That was red zinc oxide metal primer. The finish paint was lacquer, like the original paint job, but after it was finished, I was wishing I had used enamel instead...
It was great therapy for me. The one thing that made it easier was the fact that so much of the car was made of metal, with a very few pieces of plastic. Trying to restore/replace plastics is all but impossible unless or has access to some fairly advanced manufacturing machinery. Metals are much easier to work with.
I'd much rather totally restore a car from the 1940's than one from the 1960's or later.
I worked in two different wrecking yards while in HS. That was in the late 1950s. I don't ever remember seeing one of that model. I am impressed, very nice restoration. I never could do decent body work. Engines and transmissions were no problem. Body work is more artistic. Thanks for sharing your memories.
That particular model was oriented towards the traveling salesman or company representative. Behind the passenger seat, there was a removable vertical seat-height panel 1/2 the width of the front seat that covered what we would today call a filing cabinet. It was roughly 1 foot in depth, and made out of wood, and had upwards slanting slots for sales brochures and literature, very similar to what one might find in a company mail room holding sales brochures.
In my example, it had long been gone, and I've never seen one other than in pictures. On the other side, behind the driver's seat, the spare tire was mounted vertically.
The trunk was cavernous. I swear you could slide a coffin in it and still be able to close the lid. Great for moving illegals across the boarder.
The car ran great, but you know it was designed for a highway speed of about 45 mph. While it would easily go faster, you knew from the engine rpm (and sound) that you were in a range the car wasn't comfortable being in. I don't think I ever took it over 70 mph, and even then, for less than a mile.
It sure looks close, but mine didn't have fluid drive. Just the 3-speed column shift.
Also, whoever did this car did the same as I did, regarding front turn signals. Those were an option in 1941 and OEM turn signals for the front were long, chrome plated pot metal appendages that fit directly on top of the fender, near where the fender mated to the forward cowling. I modified the parking lights on the side of the headlight bezels by replacing the one filament bulbs with 2 filament sockets and yellow bulbs. Fortunately, I was able to locate a OEM turn signal lever mechanism, which simply clamped to the steering column.
While I think I did a pretty good job of restoring my car, I really don't think it old have won any serious awards from organizations that really know cars.
No doubt, its a nice looking example of the model. I wonder if it has the behind the seat filing cabinet...
Back in the 60's, I had a 37 Dodge Business Coupe. Behind the front seat, It had a rack for storage such as you descibe. The rack had a canvas cover with fasteners to keep it closed, so the stuff stored in the rack couldn't fall out. Next to the rack the spare tire was mounted. The 37 had a huge trunk as well.
So, it looks like the Avalon is moving up in the world, eh? Used to be a glorified Camry! :P
Are the Camry and Avalon still related, I wonder? It used to be that both the ES and Avalon were based on the Camry, although the Avalon longer. The ES might have been a bit longer, as well.
It's funny, but it seems like the more Americanized the ES gets, the less I like it. When it first showed up here, as the ES250, I thought it was kind of a neat little car. Too small for my tastes, but I thought it was handsome and well-proportioned. And I liked the two generations of ES300 a lot. Can't tell 'em apart at a quick glance, though! It was when the ES330 came out, around 2003, with its bloated proportions and over-sized, peeled-back headlights that I thought they lost it. But, I think that's about the time the buying public really started flocking to it.
".... Toyota said that it would invest $360 million to install a new production line that will build about 50,000 of its flagship Lexus ES 350 sedans a year at Georgetown. The move will increase annual production at the plant, which already assembles the Camry, Avalon and Venza models and employs about 6,600 people, to about 550,000 vehicles a year. Toyota is also investing $170 million in upgrades to the plant.
“For manufacturing, Kentucky is Toyota’s home. It has some of the most experienced engineers in the world,” Akio Toyoda, president of Toyota Motor, said in New York. He said that building the Lexus here would help Toyota better meet the needs of its American customers and would reduce the effect of the exchange rate on car prices for American consumers.
A factory that can make 550,000 vehicles a year is obviously huge. In fact, is there any US factory that can make more than that? Perhaps there is. I don't know....
