[Norwalk Underslung, Dagmar, Astor, Pope Tribune]

NZ said "Were they really in those bright colours.." I understand it is "it" and not "they", being only one of one. Nice photos BiB, of an "uber rare car"!  Guess I'm going to have to look these up in my Funk and Wagnells (an old Smother Brothers Skit)! (or was it Rowan and Martin?)

[Severin Radiator Badge Repro - Accurate or Fantasy?]

Discerning between an original and a good reproduction badge, the devil is in the details. I see a lot of detail differences between these 2 badges, not the least of which is the (1) blue versus white border. (2)The general background is dark maroon versus black.(3) The brass outlines on the Hanski badge are much thinner generally and more uniform. (4) The blue border on the lower left corner is uniform in width as it turns the corner in the Hanski, while on the OP, the "white" border changes width as it turns the corner. (5)The red lens reflective area is much more subtle and refined in the Hanski photo. (6) The distance from the top of the S to the brass border is about twice the width of the brass border in Hanski photo, but only about same as brass border in OP. (7)Look at the brass edge of the S as it rises above the center bar of the E. In the Hanski, the brass is neat well defined. In the OP, it is blurred and hard to differentiate. (8) Even the small DOT at bottom center is perfectly centered in Hanski, including being on centerline of writing i.e. centered on the K. In OP, this Dot is slightly off-center of badge, and not centered in writing. My view is the Hanski badge is likely original and the OP is a decent reproduction. They are certainly not a "perfect match". 

[How to open a Woodlite cowl light or tail light?]

Aaaw the agony of having a '29 Cord!! Glad you figured it out before you broke something nearly irreplaceable!

[Sometimes Rare automobilia does not mean valuable ( 1928 Olds parts list)]

Came across what I figure are pretty rare pieces of Oldsmobile and Oakland literature from 1928 during a weekend car swap meet. Among a gent's modern part and repair manuals was this 1928 Oldsmobile Series F parts list, which had tucked inside 2 small supplements for 1928 Oldsmobile pricing and 1928 Oakland 6-212 Parts. All 3 are for Canadian cars. Doubt there are many of these around today (the supplements probably very rare, who would save them?). Parts book (27 pages) was damaged, pages fused together from dampness at some point. I've listed these in For Sale Forum.  To the right person.......

[1928 Oldsmobile Series F Parts List, Olds and Oakland Supplements]

Attended a car parts swap meet over the weekend and found this likely rare set of 1928 Oldsmobile/Oakland parts lists. Regrettably the Oldsmobile Series F Parts list First Edition dated March 15 1928, 27 pages, is badly damaged, obviously got a soaking of some sort years ago, pages were literally welded together in top corner. With some steam, managed to separate them somewhat, a new owner might be able to repair further. The 2 supplements were in among the pages. One is a price list for some specific Oldsmobile Series F items for Eastern (Canada?) and second is a March 15 1928 Oakland Supplementary Parts List for Model 6-212. These are only of passing interest to me, will pass on to someone interested for $10 plus shipping.  

[1931 Chevy Electrical Issue]

If all original electrics, these cars only had one fuse, located at ammeter which only was on circuit for horn and headlights/parklights. It would not affect starter. Check cables battery to ground, battery to starter, and starter switch. Sometimes the depressing of the starter switch does not make full contact at starter. The fact lights etc don't work suggests bad ground or battery cable connections.

[Brass Era Mystery Car]

My guess is that the frames are made with an outer steel C channel and an inner C channel, sized slightly smaller to allow it to slide into the outer channel. Then rather than weld the assembly, numerous bolts complete the job. I don't understand why any builder would put wood in such an enclosed package as it would no doubt get wet and rot. Don't know if any companies used such an approach. A friend had a car trailer built 10 years ago with heavy 3" aluminum C channel side rails, but they turned out to be too weak, and flexed when any significant weight was put on them. To remedy that, I suggested he buy similar aluminum C channels in a size suitable to slide in the outer C, and bolt it all together as a boxed section. The addition doubled the stiffness and it now works well. 

[Mid-century mystery car]

Your Dad had great taste in cars!

[The Wandering White Thread - A Custom 1915 Rare White Finds A Good Home In Florida]

Trying to imagine what type of gear they had to machine those fine threads on such large dimeter parts, both the inner one and the outer one. The total surface contact area is very large, not surprised they would be so difficult to unscrew. I have a tough enough time getting a bottle of pickles open!

[Introduction and 1951 Firewall Tag Question]

Nice car, appears to be '51 New Yorker. The phillips head screws suggest this plate has been added, normally they were riveted. Similarly, the door # looks pop riveted, also not likely original means of fastening. May take some effort to pin down correct year/model ID plates. I stand corrected, here is a pic off internet of a 1951 Chrysler cowl tag, shows phillips screws, same general detail as yours has. 

