Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Build Your Own 50s-60s Dream Car
This discussion has been closed.
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
All of the 1967-69 Barracudas seem much higher than a contemporary Camaro/Firebird, but I still like their flowing lines and distinctive nose. As for the hood scoops...it was the 1960s, and scoops and spoilers were to the time period what tailfins and dagmars were to the 1950s.
Interestingly, the 1967-69 Barracuda marked the last time that Plymouth was given a distinctive model not shared with either Dodge or Chrysler.
Good (just a random list):
1969 Camaro ZL2 hood
1970 Chevelle cowl induction hood (well, ok, 70-72 sort of)
1971 and up Camaro rear spoiler
Shaker hoods (Mustang/Barracuda/Challenger)
69/70 Mustang rear spoilers...hey, at least they were on the race cars
70-73 TransAm stuff except for the decals
Mark Donohue Javelin rear spoiler
Later AMX cowl induction
etc.
Bad:
*Any* hood tach
Fake brake scoops on Mustangs
Those useless scooplets on early Firebirds/GTO's/Skylarks (which actually pull air out of the carb)
Giant rear spoilers on Judge/442
Hood scoop on SC/Rambler (oh man...what can I say)
L88 hoods
etc.
At one time I had Barracuda interior trim (door panel inserts and the inserts in back) in my '68 Dart 270. They fit almost perfectly, which is a pretty good indication of how similar the cars are. In back, the Cuda panels were about 3" shorter than the Dart panels, although that discrepancy was still hidden by the backrest of the seat. I guess that'd make sense too, since the Dart was on a 3" longer wheelbase than the Barracuda back then.
With me, it's kind of a hard call on which body style I prefer. Well, the convertible would be my first choice! But then I'm kinda torn between the notchback and the fastback. I like the notchback because it doesn't seem like you see too many of those, but then the fastback is just radical enough to be cool, too!
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Take a '53 Lincoln hardtop like this Capri:
...remove its old 317 engine and Hydra-Matic, replace them with a '67 428 Police Interceptor engine (with the aluminum manifold) and C-6. Add disc brakes (at least in front, borrowed from a '65 or later T-bird or Continental, or a Boss Mustang).
They competed with impressive results in the Carrera Panamerica road rallying of the period, and were often considered the most roadable American car of the time, their chief rival probably being the Hudson Hornet (the Olds Rocket 88 was perhaps a bit faster, but didn't handle as well, according to period testers). Sort of a Lincoln version of Chrysler's 300. I think they're attractively and tastefully styled, although I've heard that the original Lincoln engines of that period (Ford's first OHV V-8s, similar in principle but not in block to the early Y-blocks) are less than stellar, with endemic oiling/lubrication problems, so the substitution of a later V-8 seems wise.
In some respects I like the Mercedes sedans of the 60s. They drive surprisingly well (especially for the time), and they've got that old-money gravitas that newer, prettier Benzs don't manage. And the old 300 SEL 6.3 was eye-openingly muscular -- low 90s in the quarter mile, 0-60 in under 7 seconds, top speed around 135 mph.
But '60s Benzs had crummy air conditioning, the Benz four-speed fluid coupling autobox (no torque converter, like the old GM Hydra-Matics) was clunky, and the six-cylinder engines were sluggish (the 6.3L engine was quicker, but finicky and _very_ heavy -- it weighed almost as much as a big Lincoln 430/462, well over 700 lbs.)
So here's a heretical thought. Take a 250 SEL or 300 SEL sedan and dump the Benz engine and transmission for a '66 or '67 Cadillac 429 and switch-pitch Turbo Hydra-Matic. The Caddy engine was LIGHTER than the Benz 6.3L (595 lbs. versus maybe 730 lbs.), the TH400 a lot smoother. It had enough muscle to push a 5000-lb Cadillac with fair alacrity, so in a 1200-lb lighter Benz, it should be brisk.
I'd also imagine that late-sixties Cadillac climate-control A/C would be vastly better than the Mercedes system, which even Benz fans generally admit was crap.