"....BMW's North American employment has grown 59 percent since 2005, to 9,375. The company expanded its Spartanburg, S.C., assembly plant in 2008 and again in 2010, bringing employment to about 7,000.
The plant, which now builds three of the four crossovers BMW sells worldwide, will add production of the X4 crossover next year. Capacity will grow from 300,000 units to 350,000, though BMW has not said how many jobs will be added.
Daimler Group's North American job count now stands at 7,838 after expansion of the Mercedes-Benz factory in Vance, Ala., that produces the M-class, R-class and GL-class crossovers.
About 1,000 jobs will be added at the plant when production of C-class sedans begins next year. A new crossover goes into production in Alabama in 2015.
Hyundai has added about 3,000 jobs since opening its assembly plant in Montgomery, Ala., in 2005. Kia's factory in West Point, Ga., which opened in 2009, employs 3,000 people...."
Hyundai's factory in AL is an interesting case. I think originally it was designed to make about 250,000 vehicles a year. But with some small expansions, and with the fact that it's now running around the clock, last year the factory made c. 360,000 vehicles. They just went to 3 shifts late last year, and so it's likely that this year the factory, which is a lot smaller than Toyota's KY factory or Honda Marysville OH factory (where the Accord is produced, which has the capacity to make 450,000) will make at least 400,000 vehicles.
Good point, and what I think is the biggest factor. When you stretch capacity, maybe cut corners, have fewer inspections, then quality inevitably drops.
So it's not building the ES in the USA vs. Japan that would be my concern. It's adding a 3rd shift to a plant stretched thin to squeeze even more output out of already exhausted workers.
Toyota's quality seems to have an inversely proportional relationship to production volume.
Could be true for all automakers, come to think of it, look at the number of Hyundai recalls (*) lately.
* Caveat: recalls are not a good measure of quality, but still...
We are making plans to improve our Forums! Whether you're a long time member or new to the community, we need your input. Please take a few minutes to complete the Edmunds Forums Survey.
So it's not building the ES in the USA vs. Japan that would be my concern. It's adding a 3rd shift to a plant stretched thin to squeeze even more output out of already exhausted workers.
I think the case is the temporary workers hired.....
I didn't mind the ES through the frameless era (other than the gold package found on 99% of them), but starting in 2002 (those lights and some gaudy trim), no thanks. Co-worker has an 07-12 style that she loves, and it has been flawless, but she's not terribly demanding or into driving.
I am not sure if the current Avalon is related to the Camry by structure, but if so, probably shares less than past models.
I actually find the new ES to be one of the better looking Lexus models - I prefer it over the bland, old, and small IS or maybe even the sometimes overdone GS.
One thing I did notice about the Camry though, is that it had about the thickest, widest seats of any car in its midsized class. So maybe it IS true what they've been saying for awhile now...that Toyota is turning into a Japanese Buick!
Funny thing is, pull up the specs, and with regards to interior room at least, all Avalon and Camry specs are within a half inch of each other. The biggest spread I see is front legroom...41.6" for the Camry, 42.1" for the Avalon.
Actually, I'm surprised the front legroom measure would be that different. Usually, when they take the same basic car and make it bigger, front legroom stays the same, and they simply put more room in the back. Unless it's a car that's grossly inadequate up front to begin with. But, IMO that's not the case with the Camry and Avalon. And, IMO, both cars felt a lot more generous than those 41.6 and 42.1" measurements would imply.
Funny thing is, in just about every measurement, except for back seat legroom, the Avalon sounds like a midsized car. Shoulder room is only 58.2" up front, and a meager 56.9" in back. Headroom of 38.5" up front, 37.9" in the back, doesn't exactly sound like top had territory. Many compact cars have had a front legroom measurement of 42.1" or more. But at 39.2", rear legroom is pretty generous. I think my old Intrepid was around 38.9", and I believe my Park Ave is around 40.2".
