97

> but for some reason, it seems like an awful lot of 4-door DeSotos survived. Part of it may have been that the build quality was better on the 4-doors.

What is the ratio of 4-door and 2-door sedans to hardtops for Desoto compared to other cars. It seems to me that there were a lot of sedans and the showy hardtops weren't purchased in our rural area. I would think the same thing is true for the Chryslers that are so beautiful but strong looking. I think you had a 1956 Chrysler picture in your Rockville group.

My area was primarily farming and small town businesses. The income distribution may be different than an urban area, so the purchased cars may have been more practical in my area.

berri

You had talked about that younger person and the 66 Chrysler, so I was a bit curious about your observations. I think a lot of Bill Mitchell's stuff at GM during the 60's is classic and almost timeless in its good looks. But Virgil Exner is certainly more controversial as a stylist. Growing up inthe 50's and 60's I would gravitate to your DeSoto, I think it is beautiful. However, I wasn't sure whether younger people would find it a bit weird or over the top, or if given their interest in anime the past decade or so they would really like it. I suppose the most controversial of his stuff was the early 60's. While I like a lot of it, there are many in my generation that didn't. Actually, some of that 60's stuff might fit into anime today!

berri

Imadazol (that's an interesting handle by the way!) - I think that 4 door hardtops are actually a pretty small part of output for the most part. GM had some success with them in the mid 50's and the 60's, at least in the Chicago area, but you didn't really see all that many on the road back then from Mopar or Ford. I remember people my parent's knew complaing about those 4dr ht being rattling and noisy. I think they also had a lot of body flex and could have used some extra support like on convertibles. I like 4 dr hardtops fom a styling viewpoint. But on Andre's vintage DeSoto, the Mopar 4dr sedans were actually pretty spiffy for their time. But then I can't really think of an ugly Exner Fordward look body design really, even the wagons were kind of neat.

Mr_Shiftright

4 door sedans were usually produced in far greater numbers than their 2D HT equivalents, so even though you might see more 4 door sedans today, in fact, their survival rate might be less than the 2-doors. IN other words, 5% of 250,000 is still more than 20% of 25,000.

fintail

Good example is MB W111 fintail vs coupe. Probably less roadworthy W111 fintails around anymore, although coupe production must have been 1:10.

Today's sightings - 55 Chevy hot rod 70s style, 1st gen Camry, BMW E12, and the guy in my building who had that red early 50s Buick got rid of it and bought something like a 70 Chevy shortbox.

andre1969

DeSoto (and Chrysler/Imperial) quit making 2-door sedans after 1954, so by 1957 that market was left to Plymouth and Dodge.

As for the 1957 DeSoto breakdown, it was something ilke this...

34,379 hardtop coupes, 29.3% of the total.
22,944 hardtop sedans, 19.5%
52,204 pillared 4-door sedans, 44.4%
2,748 convertibles, 2.3%
5,239 wagons, 4.5%

117,514 total units.

Oldsmobile was probably DeSoto's closest GM competitor, matching it fairly closely in price. Buick, in contrast, undercut it with the cheap Special, but then approached Cadillac territory with the pricey Roadmaster. Anyway, here's Oldsmobile's breakdown, for comparison...

21,445 2-door sedans, 6.2% of the total.
98,133 hardtop coupes, 28.2% of the total.
83,365 hardtop sedans, 24.0%
110,868 pillared 4-door sedans, 31.9%
13,860 convertibles, 4.0%
19,800 wagons, 5.7%

347,471 total units sold

So, Olds was stronger in hardtop sedans, weaker pillared sedans, although having a 2-door sedan in the two 88 series probably cut into 4-door sales a bit. Hardtop coupes were close in percentage, although Olds was stronger in the glamorous convertibles, and also in wagons. However, DeSoto wagons were fairly expensive that year. Olds only offered wagons in the two 88 series. The most expensive was the Golden Rocket Super 88 Fiesta hardtop, at $3541 base price. DeSoto offered wagons in the cheap Firesweep series and expensive Fireflite series, leaving out the mid-range Firedome. The Fireflite wagon started at $3,982.