So you'd lose 0-60 speed, top speed and fuel mileage. What you'd gain is getting rid of Benz's lame a/c and the expense of having to rebuild a 6.3 engine (probably about $15,000)
The 6.3 would go 0-60 in 6 seconds or less and due to a 2.85 diff delivered respectable fuel mileage. It could use this economy diff ratio because of its massive grunt, 434 ft. lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. (Source: Nitske's "Mercedes Benz 1946-1995).
The 429 is no match for this engine but it was a nice engine for a Cadillac-type of car.
The reason Cadillacs were so wide is partly because of the engines they used.
Completely untrue. There is no correlation between engine width and body width: Cadillacs are no wider than any other full-size domestic of the same time period. Case in point- 1964 Cadillac: 79.5" wide, 1959 Buick: 80.75" wide.
In fact-- even a 472/500 Cadillac engine is only 2 inches wider than a Chevy small block:
W L H
Cadillac 472 28" 30.5" 28"
Chevrolet 327 26" 28" 27"
Besides, wasn't the Cadillac 472/500 the basis for the later 425 and 368? Well, those 368's ended up in cars as narrow as 70-72", which is close to modern Accord/Camry/Altima territory!
BTW, don't (or didn't) some states have a law regulating the maximum width of a passenger car? I thought it was 80" (although a few cars have gone over that)
The dimensions of the engine heavily influence the height and width of the car, this is inescapable. Also, a powerful engine tends to encourage a bigger car since it can push it along.
The Olds rocket 88 engine of 1948 made car big in other words.
With a monster V8 of large dimension, like a 429, you need extra width for the suspension, a big transmission hump since the engine is usually set back to make the car driveable and somewhat balanced, and then a huge trunk to compensate for all the room it took to house the monster engine and transmission.
Some cars slanted the engines (Dodge Dart, Mercedes 300SL), why others have to add bulges or hood scoops (carburetor clearance). But most cars just wrapped the engine in a big body.
Even today the V8 /V10 makes for a wide car. Look at the Corvette or Viper for instance, or the Ferrari for that matter. Their engines are about as squished as you can make them right now, height-wise, but still require a wide body.
Fuel injection helped all this somewhat on modern cars because now we don't have to make carburetor clearance; also alloy V8 engines can be smaller and lighter.
More to the topic, this is why our dream cars might not be so easy to build, as we often can't chop into the suspension to accomodate wide engines....and MOVING suspension on a car is a major, major project.
People don't dictate styling. I have never ever believed that. They vote on the styling after the car is built, with their checkbooks.
But plenty of models started out as straight 6s or straight 8s then went to V-type engines and NEVER had to widen the car because of that. This clearly proves that most cars have enough room underhood and that most appreciable engine displacement increases (or even cylinder configurations) do not directly influence each other.
I see your problem: a 429 is not a "monster" engine, being only 2 inches wider than a 327 small block. It may displace a lot more cubic inches, but externally it's very compatible. That's how people decades ago could create 'Studillacs' and 'Fordillacs' and even a few 'Mercedillacs' without widening their much narrower cars.
So statements like "The Olds rocket 88 engine of 1948 made car big in other words" are terribly misleading. The '49 Olds (the Rocket V8) is not any wider than the inline 6 & 8 Olds's of '48, in fact, the front track got narrower in '49 (57" vs. the '48's 58").
Case in Point III: 1965 Ford Galaxie 500 XL 427: 77.3" wide. If the 77" was a necessity of there being a 427 V8 underhood, pray tell how were 356 Cobras built with a 427 when they were only 61" wide at the front fenders (only a half-inch wider than a '66 Beetle).
Why did cars get wider in the first place? The market demanded it...people wanted 3-across seating. Well, you really need at least 57" of shoulder room for that (according to CR...I'd say more like 60" to be considered a "true" full-sized car). So, unless you want your doors to be one inch thick, with no crush space whatsoever and noplace for the windows to roll down into, you're going to need a car that's around 75-80" wide if you want a full-size interior. If the car's 75-80" wide at the passenger cabin, it's going to be close to that across the front fenders, as well, unless it's severely tapered like some cars are today.
First, one of the reasons I was thinking a Cadillac V-8 is that the Caddy 429 was one of the lightest and most compact engines for its displacement -- the engine block was redesigned in '63 to make it more compact and lighter, and it weighed only 595 pounds dry, only about 50 pounds more than a 327/350 Chevy and only 30 pounds more than an Olds 330/350.