The EPA lists the Avalon at 104 cubic feet of passenger volume, 16 cubic feet of trunk space. But, somehow, the one I sat in at the DC auto show felt a lot bigger than the specs suggest. The Camry is rated at 103 interior, 15 cubic feet of trunk space. so it's really not that much smaller. Also, the EPA rounds off. The Camry's trunk is actually 15.4, while the Avalon, I believe, is right at 16.
So, as ugly as the Avalon is (IMO at least) I have to give Toyota some serious credit at space efficiency, and making a midsized car feel big!
I don't think there's a big difference from Malibu to Impala, or from Altima to Maxima. It may be more of a perceived/prestige thing.
I see a pretty big difference between the 2013 Malibu and 2014 Impala. But, comparing, say, a 2012 Malibu to a 2013 Impala, I'd go with the Malibu!
The Altima actually IS a bigger car than the Maxima! The latest Maxima is actually pretty small inside, sacrificing interior room for style. I sort of liken it ot the old personal luxury coupes of yesteryear, even though the Max is a 4-door. But, to use an example, an '83 Malibu sedan is a lot bigger inside than an '83 Monte Carlo.
I think that when the 2002 Altima came out, it was actually slightly bigger inside than the Maxima of the time, as well.
Back in the 60's, I had a 37 Dodge Business Coupe. Behind the front seat, It had a rack for storage such as you descibe. The rack had a canvas cover with fasteners to keep it closed, so the stuff stored in the rack couldn't fall out. Next to the rack the spare tire was mounted. The 37 had a huge trunk as well.
My 39 actually had a door closing off the storage area. It was hinged at the bottom, and it could be removed. It was secured by a push-button latch at the top, similar to the latch on the glove compartment.
The trunks were so large on those cars that, if they were still around today, they'd be used to sneak illegals across the border. You could put a dozen in there!
Impala isn't on the FuelEconomy.gov site yet, which is my source.
There's actually a rough formula you can use to estimate the interior volume of a car. It's: (front shoulder room * front legroom * front headroom)/1728 + (rear shoulder room * rear legroom * rear headroom)/1728.
1728 is what you use to convert from cubic inches to cubic feet.
Also, the EPA is a bit outdated on a few of their stats. IIRC, they list the new LaCrosse at 100 cubic feet. That's the old, W-body LaCrosse. The new one is something like 103 or 104 cubic feet I think. The way to tell if they're quoting the old W-body figures is if they list cargo volume at 16 cubic feet. That's the old W-body. The new one only has something like a 13 cubic foot trunk.
As for the Malibu, 95 is also the old Malibu. I think the new one is rated at something like 100 or 101 cubic feet. Doing the calculation I showed above, it should come out to 54.63 cubic feet of front seat room, 45.60 in the rear, or 100.23 total. The new Malibu has a LOT more shoulder room than the previous model, 57.5" up front and 57.1 in back. The old one was something like 55.5" up front, 53.9 in the back. IMO, that's compact territory. However, if I was to assign an arbitrary value on the Malibu's rear seat legroom, based on other cars I've had experience with, I'd put it at around 32-33" at best, whereas the "official" measurements put it at something like 36.8". I'm basing that 32-33" figure on my old '68 Dart, which was rated around 32", my '76 LeMans, which is rated around 32.9", and my '67 Catalina convertible, which is rated around 33.9".
As for the Impala, I just ran its measurements through my calculation, and come out with 61.23 cubic feet up front, 49.01 in the back, and 110.24 total. However, I find its 45.8" of front legroom a bit suspect. It's very, VERY rare to see a vehicle listed with much more than 43". I'd imagine that if you looked up all the stats, just about every vehicle ever built in the last 50 years falls between 41" and 43".
Anyway, when official 2014 Impala figures get released, I'll be curious to know. If it's 110.24, remember, you heard it here first! :P
Oh, incidentally, my formula nailed the 2000 Intrepid and Impala to a tee. 104.4 for the Intrepid, 104.6 for the Impala. But the EPA rounds off, so the numbers listed are 104 for the Trep, 105 for the Impala. But, I remember seeing an old comparison chart on a Dodge site that took it to the tenths, and they showed 104.4 and 104.6.
