the dash I have ever seen. Of course,
Aargh! That was during that absolutely awful era when the manufacturers were using the consumer as guinea pigs to find out how *not* to use plastics in cars. So many cracked dashes, consoles, and arm rests! Every car was a rolling experiment for the plastics manufacturers to make incremental improvements one year after another. Eventually they got it right (mostly), but it was a long and painful process.
Bill, I have a beautiful 1941 Chrysler Windsor with "ALL" the gorgeous pre-war plastic intact. The mottled dash pieces, and all the door sills are like new. I have never seen a pre-war car with any plastic/bakelite that wasn't warped or cracked or gone. The 42 was the last to use the plastic, the 46-48 went back to metal dashes and chromed pieces on the dash. Yes, that 77 MGB had terrible dash(had to replace the whole thing during resoration), the armrest split and cracked, again replaced with real leather, but I did waterproof all electrical connections with shrink wrap and spade connectors. The Prince of Darkness never once, in the 14 years I owned the MGB, was a problem!
They are an amazingly good car. Smooth, quiet, comfortable, decent gas mileage, at least on the highway, and with the suspension option they have excellent handling and still ride great. The 4.6 also has more then adequate power for them. Unfortunately, the public puts too much faith in the car reviewers and all they care about are cars with super high horsepower and extreme handling capabilities. 20 years ago that was an ok thing when most Detroit mainline vehicles had terrible handling with the stock suspension, but now it's just become stupid. If a car can't do 0 - 60 in under 7 seconds and 0.85 on the skidpan they knock it.
Silver Streak Coupe, a 1948 Plymouth. a
Drive. All except the 41 had
right, acceleration was not the
things people prized most.
with a slant six, automatic, my own
"fast car" was a 1962 Pontiac Catalina
Interstate 40 in OK when I was in high
backed off the gas and realized we probably
Does this
interiors, but the "auto mag" moguls and the
I don't read those bullshit magazines any
fan of "Uncle Tom" MaCahill in
cars" need to look at some of the shit
will take over and the Japanese cars will
will come in, then we might see some
the dash I have ever seen. Of course,
You sound like me. I recently was reading reviews of the Jeep Patriot and the "experts" had complaint after complaint about the cheap interior, the CVT transmission, lack of power, and on and on. The actual owners almost all loved them. I rented one and have to side with the actual owners, for the money it is one heck of a deal. Auto testers have become a group of elite snobs, they can hardly stand to lower themselves to test something so plebeian as a low priced compact and god forbid it won't do 0 - 60 in under 7 seconds. I've always been a fan of "performance" in cars but what is now considered acceptable performance by these car testers is ludicrous.
Ashton, So you have come around to seeing that 0-60 is not the be all end all of car perfomance. That T-Bird is a great car, full sized coupe with a small V-8 that gets great mileage.
Great! Now we have to get you into a Fluid Drive Chrysler/DeSoto/Dodge and experience the smooth driving experience that people expected in American cars for decades!
Gorgeous two door Victoria 2-door sedan, notice the rear vent window. That is my car, just that I have 4 doors. They do not show any interior shots for the upholstery and the plastic dash, which is critical if it is warped/cracked. Beautiful two-tone paint. It should probably go for about 10K, it is overpriced at 14,5K. Chrome looks good as does the grill. Still it bothers me that no interior shots are included.
My bad, didn't see the "other pics". Yes, the dash looks in excellent condition, very important,and interior looks pretty good. If you want the car, don't pay that much. Look in the Walter P. Chrysler Magazine. There was a 1949 New Yorker Coupe, fully restored for only $9K, a hell of a deal!
0- 60 isn't everything. But it's something. My benchmark is that ideally it should be 10 seconds or under or the car will seem sluggish. But some cars have good off the line "grunt" even though their 0 - 60 might be 12 seconds and they do fine in normal driving. I've got a 99 Mustang GT and it's only got 260 hp and does 0 - 60 in around 7 seconds. It's fun but that level of performance simply isn't needed - it's way beyond what's needed to drive in a spirited fashion. I'm not against it, after all I have it, but it's overkill. Yet 260 hp today is considered chickenfeed. Now they are pushing 320 to 500 hp for the high end models. That's fine if you want it but when the car mag writers make it seem like even that is barely enough, something is out of whack. I get about 4 of these car mags for free and there is no way I would pay to subscribe, the info in them just isn't rationally useful anymore.
condition, very important,and interior looks pretty
Chrysler Magazine. There was a 1949 New
if I buy any more cars my wife will divorce me....