Y'know, now that I think of it, the '57 Olds doesn't really have a hot survival rate, considering they made about 3.5x more than DeSoto did that year. I'd imagine that, in any given year of car shows, I'll spot more '57 DeSotos than '57 Oldsmobiles (and the '57 Olds is a car I like and notice too, so it's not like I'm simply overlooking them). The '57 Olds was also a very well-built, sturdy car, compared to a Mercury, Buick, or Chrysler's offerings. But, for whatever reason, maybe they just weren't as popular as they aged, so people just didn't hold onto them? Seems like the '57 Buick has had a better survival rate.

Still, if I see a '57 Olds, it's usually a 2-door hardtop or convertible, while if it's a DeSoto, it's usually a 4-door sedan.

For comparison, here's Chevy's breakdown...

327,559 2-door sedans, 21.8%
566,998 4-door sedans, 37.8%
189,057 hardtop coupes, 12.6%
153,850 hardtop sedans, 10.3%
47,652 convertibles, 3.2%
214,632 wagons, 14.3%

Total: 1,499,748 total

It's hard to compare Chevy's percentages to Olds or DeSoto though, because Chevy sold a lot of cheap 2-door sedans and stripper wagons. Also, while DeSoto and Olds offered 2- and 4-door hardtops through the whole range, Chevy only offered them in the 210 and Bel Air series. Plus, Olds and DeSoto offered three different convertibles (the two 88's and 98 for Olds, and Firedome/Fireflite/Adventurer for DeSoto) while Chevy just had the Bel Air convertible. Those hardtop and convertible styles were viewed as more of a luxury item, so the mid/upper range brands tended to offer a wider variety of them.

berri

I always thought the 55/56 Olds and Buick were two of the nicest looking four door hardtops. Very cleanly styled. On the other side of the coin, I thought the 59/60 GM flat tops were the most unique looking 4 dr ht.

fintail

Just saw a big 66 Mercury convertible, light yellow, unrestored, a little tatty but all there and driving fine, old man driver.

andys120

I'm standing by my car on a downtown street, about to get in when a flatbed truck goes whizzing by (too fast for a crowded downtown), on the bed is a shell belonging to a split window '49-'52 MoPar station wagon.

The shell is gray primer with no trim attached except oddly enough a chrome DeSoto on the prow of the hood. It was wearing a set of slotted alloy wheels which looked vaguely like old Halibrand "mags"with knock off hub nuts.

It looks like someone has an interesting resto-mod in the works.

jrosasmc

Yesterday, on my usual Sunday drive I passed a Mercedes 230SL ragtop - I didn't know the year but if I had to guess it was probably either a '65 or '66. What model designation did those cars use? Also, is it true that a lot of the original buyers opted for automatics instead of the manuals?

I have to admit, they are good-looking cars but I've been told restoration costs aren't cheap.

andys120

What model designation did those cars use? Also, is it true that a lot of the original buyers opted for automatics instead of the manuals?

W113 was the model designation used by the factory. Originally most of the Pagoda SLs were sold with manual 4-speed transmissions as was common on sports cars of the time but it's rare to find a 280SL (1968-72) in this country with a manual, they were probably the first sports cars to come with more autoboxes than manuals. Naturally manuals predominated on European models. If you saw a '65'66 230SL it's likely it had a four-speed stick.

fintail

230SL was 1964-66, then came the oddball 250SL, then the most desirable 280SL. The majority of all of them seem to be aautomatic, a 5-speed 280SL commands a nice premium, earlier cars seem to have more manuals, but they are 4-speed.. All MB are insanely expensive to restore, not worth it unless you love the car - you can still get into a nice driver 230SL for under 20K.