I don't know about a dozen, but, I put 3 guys in the trunk once to smuggle them into a drive-in movie. Conversely, the trunk of my 48 Chevy Town Sedan is tiny, and, won't hold much stuff at all
"Meh is an internet derived cliche for disregarding something or being unimpressed. Garfield the cat would probably say it a lot".
OK. Meh. Have not heard this term. But, considering the banality of "current" communication on media today, "meh" is relatively tame and forgettable. Meh!
I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently it was first used in some 1936 movie called "Yidl Mitn Fidl", as the transliteration of the sound a goat makes.
For some reason, I seem to recall Lucy Ricardo using it on occasion as well.
Sneaking others into the local drive-in movie was common in the days of drive-in theaters. The advent of lights in the trunk caused a minor hiccup, until folks realized it was easy to remove the bulb. Of course, back then, there were no fold-down rear seats, so the only way to get out of the trunk was by opening it.
The trunk of my 37 was easy for my hidden passengers to get out of. All I did was shut the lid, and, not turn the handle to latch it. There wasn't a trunk light either.
Comments
Seriously, impressive effort!
It was great therapy for me. The one thing that made it easier was the fact that so much of the car was made of metal, with a very few pieces of plastic. Trying to restore/replace plastics is all but impossible unless or has access to some fairly advanced manufacturing machinery. Metals are much easier to work with.
I'd much rather totally restore a car from the 1940's than one from the 1960's or later.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
In my example, it had long been gone, and I've never seen one other than in pictures. On the other side, behind the driver's seat, the spare tire was mounted vertically.
The trunk was cavernous. I swear you could slide a coffin in it and still be able to close the lid. Great for moving illegals across the boarder.
The car ran great, but you know it was designed for a highway speed of about 45 mph. While it would easily go faster, you knew from the engine rpm (and sound) that you were in a range the car wasn't comfortable being in. I don't think I ever took it over 70 mph, and even then, for less than a mile.
http://volocars.com/1941-dodge-pre-1950-luxury-liner-business-coupe-c-1428.htm
Also, whoever did this car did the same as I did, regarding front turn signals. Those were an option in 1941 and OEM turn signals for the front were long, chrome plated pot metal appendages that fit directly on top of the fender, near where the fender mated to the forward cowling. I modified the parking lights on the side of the headlight bezels by replacing the one filament bulbs with 2 filament sockets and yellow bulbs. Fortunately, I was able to locate a OEM turn signal lever mechanism, which simply clamped to the steering column.
While I think I did a pretty good job of restoring my car, I really don't think it old have won any serious awards from organizations that really know cars.
No doubt, its a nice looking example of the model. I wonder if it has the behind the seat filing cabinet...
Regards:
Oldbearcat
So, it looks like the Avalon is moving up in the world, eh? Used to be a glorified Camry! :P
Are the Camry and Avalon still related, I wonder? It used to be that both the ES and Avalon were based on the Camry, although the Avalon longer. The ES might have been a bit longer, as well.
It's funny, but it seems like the more Americanized the ES gets, the less I like it. When it first showed up here, as the ES250, I thought it was kind of a neat little car. Too small for my tastes, but I thought it was handsome and well-proportioned. And I liked the two generations of ES300 a lot. Can't tell 'em apart at a quick glance, though! It was when the ES330 came out, around 2003, with its bloated proportions and over-sized, peeled-back headlights that I thought they lost it. But, I think that's about the time the buying public really started flocking to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/business/toyota-will-make-lexus-es-350-in-kent- - ucky.html
".... Toyota said that it would invest $360 million to install a new production line that will build about 50,000 of its flagship Lexus ES 350 sedans a year at Georgetown. The move will increase annual production at the plant, which already assembles the Camry, Avalon and Venza models and employs about 6,600 people, to about 550,000 vehicles a year. Toyota is also investing $170 million in upgrades to the plant.