You're on to it, aerodynamics has a lot to do with the lower than expected fuel mileage. The VW New Beetle suffers the same fate of higher highway fuel mileage than the same drive train in the Golf. There is an obvious reason, the not smooth sides caused by the retro fenders.
I don't recall my father ever having an engine bearing problem, or his brother who had a '38 Chev. Of course both treated their "fragile bearing" Chevs with great care, never reving or loading them too high. As for other reliability aspects of the 36 Chev, it was terrible even for those days. He drove it until '51.
That's exactly why it never interested me, although it's size did.
Mine probably wouldn't divorce me... but she might make me live in the garage with the cars :-/
I drool every time I see a new Challenger on the road, and truth be told I could probably sell my '69 R/T and go buy one with a little change leftover (it might take a while to hook up with the right buyer, but its doable). But I'm not willing to let go of the old one just for the new one. Plus I still want to restore my '49 coupe some day, and then there's my old high-school Satellite that may eventually get either a
90s Magnum or a 5.7 Hemi transplant just for fun.... therefore my car collecting habit has come to a standstill and the wife finally got the PT she always wanted. Funny thing is that underpowered as it may be, I'm actually starting to have a fair amount of fun driving the PT when we go somewhere together. Its just a cool little machine, mediocre mileage and all.
The old stovebolt six gave good service, but it needed overhauls more than the more robust flathead six. Chrysler mad the flathead engine into an art form, still making them into the 70's for military and industrial use. Who knows, they still might be making them somewhere. The 36 Chevy might be terrible, but it had a beautiful grill and body. I think that the 37 grill was the prettiest grill on a Chevy ever. That entire 37 GM line was one of the best looking ever.
Steve, You have an original Challenger? My wife and I went to the Barrett-Jackson auction when it came here to Palm Beach, and a 70 orange on went for 1.2 MILLION! What engine does you Plymouth Satellite have? What is the 49? Sounds like you do have an old car thing after all!
No, a Coronet R/T convertible. Should have made that clear.
Just a 318 with 437,000 miles on it, and its just a non-collectible
4-door sedan, which is why I never got rid of it. But that makes it fun- I'll make changes to it that I'd never make to the Coronet. Before I mostly quit driving it and got interested in other projects, I had put polygraphite bushings throughout, eliminated the K-frame isolator donuts, installed front/rear swaybars, upgraded torsion bars, put good shocks on, plus better wheels and tires. It handled like it was on rails, which is one reason I'd like to resurrect it some day. It would be my version of Ehrenberg's "green brick," :-)A Plymouth Special DeLuxe club coupe. 215 flathead, 3-on-the-tree. It could be made driveable with minimal effort and in fact it moved into its current nook in the workshop under its own power some years ago (fuelled from a 1-gallon cell strapped to the front bumper because the tank is full gunk), but it really needs a thorough resto to do it justice. It wouldn't even take much body work, just a whole lot of time and details. If I live long enough.....
THAT has never been in doubt for the past 30 years. But recent years have been family and career first and the Coronet has been the primary outlet for the old-car bug. Getting close to the kiddo being out of school now, and getting closer to retirement so its time to pull some ideas off the back burner.
I'm waiting to take delivery of a new PT under the C4C program. Hopefully this weekend. I'm sure it will feel underpowered at times but I've got my GT for when I want wheelspin. We only looked at the PT as an afterthought and I never thought we'd buy one but it was the only option left that was actually in stock and met my basic requirements. Plus it was quite inexpensive. But what sold us was that it just seemed like a really nice car for the money, looks well built, comfortable, quiet. In some ways a less powerful car is more fun because you have to be more involved in driving it - with the GT it's just point and shoot, heck, anyone can do that.
You picked a winner! Our PT's were very high quality, not one thing ever went wrong with them: the basic model
4door and the Convertible. If you can live with the poor mileage, it is a great car. I hope that you get more than we did. The base model actually got 26 going 60 to Orlando one time, with the 150hp engine. I thought that that much HP was enough, but my wife wanted hers with the 180hp turbo. That was the one that got the lousy mileage. As I might have said before: if I want that kind of mileage, I will just drive my 41 Windsor around all day!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.