On the other hand, even a few inches of width can make a substantial difference in terms of wedging something into an engine bay, as anyone who's ever tried to change the spark plugs on a 390 or 428 engine '67-'68 Mustang or Cougar can attest. (Or seen the work Kar Kraft had to do with repositioning the front suspension towers to fit the 429 semi-hemi to '69-'70 Boss 429 Mustangs.)
The Ford 260/289 small block fit pretty readily into the AC Ace to create the original Cobra. But stuffing the 427 side oiler into it went along with a total redesign of the suspension for the big-block Cobras... (Not only because the 427 was physically larger, but also to account for the fact that it weighed something like 200 pounds more than the small block.)
So how about a BMW 2800CS convertible? There were a very limited number of 1600-based cabrios built by Baur, including I think an even smaller number of '71-spec 2002s, and some weird-looking later models with fixed "targa" bars. I've always liked the six-cylinder coupes, and it'd make a snazzy cabriolet.
(Although perhaps not...the best part of the styling, for me, is the sharp C-pillar shape, so maybe it would be better not to lose that.)
RE: American V8s --you cannot design a car without knowing the type of engine that goes into it---that's about all I'm saying.
One reason for the growth of the monster V8 was the need to power all the accessories being sold to people. You can't have a/c, power windows, auto trans, power steering, etc, with a puny flathead six that's for sure. And these accessories are often wider than the engine, and certainly longer. So the engine/accessory package dictated very large cars.
It was, in the 50s and 60s basically the philosophy of excess. The designs were not very rational, but rather highly emotional in content. The idea was not only "bigger is better" but "bigger is dangerous", as in battering ram or set of teeth that will eat you.
I think that's the mentality used to sell SUV's nowadays. Or at least, "Bigger is Macho!"
I just realized my dream car was in production since 1968, so I can include it just the way it came off the factory line. '68 Jag XJ6. Much better looking than about 99% of what BMW had, has, or will have, IMO ;-) And being a '68, it was made before the British Leyland days when the quality control guys took a coffee break and never came back. It's also a design that stayed around, in one form or another, until 1992, so Sir William did a pretty good job on the car's styling.
My favorite Jag saloon iteration, though, was the XJ6C/XJ12C, the mid-70s pillarless two-door:
So the mind starts thinking -- what if there'd been a '66-'67 vintage Mark II 2-door hardtop? The pillarless design is more of a 60s phenomenon, which seems fitting. With the 3.8L engine and up to 265 gross hp, the Mark II was pretty brisk for its day, although one might wonder if there was a better proprietary transmission available than the Moss 4-speed or the B-W auto.
I'd probably be asking for trouble with such a thing. The reason why the XJC coupes of the '70s didn't last long was because Jag build quality (never a strong point to begin with, especially in those days) could never sort out the window sealing problems of the pillarless design. And the reason for the vinyl top -- the one element of the design I don't much like -- was to cover the nasty weld line left by the surgery. But if it could be accomplished (we are _dreaming_, after all), it sounds like the makings of a very pretty car.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
As far as the vinyl top goes, some owners have ditched the top, had a little body work done to clean up the seams, and repainted. The car looks good without the vinyl. Some cars, like a '78 Mercury, look better with Vinyl. Jags don't. The C-pillars just aren't substantial enough to pull it off, and they flow into the body too much. If you're gonna do vinyl right, you need an upright, formal looking roofline that hasn't rolled down the assembly line sinse the 80's to make it look good. When Ford redesigned the Crown Vic in '92, they quit making the last car vinyl looked good on. This is going waaayyyy off topic I know. Thus is the internet!
I think the Mk II was one of the best looking, sportiest sedans ever made anywhere by anyone and I loved the overall size.
There are outfits in the UK that rebuild them from the ground up with modern electrics and brakes etc. I wish I could afford one.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Mark II prices are going through the roof. It's not a car you'd want to chop up for a project. Better to molest an XJC as it's going nowhere in value.
With Mercedes and Jag, it's more like the hardtop never really got past the "hatchet-job" stage, although they're finally learning. The latest Mercedes hardtops have beautiful rooflines. Still, with the Jag and Benz, 4-door sedans are their focus, so that's what they concentrate on, and those hardtops were probably created with as little added expense as possible.