“For manufacturing, Kentucky is Toyota’s home. It has some of the most experienced engineers in the world,” Akio Toyoda, president of Toyota Motor, said in New York. He said that building the Lexus here would help Toyota better meet the needs of its American customers and would reduce the effect of the exchange rate on car prices for American consumers.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130422/OEM01/304229996/tran- splants-keep-rolling-in-n-america#axzz2RHfLJLzs
"....BMW's North American employment has grown 59 percent since 2005, to 9,375. The company expanded its Spartanburg, S.C., assembly plant in 2008 and again in 2010, bringing employment to about 7,000.
The plant, which now builds three of the four crossovers BMW sells worldwide, will add production of the X4 crossover next year. Capacity will grow from 300,000 units to 350,000, though BMW has not said how many jobs will be added.
Daimler Group's North American job count now stands at 7,838 after expansion of the Mercedes-Benz factory in Vance, Ala., that produces the M-class, R-class and GL-class crossovers.
About 1,000 jobs will be added at the plant when production of C-class sedans begins next year. A new crossover goes into production in Alabama in 2015.
Hyundai has added about 3,000 jobs since opening its assembly plant in Montgomery, Ala., in 2005. Kia's factory in West Point, Ga., which opened in 2009, employs 3,000 people...."
So it's not building the ES in the USA vs. Japan that would be my concern. It's adding a 3rd shift to a plant stretched thin to squeeze even more output out of already exhausted workers.
Toyota's quality seems to have an inversely proportional relationship to production volume.
Could be true for all automakers, come to think of it, look at the number of Hyundai recalls (*) lately.
* Caveat: recalls are not a good measure of quality, but still...
Looks like the baby RX will take up the assembly line space vacated by moving the ES here.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/EdmundsForums
Thanks for your help!
I think the case is the temporary workers hired.....
I am not sure if the current Avalon is related to the Camry by structure, but if so, probably shares less than past models.
I actually find the new ES to be one of the better looking Lexus models - I prefer it over the bland, old, and small IS or maybe even the sometimes overdone GS.
Funny thing is, pull up the specs, and with regards to interior room at least, all Avalon and Camry specs are within a half inch of each other. The biggest spread I see is front legroom...41.6" for the Camry, 42.1" for the Avalon.
Actually, I'm surprised the front legroom measure would be that different. Usually, when they take the same basic car and make it bigger, front legroom stays the same, and they simply put more room in the back. Unless it's a car that's grossly inadequate up front to begin with. But, IMO that's not the case with the Camry and Avalon. And, IMO, both cars felt a lot more generous than those 41.6 and 42.1" measurements would imply.
Funny thing is, in just about every measurement, except for back seat legroom, the Avalon sounds like a midsized car. Shoulder room is only 58.2" up front, and a meager 56.9" in back. Headroom of 38.5" up front, 37.9" in the back, doesn't exactly sound like top had territory. Many compact cars have had a front legroom measurement of 42.1" or more. But at 39.2", rear legroom is pretty generous. I think my old Intrepid was around 38.9", and I believe my Park Ave is around 40.2".
The EPA lists the Avalon at 104 cubic feet of passenger volume, 16 cubic feet of trunk space. But, somehow, the one I sat in at the DC auto show felt a lot bigger than the specs suggest. The Camry is rated at 103 interior, 15 cubic feet of trunk space. so it's really not that much smaller. Also, the EPA rounds off. The Camry's trunk is actually 15.4, while the Avalon, I believe, is right at 16.
So, as ugly as the Avalon is (IMO at least) I have to give Toyota some serious credit at space efficiency, and making a midsized car feel big!
I don't think there's a big difference from Malibu to Impala, or from Altima to Maxima. It may be more of a perceived/prestige thing.
I see a pretty big difference between the 2013 Malibu and 2014 Impala. But, comparing, say, a 2012 Malibu to a 2013 Impala, I'd go with the Malibu!
The Altima actually IS a bigger car than the Maxima! The latest Maxima is actually pretty small inside, sacrificing interior room for style. I sort of liken it ot the old personal luxury coupes of yesteryear, even though the Max is a 4-door. But, to use an example, an '83 Malibu sedan is a lot bigger inside than an '83 Monte Carlo.
I think that when the 2002 Altima came out, it was actually slightly bigger inside than the Maxima of the time, as well.