Mr_Shiftright

I bought a new 280SL when I was working for the Mercedes factory, and ordered a manual transmission, and it took a long time to get one. I don't think I even SAW another 280SL stickshift while I worked there, and aside from European versions, I haven't come across a US car like that. The 230SL was much more commonly equipped with a 4-speed manual transmission, which suited the car--it was lighter, plainer, and actually as fast or faster than the 280SL. The 280 became much more of a pleasant touring car, whereas the 230SL was raced and rallyed.

fintail

At this year's local MBCA gathering, there were 2 5-speed 280SLs - but IIRC one was a Euro. Those ZF cars are worth at least 5K more than automatics, I think.

I think the automatic and engine combo on a 230SL is much like on my 220SE fintail - I will say I shift for myself a lot.

How long did you have your car? According to my 1976 KBB and NADA guides, thanks to inflation, they didn't depreciate at all.

Mr_Shiftright

About 4 years. I think I paid $7800 for it. Today it's probably worth $40K. I do believe I sold it for about what I paid--I got a good deal from Mercedes. It was a lovely car, and I drove the crap out of it. I even broke the gearshift lever (which was none too precise anyway). Then I bought a fintail, and at the time I had a '52 220B convertible that I was restoring. But that project proved to be beyond my means to do correctly, so I sold it to someone who had the resources. Had it been a 220A, I might have held onto it. My fintail was owned by the executive officer on the USS Nautilus! As for other Benzes, I had a 300D, a 560SEL (briefly)...that was about it. I was never a big Benz fan.

fintail

A few years later it would have been worth the same. Not bad. Why did you work for MB, was it interest in the older products, or just a job?

Fintails seemed to go to certain buyers - many doctors, professors, engineers, and quite a few sold to decent ranking military men who would bring them home. It was high tech for the time, I guess.

Mr_Shiftright

It was a good job and at the time a very prestigious company to work for. Remember this was before Lexus, but after Cadillac self-destructed...so Benz was lonely at the top. I actually did like the pontons and fintails better than the newer models. The 280SL was more European than American. It was very feminine and delicate, not a brute like the 600. Having driven British cars for so long, the 280SL seemed like it had come from another planet. It was like an MGB built by geniuses.

Once the big fat V8 SLs came out, though, I lost interest pretty much. I thought "oh, no, Mercedes was imitating buick". Of course, it didn't turn out that way, but that's what I thought at the time.

hpmctorque

At the risk of asking a question with an obvious answer, why are they called "pontons?"

andre1969

My guess would be that it's because that style still had the suggestion of separate, bolt-on fenders, which could be slightly suggestive of a pontoon boat, or the pontoons on a seaplane?

FWIW, I always referred to the side sculpting on the '73-77 LeMans as "pontoons".

fintail

That's exactly it, ponton = pontoon.

fintail

I can see why you would have reacted that way...when the V8s suddenly became available in many cars and there was some bloat, for all anyone knew MB could have been becoming too Americanized. But, they didn't overdo it - by looking at their traditional luxury-stealing sales and how they still kept smaller cars, they did it just about right. Just too bad they gave up the smaller roadster for so long, moving from a 280SL to a 107 would be like going from a Corvair to an Impala in terms of driving, no doubt.

lemko

Hondas may have been built like a Swiss watch, but a couple of Northeast winters would turn the bodies into Swiss cheese.

lemko

...nice dark green 1964 Ford Galaxie 500 two-door hardtop travelling west on Rhawn Street near Tabor Avenue. This one had PA Antique plates.

berri

nice dark green 1964 Ford Galaxie 500 two-door hardtop

Now there's a model that I actually prefer the 4dr ht version.

Don't know whether its valid, but a lot of mechanical types I knew claimed the 64 Ford was an excellent car reliability wise, just like the 55?

Mr_Shiftright

Hard to believe, but I guess if it used the 289 and the C4, then maybe. But at that period in time I thought GM was light years ahead of Ford in the big car arena at least.

andre1969

Well in '65 quality took a nosedive across the board, as a whole bunch of all-new designs came out and high demand meant those cars were rushed out the door as fast as they could be slapped together. So, I'd guess a '64 Chevy might have been a better car than a '64 Ford, but both took enough of a dive for '65 that, in hindsight, all of the '64's started looking better!

