Bringing Back the Classic Gas-guzzler

I'm wondering about the feasability of recreating the appearance of classic American autos, like the '57 Chevy & such; but with lighter materials and hybridized engines.

Imagine driving a '48 Studebaker -- but getting 50 miles to the gallon. That's what I'm talking about. The bodies of immortal classic cars, returning as economical & flashy modern vehicles; can it be done today?

Reply to
kevin.kirby
Loading thread data ...

formatting link

Reply to
« Paul »

Ford did this with the T-bird and it failed in the market. You do see this on those rebuilder shows on TV all the time - They completely update the vehicles.

You wouldn't get the good mileage without the aerodynamics.

Cheers, Geoff Glave Vancouver, Canada

Reply to
Geoff Glave

It was mentioned earlier about Studebakers--remember how aerodynamic (at least from an eyeballing perspective) some of those were, ala 1950's, way ahead of their time. And the eyeballed sleekness of the 1940 Ford coupe. I've seen a prototype of a new Dodge Challenger--it really resembles the older one. And VW seems to have done well with their resurrection of the Beetle along w/good gas mileage. I, too, would love to see some of the classics resurrected with modern conveniences AND good fuel mileage too. I believe some of the bodies were close enough to split the wind, with moderate changes. s

Reply to
sdlomi2

I've seen kit cars that were replicas and of course Ford has reissued the Mustang, etc. No reason it can't be done, but it is just a question of demand. Sexy, cute cars with a broad based appeal like the VW bug and Mustang have the best potential. Reissuing a Packard, Rambler, 57 Chevy, etc., would be dicier.

Reply to
John S.

I don't know, but I like the idea, could the lincoln continental be one of the first? btw - be sure it has the spare tire kit on the "ld".

and yes - the '57 chevy would be a good one too. and how about a studebaker wagon with pup?:--) =3D=3D ideally wouldn't an available "running chassis" set-up that could adapt to numerous one-piece fiberglass bodies - of different makes be neat? naw, never happen.

mho v=83e

Reply to
fiveiron

you bet, let's go.

formatting link
mho v=83e

Reply to
fiveiron

Ford priced the T-bird WAY out of the reach of the market is why that failed. The car was a beauty, but too expensive! Now the retro Mustang seems to be doing well. The PT Cruiser (built with 1940's style queues) had a good run and the "new" beetle fairly good success. so, it depends.

I don't think the '56 or '57 Chevy Bel-Air (or Nomad) could be reproduced and do well.

Probably better than you would think.

Reply to
jcr

Not in a '48 but in a '53-55 coupe, you might be surprised. There's a reason they were so popular with Bonnevile racers.

OF course I won't buy one... dropping an R1 ('63 Avanti engine) in my

*real* '55 as soon as I get the frame painted and steering box swapped out :) Seriously, I have heard tell of people driving similar cars and with the 3/OD trans and a light foot, you can reportedly get over 20 MPG.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

formatting link
just to pick a nit, that's not really a '48; the classic "bullet nose" was 50-51 only; probably someone put a '50 nose on a '48 (or put a '48 serial number on a '50) so that it would qualify for a certain class in shows.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Yes. It's actually a customized show car. Pretty nice though. I would'nt mind having something like that. Much better then a boxy Chev= y. Of course it will cost $45,000 and I would never be able to afford one.

Reply to
« Paul »

Studebakers are suprisingly affordable, as classics go. There's a REAL nice '58 Golden Hawk on eBay right now, one of the nicest I've seen, that may hit 30K; that's about the limit for a nicely restored one.

I just sold a mostly done, driving '62 Lark hardtop for a *lot* less than that.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

It probably could be done. However... the retro thing has a limited shelf life - what are you going to replace it with in 3 years when people are bored of it?

And if you're a big auto mfr... you have to meet 2006 safety standards with your redone 57 Chevy. Not impossible, but not cheap either. And once you start adding a whack of steel to make it stronger... most of your weight savings goes into the crapper.

But it definitely can be done.

Ray

Reply to
news

I suppose if a company were to produce the old body styles with carbon fibre or some other lighweight composite material, you could through a light frame underneath with all the proper modern fixin's for the price of a middle class luxury car. I imagine looks would have to be very important to someone before considering this kind of investment though. AC, is back in production using modern materials and classic body style. We can't call it a cobra but we all know what it is. :) steve

formatting link

Reply to
steve goodsworth

Hi: I keep thinking of doing this with an old vehicle, except keep the parts down, like the old days, but use natural gas instead of gasoline. Natural gas doesn't mind the high compression! I work in natural gas, and with ga$oline co$t$ going up, it's looking more attractive.. Harry

Reply to
HarryHydro

Likewise, it is not that difficult to run a car engine on hydrogen. I see all these news stories that the hydrogen economy must wait till we get fuel cell automobiles. Not true. It is far easier to convert an existing engine to run on hydrogen than it is to develop the practical, low cost fuel cell.

One does have to use EGR with hydrogen to cut down on NOx emissions, but we know how to make EGR systems!

Reply to
Don Stauffer

But unless we can use the hydrogen radically more efficiently than we do gasoline, there's no advantage to hydrogen, as it will take as much or more energy to produce said hydrogen than we are currently directly using in the form of gasoline or Diesel motor fuel. There are theoretical limits to the efficiency of an IC engine that aren't present in a fuel cell/electric motor combination. That is why everyone is waiting for a practical fuel cell before making the switch. (well, everyone but GWB, that is. I guess nobody's clued him in that using H2 in an IC engine won't do a damn thing to solve our dependency on oil.)

nate

Reply to
N8N

Some of those classic cars are not very aerodynamic, so I doubt you will get great gas mileage from them.

------------------ Alex

Reply to
Alex Rodriguez

Well, there is the factor of reduction in emissions that people are touting with the fuel cell cars- you get same emissions from IC burning hydrogen if you use EGR to cut out the NOx.

However, I agree with you- we need to find an efficient source of hydrogen. To me, THAT is where the federal R & D money should go, NOT in developing fuel cells. Fuel cells without a good source of H2 makes no sense. I have heard of a solar biomass idea- bugs that emit H2 rather than methane. But it is in early stage of development- I think it is a genetic engineering thing.

Reply to
Don Stauffer

Well, there is the factor of reduction in emissions that people are touting with the fuel cell cars- you get same emissions from IC burning hydrogen if you use EGR to cut out the NOx.

However, I agree with you- we need to find an efficient source of hydrogen. To me, THAT is where the federal R & D money should go, NOT in developing fuel cells. Fuel cells without a good source of H2 makes no sense. I have heard of a solar biomass idea- bugs that emit H2 rather than methane. But it is in early stage of development- I think it is a genetic engineering thing.

Reply to
Don Stauffer

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.