I wonder if the Sentra is as roomy as the Maxima, then. Sentra seemed HUGE to me.
Sentra, then Altima, then Maxima:
Passenger Volume 96 ft3 (4 door) 102 ft3 (4 door) 96 ft3 (4 door)
Luggage Volume 15 ft3 (4 door) 15 ft3 (4 door) 14 ft3 (4 door)
I was right! Sentra has the same passenger volume as the Max, and actually has a bigger trunk!
Altima is the biggest by a wide margin.
It has a largest trunk, though, at 16 cubes.
Impala isn't on the FuelEconomy.gov site yet, which is my source.
My 39 actually had a door closing off the storage area. It was hinged at the bottom, and it could be removed. It was secured by a push-button latch at the top, similar to the latch on the glove compartment.
The trunks were so large on those cars that, if they were still around today, they'd be used to sneak illegals across the border. You could put a dozen in there!
"Meh". What's that? No disrespect. Bewhildered. Is that some word/term used in communicating with an apartment cat?
There's actually a rough formula you can use to estimate the interior volume of a car. It's: (front shoulder room * front legroom * front headroom)/1728 + (rear shoulder room * rear legroom * rear headroom)/1728.
1728 is what you use to convert from cubic inches to cubic feet.
Also, the EPA is a bit outdated on a few of their stats. IIRC, they list the new LaCrosse at 100 cubic feet. That's the old, W-body LaCrosse. The new one is something like 103 or 104 cubic feet I think. The way to tell if they're quoting the old W-body figures is if they list cargo volume at 16 cubic feet. That's the old W-body. The new one only has something like a 13 cubic foot trunk.
As for the Malibu, 95 is also the old Malibu. I think the new one is rated at something like 100 or 101 cubic feet. Doing the calculation I showed above, it should come out to 54.63 cubic feet of front seat room, 45.60 in the rear, or 100.23 total. The new Malibu has a LOT more shoulder room than the previous model, 57.5" up front and 57.1 in back. The old one was something like 55.5" up front, 53.9 in the back. IMO, that's compact territory. However, if I was to assign an arbitrary value on the Malibu's rear seat legroom, based on other cars I've had experience with, I'd put it at around 32-33" at best, whereas the "official" measurements put it at something like 36.8". I'm basing that 32-33" figure on my old '68 Dart, which was rated around 32", my '76 LeMans, which is rated around 32.9", and my '67 Catalina convertible, which is rated around 33.9".
As for the Impala, I just ran its measurements through my calculation, and come out with 61.23 cubic feet up front, 49.01 in the back, and 110.24 total. However, I find its 45.8" of front legroom a bit suspect. It's very, VERY rare to see a vehicle listed with much more than 43". I'd imagine that if you looked up all the stats, just about every vehicle ever built in the last 50 years falls between 41" and 43".
Anyway, when official 2014 Impala figures get released, I'll be curious to know. If it's 110.24, remember, you heard it here first! :P
Oh, incidentally, my formula nailed the 2000 Intrepid and Impala to a tee. 104.4 for the Intrepid, 104.6 for the Impala. But the EPA rounds off, so the numbers listed are 104 for the Trep, 105 for the Impala. But, I remember seeing an old comparison chart on a Dodge site that took it to the tenths, and they showed 104.4 and 104.6.
Regards:
Oldbearcat
No disrespect....
I'd wager the American built ES would have no significant quality differences from the Avalon, which is generally regarded as a solid car.
I would have guessed it was Yiddish and way older.
OK. Meh. Have not heard this term. But, considering the banality of "current" communication on media today, "meh" is relatively tame and forgettable. Meh!
Oldbearcat
For some reason, I seem to recall Lucy Ricardo using it on occasion as well.
Nowadays kids just roll their eyes and text each other.
Sneaking others into the local drive-in movie was common in the days of drive-in theaters. The advent of lights in the trunk caused a minor hiccup, until folks realized it was easy to remove the bulb. Of course, back then, there were no fold-down rear seats, so the only way to get out of the trunk was by opening it.
Fun times...
Regards:
Oldbearcat