Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
While a ticking fire bomb, the 'drop in' approach sure simplified my replacing the tank in the donut shop parking lot after my brother speared it with a metal post!
There was a separate trunk floor from the top of the gas tank, though. I do remember hearing that about Mustangs, now that andre mentioned it.
http://studeblogger.blogspot.com/2011/01/nobody-wants-to-smell-your-gas-or.html
In my car, the trunk floor isn't part of the tank, either. But a fintail was one of the safer cars of the era.
A stock '65 Corvair will stop in about 140 feet from 60-0. That's not much worse than a modern Miata. When John Fitch built his Fitch Corvairs, he easily matched disk brake cars on the track. Of course, he fitted all his conversions with Michelin radials, and that sure didn't hurt!
andre...since you had an '86 Monte Carlo...my parents had an '80 and '84 and I had an '81 and '82--the filler was behind the license plate which was located in a cutout of the decklid--fairly high on the car. Did the filler not enter the trunk on those cars? I can't remember. I'll have to see if I can find a photo online.
No, the fuel filler didn't enter the trunk at all. There may have been a slight rise in the trunk floor in that area to accommodate it, but it was still below the trunk, and outside of the car.
On that subject, the fuel filler on my '67 Catalina, '76 LeMans, and '79 New Yorkers, all of which have the filler under the license plate, were also outside of the trunk.
Now on my '57 DeSoto and the '68 and '69 Darts I had, where the fuel filler was on the left side, there was a metal tube that went through the trunk area, and down into the floor to get to the gas tank. I'm sure the right kind of accident could rip that tube loose and spill some fuel into the trunk, but it would probably be much harder to get gas in the trunk area than a Ford product with one of those drop in gas tanks.
While I think a '60-63 Falcon looks nice, and prefer it to a '64-65, I'm also looking at it through modern eyes, and looking back on it nostalgically. But, if you go back to the trends of the times, the Falcon was probably looking pretty ancient by '63, and it couldn't have gone on another year with that rounded body. The '64 definitely looked more modern, more 60's, while the '63 still seemed like it was trying to shake off the last vestiges of the 50's.
Similarly, I really like the '66-67 Chevy II/Nova. Probably my favorite of the whole run, from '62-79. But, they couldn't keep that design forever, as the styles kept changing. It would look increasingly old, and uncompetitive as the time went by. But then, you never know. That certainly didn't hurt the Dart and Valiant, which saw some of their best years in the 70's!
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I suspect that they couldn't put a V-8 into the 60-'63 body without major structural reinforcement. The V-8 debuted in the Falcon along with the '64 body.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Hmm, I hadn't thought about that. Was the '64 really that structurally different, though? I thought it was just a facelift? And, I was always under the impression that Ford made their smallblock as small as they did, specifically so it would fit in the compact cars?
IIRC, a V-8 also wouldn't fit in the engine bay, initially, of the '63-66 era Valiant/Dart. I think they had to modify the engine bay in '64 to accommodate it. The 273 "LA" V-8 wasn't particularly small compared to a Chevy or Ford smallblock, but it was fairly light, at least.
I was always surprised that until midyear '63, you couldn't even get a V8 in a Rambler Classic, yet an American. In fact, you couldn't even get a Classic or Ambassador hardtop in '63. I do think it's a good basic bodystyle though.
I am not doing well today. When I cast my mind back I remember seeing the V-8 symbol on '63 Sprints. I made the mistake of looking in a brochure in the Old Car Manual Project web site and seeing only sixes offered. The brochure must have been from earlier in the year. Oh well, so goes my theory.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
In all fairness, that assessment probably varies based on your perspective and reference points though. It was certainly an era where style changes (planned obsolescence) and customer excitement peaked. Model line changes, or at least noticeable updates meant consumers got curious about those dealer fenced off new car holding areas each fall and the soaped windows before model introductions tended to bring in the buyers. For example, in that relatively short period of time the Ford Thunderbird went from a two-seater to the Squarebird to the Bulletbird to the more formal 64 models in the fall of 63. The Big 3 certainly offered a lot of styling variation as well. A 61 Plymouth looked worlds different from a 61 Chevy or the relatively conservative 61 Ford. Same went for a Chrysler versus a Buick or Mercury. In 60/61 the Big 3 went seriously into compacts, followed shortly thereafter by intermediates whether by design at Ford (Fairlane) or by accident or screw up at Chrysler (downsized Fury and Polara).