We had a '64 Galaxie 4-door sedan when I was a little kid. My granddad got it for us, for something like $75 in the early 70's. I remember hating it as a kid, mainly because my Dad taught me to hate Fords, but I don't remember it being a bad car. It was ultimately given to the mother of a family friend, and she wrecked it soon thereafter.

jwilliams2

Not sure about the quality difference. My dad had new full sized Ford products pretty much every other year back then, and I had new mid-sized ones every year. I don't remember having any real problems with any of them, unless they were self inflicted. Lots of our friends had Chevrolets or Pontiacs, which seemed cheaper to me, especially the interiors. And I know theirs' spent more time in the shop.

uplanderguy

My friend who wrenched back then also said the '63-64 full-size Fords were a quality product, well-built and reliable. It seems to me that I still see an inordinate amount of '64 big Fords out and about, and not just at car shows.

uplanderguy

It's all what you were used to I guess, but back then I thought GM had the best small details in styling and interiors. In the interiors, the lock buttons, armrests, instruments, even the numbers on the odometer looked 'higher class' to me than Ford or Chrysler. Even into the early '70's, I hated how the armrests on a New Yorker didn't look any different than on a Satellite. One other small area where I think a big Chevy, for example, showed a bit of class was that its vent windows cranked in and out.

ab348

I am of the same opinion regarding interiors. GM in the '60s had superior interiors in terms of design and styling. Ford always seemed second-rate - I remember that they still retained the separate exposed shift rod for years on their column-shift manual transmission cars where GM went to concealed linkage inside the column bowl. Ford also tended to carry over instrument panel designs for several model years while GM tended to make them look somewhat different year to year. While I liked Chrysler interiors in their fullsize cars, their midsize and compacts had somewhat plain, flat instrument panels in the '60s that weren't all that good-looking. I loved the big Mopar (usually Plymouth) use of two-tone vinyl seats in the late '60s/early '70s, but agree that other details looked somewhat chintzy. Our '71 Monaco seemed pretty cool inside though, with high-back front seats and padded sections on the door panels that were very posh.

Regarding the '64 Ford, it is my favorite of all fullsize Fords of the '60s. It just looked solid and well-made, and had the best styling of all those years. I too have heard that they are more durable cars than their successors. The big Fords of the early '60's always seemed to have saggy springs in the rear and seemed very softly sprung to me, but the '64 didn't seem that way. I didn't care for the all-new '65 Ford at all, though they improved the look for '66.

stickguy

a 62 or 63 Mercury Meteor 4 door. Looks pretty much original actually, and not in terrible shape.

have seen this a few times, parked at the local HS of all places, in a section that is student parking (almost positive about that, not faculty). Really curious to see which kid drives this!

andys120

Hondas may have been built like a Swiss watch, but a couple of Northeast winters would turn the bodies into Swiss cheese.

That was already well known by the time I got my '79 Accord so I spring for a Zeibart job and the car was with us for 12 winters in NY and New England before it started to show rust (on the lip of the hatch lid).

I wish I had known to Zeibart my Fiat Spider.

kyfdx

Ziebart... the rust always started around the holes they drilled in the door sills, then filled with rubber plugs.... I gave up on that... By the time my '82 Accord hatch was 12 years old, it was really, really almost gone... dealer gave me $300 for it, in trade....

martian

Leaving my brother's house, I had to stop for a cop directing traffic (cars exiting an industrial park). The cop was actally a county sheriff's depty-and he had a black and white 1969 dart! It was in NEW condition-with an old-fashioned red bubble flasher on the roof! Amazing how this car lasted so long..and in such good condition!

berri

Most people seem to feel GM built better cars than Ford back then. So Shifty, who builds them better today in your opinion, Ford or GM? Or are the Asians still way outfront?