The Jag hardtop's biggest problem is that the C-pillar just doesn't blend that well into the beltline of the car. The car itself is actually somewhat angular, in the '60's tradition, where that hardtop roof would've looked at home on a 50's car. Both parts look good by themselves, but just have trouble blending.
If they weren't lower they suire created the illusion pf being so.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
There really aren't that many cars anymore that have a similar 2-and 4-door bodystyle...usually there's a big difference (I'm thinking along the lines of, say, Camry and Solara here). I wonder though, if the Grand Prix coupe and sedan share the same windshield?
I lowered the roofline a bit, made the windshield a bit more rakish, and brought the C-pillar forward a bit.
(Keep in mind, I'm presuming this as a _dream car_ -- a sort of "what if Jag had had more development money and did a Mk2 spinoff" -- and NOT proposing a customization of an existing Mk2 sedan. That would be economically foolish and probably functionally dire; I wouldn't go there.)
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
So let's imagine what that might have been like. Take the redesigned thinwall 390/429 V-8 of 1963-1967 with its existing bore centers (which I believe were 4.59"), letting the new engine share some of the basic V-8 tooling lines and components. As Ford did in converting the 427 to SOHC, replace the original cam with a plain shaft driving the oil pump. Reduce the stroke from 4.00" to 3.50" and shorten the block height to compensate for the taller heads. With the 429's 4.13" bore, that gives you a short-stroke engine with relatively light reciprocating weight, but 562 cubic inches displacement! Because the 429 was not very heavy to begin with (595 pounds), even though a V-12 would be heavier than the V-8, it probably wouldn't be any heavier than a Lincoln 462 or 426 Hemi, while trumping them mightily on cylinder count, power, and torque.
Although it'd be adequate enough, a paltry four-barrel carb somehow seems out of place, so why not top it with an aluminum manifold with three two-barrel carburetors with a progressive linkage (something like the tri-power 1967 Corvette engines)?
Where to put such an engine? It would be no wider than the V-8, just longer. So how about the 60s Cadillac most noted for its long hood--the Eldorado? What if rather than being a Toronado-based FWD coupe, the slick 1967 Eldorado was actually a RWD "luxury GT" powered by the new engine, a sort of Grand Lux Cadillac Grand Prix?
It's not hard to imagine a V-12 engine beneath this massive hood:
...and I've always thought the original '67 Eldorado was the best looking of all.
So going even further than that...what if Cadillac designed to break the mold a little further? For starters, fitting the Eldo with the big 11.75-in discs (ala Corvette Sting Ray) and rally wheels, rather than the Eldo's totally inadequate drums or so-so optional front discs. And how about an IRS Caddy? Something analogous to the Sting Ray suspension (i.e., using the differential half-shafts as the upper control arms, adding separate lower control arms and a locating link to make it a multi-link IRS), but with Cadillac coils rather than the Corvette's transverse leaf, and a modest rear anti-roll bar to reduce some of that traditional plowing understeer. With some careful attention to spring and shock tuning, it could've produced vastly better handling without a jittery ride.
Stylistically, there's not much to be said about the exterior, although the creased rear window does nothing goood for rear vision. Inside, I'd prefer a proper gauge cluster and a console shifter to the standard Cadillac ribbon speedo and warning lights (even the dash from a '67 Impala Super Sport would've been an improvement, although its egregious fake wood was not so pleasant).
The 1967-68 Eldorados are unsung designs, beautiful from every angle, a tour de force. I love that peaked backlight, the way the windsplit carries thru the glass all the way down thru the bumper. I don't think there's a 1960s design that can make me walk around & around it like this one does. I spend 20 minutes circling a tired but willing '68 at a local gas station a few months back (for sale but a little too much bondo). So classy- it'll always look great. Some day I will own one.
...and the recent Cadillac Sixteen showcar.
I too thought of the XP-840 when I saw the Sixteen! The C-pillar/rear quarters have a similar feel, the way the glass is flush-mounted & well-integrated and of course they share the long hood look. I wonder if indeed anyone working on the Sixteen was aware of the long-forgotten XP-840.
I always thought they were kinda cool...beefy and rugged looking. Someone in my Granddad's neighborhood has two of them.