Personally, I liked all the differences and excitement back then. Granted, with that much change going on some of the models came off poorly, but many were quite nice looking as well. Consider a 61 or 62 GM bubble top, a 61/62 Lincoln Continental, or a 63 Riviera for example. The 63 Stingray was a head turner when it came out. Virgil Exner certainly created excitement and attention, albeit at both ends of the bell curve sometimes! I think Bill Mitchell is still one of the best designers in postwar American automobiles. Admittedly, most of the cars during that frame of reference probably didn't match the art and design success of many 57 or 65's and they certainly weren't decades earlier Pierce Arrows, Packards, or Cords - but they were produced and priced where the masses could afford them. I'll bet there are a lot of auto executives that would like to have that era back again!
But I will give you that someone who lived through that era may well have a different opinion than someone younger looking back at those models. Nostalgia and association can affect attitude, but I'm trying to be objective about it. Ironically, I think some of the younger generation at old car shows are taken in a bit by some of the more extreme designs at old car shows. Observing, it seems like some of them look past a model we old timers might consider a classic, like a 63 Impala, and focus instead on something like a 60 Dodge or 58 Edsel. Maybe its the creative Asian Anime influence! Regardless of individual opinions though, it's fun stuff.
There were a handful of nice looking cars but generally the styling was, as you say, very offensive to contemporary eyes---we all knew when to hold our noses in other words, and when to applaud.
I myself prefer styling that is harmonious. I don't like outrageous "birthday cake" designs---it's a cheap way to get attention and it ages badly.
I think 58-63 was the Spinal Tap of car design :P
Maybe if you want to generalize. But, for 1958, I thought Chrysler was a bit late to the ugly party. Their cars were simply mild facelifts of the successful 1957 lineup, and in some cases (Imperial, Dodge, Plymouth), I think were actually an improvement over their '57 counterparts! A '58 Chevy's not a bad looking car, and I don't think a Pontiac or Caddy is, either, although the Caddy was a bit heavy-handed compared to '57. And, I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually prefer the '58 Ford to the '57!
'59 was the year it all bottomed out, but even here, I think there were some decent looking cars. The Pontiac, Olds, Mercury, Desoto, and Chrysler weren't too bad looking. The Chevy was kinda wild. Ford was heavy-handed, but that T-bird inspired look was really popular. The Plymouth was looking a bit out there, like they didn't know what do do to facelift the '57 body.
By '60, Ford and GM were starting to tone it down. So were Chrysler and Desoto and Dodge, but I have no idea what they were thinking, with the '60 Plymouth. My theory is they made it look ugly on purpose so people would pay a few extra bucks for a Dodge!
By '61, GM and Ford were getting downright tasteful, but Chrysler, again late to follow a trend, decided to make 1961 their equivalent of GM's 1959!
I think GM really hit their stride by '62-63. Fords and Lincolns were attractive for the most part, if conservative in some cases. However, sometimes it seemed like they didn't know what to do with Mercury. Whereas GM could make you see that a Pontiac, Olds, or Buick was a step above a Chevy, often a Mercury just looked, well, different, but not necessarily upscale, from a Ford.
Chrysler was starting to have the same problem with Dodge and Plymouth, which were starting to become parallels of each other, rather than Dodge being a step up.
Everything on a car should be there for a reason.
In general I don't disagree with that thought, but perhaps we might differ a bit on what those "principles" are. I think you're hitting the meat of the bell curve in that concept. However, like inventors, the truly great and remembered designers are those who can go beyond that box and differentiate (the edges of the bell curve so to speak). Of course that means failures and great successes sometimes. I think Exner hit it in 57 and swung and missed in 61, but he's remembered. Many stylists are not, even if their work was successful. Now Bill Mitchell had far more hits than misses (and he's a favorite of mine), but Harley Earl was a leader in implementing automotive design so he probably gets more recognition in the history books.
A car is, after all, a CAR---the design should have a basic intelligence. If the back half of the car has no relation to the front half, that is not intelligent. It might be "fun", or "outrageous" or "so bad it's good", but it's not intelligent.
If just "getting attention" was a sign of talent, god knows who we would call intelligent on TV. :surprise:
EXAMPLE:
First, HARMONY:
Second: CHAOS:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/cto/3664203588.html
guy has a number of old cars none of which look all that nice. Some 50s Mopar, a 73ish Barracuda, the t Bird, and a couple others under cheap tarps that I am not sure what they are.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/nby/cto/3672454113.html
And with overdrive, yet. Actually that would be kind of a kick. Probably gets comparatively good highway mileage (note the use of the term 'comparatively'). I am assuming that it has power steering. Otherwise, dealing with the steering and the stick would be kind of gnarly.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
That would be bad.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I know you don't like Avantis, but I have a factory video of a '64 Avanti passing a base-level '59 Ford on a highway outside of Chicago and the Ford looks like it was much older than five model years older than the Avanti. Different types of cars, I realize.
That said, there are quite a few '58-63 cars I think are handsome. I do put a big divide between '64 and '65 though as it seems like a lot of mainstream cars were redesigned for '65.
Buick Riviera
Corvette Sting Ray
In contrast, I think of a '59 Chevy as a 60's car that hasn't totally shaken off its 50's excesses yet. And, the fact that the design lasted through 1964, just toned down a bit each year, seems to support that idea.
Meanwhile, a '59 Plymouth just seems like it's still stuck in the 50's to me. It's like they took what had been modern and futuristic looking in 1957, and decided to out-do that, but unfortunately that wasn't really what the public wanted anymore.
If I was forced to choose between a '59 Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, I don't know which way I'd go. I'm not really a fan of any of them, although each one does have a few things I like. I kinda like the formal, upscale look of the Ford, although at the same time, I do find it a bit heavy-handed and fussy from some angles. I like the sleek, lowness of the '59 Chevy, but just not some of the excessive details. And the Plymouth, I like the overall shape, but just don't like the frenched headlights, the garish, two-piece eggcrate grill, or the "toilet seat" fake tire hump on the decklid.
If I was a new car buyer in '59, I think I'd just try to save up a few more bucks and splurge on a Pontiac, Olds, Mercury, or DeSoto.
I'd just buy one of these instead:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/8490341@N04/2064108390/
If I HAD to buy a '59 Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, I'd probably buy a non-white, non-red, non-black, factory two-tone '59 Impala Sport Coupe. But I wouldn't be totally happy doing so.
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
I think those are durable trucks but of no great styling integrity. I think everybody else's trucks of that period were better-looking. Just MHO of course.
I agree. I think that the '59 Ford was the worst looking Ford produced during the 20 years following WWII. A guy on our block had a pink and white hardtop retractable convertible. It was horrible. The trunk looked massive - like a big, white food freezer we had in our basement. From the side it looked like a pick up truck (or El Camino).
I thought that the 1960 was the best looking Ford of that era and 1958 was second best. Many don't like the 1958 Fords, but I did and still do, especially the hardtop. They seemed to be related to the Thunderbird of the same year. All the other Fords were OK with me, some quite nice, but the '59 s were "da woist."
I was just about to post how the '60 Ford was one of my favorites of that style-challenged era, with the '61 looking older than the '60 to me...in the eye of the beholder, and all that...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I was going to post that I liked the 59 style. The era was about rockets and jets and fins; the '59 had that style. The '58 was a little messed up with strange variations on the headlights and taillights after the '57.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I can see where you could divide a lot of Detroit iron between the '64 and '65 model years. It's just that the '58-'63 era was a bigger slice of time with a fuller catalog of dreck. Last week I watched part of "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" from 1963. The characters are still fun to watch and the traffic mix can be hard to look at. :shades:
But I still like the '58 Corvette and the '63 Galaxie so there's no accounting for taste.
I really don't think beauty is in the eyes of the beholder---that suggests that training, the artistic eye, and styling talent are irrelevant. I don't believe they are.
Most of the 58-63 cars may have some appeal for the big lovable goofs they are, but stylistically they are an utter mess of add-ons, lines smashing into one another, completely unrelated themes, garish adornments---and we (I) haven't even started on how dumb some of the interior design is.
Many foreign cars were no better, so I'm not beating on one dead horse here.
I would suggest that some fans of these cars look at them in "real life" and give us a reassessment---photos tend to forgive so many crimes.
Look at this car---every line in agreement, every shape makes sense, everything stating one bold "idea":
That said, a '63 or '64 Riviera is not ridiculously priced, and there seem to be a lot of 'em out there still.
I'm one of those very few that doesn't like a split-window '63 'Vette--too 'Buck Rogers' for me. The '64 you can actually see out of, and it costs less than a '63!
What are we doing here? Let's have some icing on that cake with layered fins...no wait, I want semi-ovals...no wait...let's put a dip in the rear windshield and a fat lip on the trunk.
this car looks like it fell off the modeling table and someone pushed the clay back together so they wouldn't get in trouble: :P