[Speaking of the efficiency of the Dept. of Motor vehicles,]

Just to be clear, in some jurisdictions there is a difference between "Registration" (old school record of ownership and permission to drive car on the road) and "Title" (Deed of ownership for a vehicle). For many years in my jurisdiction (Nova Scotia) there was only "registration of a vehicle", and if you also wanted to drive it, you paid for plates. 30 years ago, when you "registered " your car, you got a piece of paper with "Vehicle Registration" on it, along with a set of plates, and you had to sign the registration and were asked to keep the "registration" in your dash for when the cops stopped you. If they were suspicious about who you were, they could compare the signature with that on your driver's license. If you sold the car, you signed the spot on the vehicle registration for selling. indicated who you sold it to, and the new owner could take that to DMV to transfer ownership.

 

About 20 years ago, they had experienced lots of cases of cars being stolen (with registration in dash, or traded, or junked etc and people coming in looking to register cars/change ownership. They realized there was a growing problem with a question of who really owned the vehicle, and was the vehicle for which plates were being given the actual car on the old registration. So they adopted a 2 part system. Nowadays, they give you 2 documents, a registration (which is in effect the plates and dash paperwork to show the cops), and a separate "Title" document that they recommend you keep in a safe place, and not in the car. Now, when selling the car you need to sign over the "Title"(deed). If someone steals or otherwise comes into possession of your car (fraudulent sale by a 3rd party), they cannot register it without a copy of the car's "Title" signed by you. 

 

Now I don't know just what happened in the case described by the OP, but in many jurisdictions I suspect over the last 25 years DMV's have gone to a 2 part system, and cars initially "registered" 20-30 years ago were never given a "Title" document. 

 

I'm restoring a 1931 Chrysler currently. When I bought it as a barn find in 2014, I got the "Title document" signed by the PO (car had not been licensed for 45 years), and took that to DMV to transfer "Title" to me, cost $10 (plus provincial tax on value of sale). However the car is not "registered to be driven" as it is not ready to be driven. By end of summer I am hoping to go in to DMV and get some plates with paperwork(which here cost about $150 for 2 years). TMI, sorry!

[1928 chrysler convertible coupe]

I'll be curious to hear from the MOPAR experts on this one. I'm restoring a '31 CD8 Roadster and have been familiarizing myself with MOPAR products of the period. Earliest models I recall with fixed sloping windshield posts like this were circa 1931/32 coupes, but most convertibles had chromed stanchions or vertical posts. "70 Years of Chrysler" by George Dammann doesn't show one bodied like this. However, the rather cumbersome folding top looks unusual. In Dammann, a photo shows a 1928 model 72 Convertible and he refers to "the tops framework resulting in a rather lumpy looking package when folded down". Your car may be a British bodied car? Also note Dammann photo shows folding sideirons (landau bars).

[It's funny and ,why is it ?Social media.]

When having face to face conversations/communicating, there are 3 basic forms, verbal, non-verbal, and para-verbal (stay with me). Example: Your spouse asks you "Do you love me"? A "verbal reply" is simple "Yes Dear".  A "non-verbal reply" might be a nod of the head, or a big warm hug. The "para-verbal reply" however might really tell the truth. It deals with tone, physical reaction, body language, volume and other signals. So the spouse who replies "Yeees Deear while rolling their eyes", or whimpers "yes dear' such that you can hardly hear, or while walking out of the room, may be giving a message different from the verbal words. Similarly a spouse who looks him/her straight in the eye and loudly declares "I love you so much and gives her/him a hug to boot, likely leaves little doubt. So body language and tone is a real factor in face to face communication, some suggest 50% of the message.

 

But what about communications on platforms like AACA. All we get is words, i.e verbal expressions, no body language, no volume (unless you use all caps to imply screaming), and the reader is left to interpret sincerity by language alone. That is why sarcasm, irony, ambiguous statements are problematic. 

 

So following Peter G's good advice, say what's on your mind in a civil, fair, and helpful manner, avoid potshots, sarcasm, or jabs and allow discussion to occur without vitriol or side-tracking. Treat members on here like you treat your spouse (at least the way I hope you treat them). 

[STUTZ SPEEDWAY SIX. ENGINE]

Just curious if anyone has had contact with this 1st time poster? Too good to be true!

[It's funny and ,why is it ?Social media.]

Soupiov, Please excuse the edits; 

Every crackpot now has an opportunity through the internet to express their misguided and inconsiderate thoughts.  It's almost like people are searching to offend someone so they can  laugh at someone else's expense.  We used to be able to ignore these people but today we give them this podium!  As a society we are fast losing the ability to maintain civil discourse.  Sad!  

[It's funny and ,why is it ?Social media.]

We are all guilty at times of let's say "less than polite comment". Aside from the obvious suggestion to avoid sarcastic comments on public forums (remember their are 1000's of viewers), the best way to show understanding when someone is offended by any comment, is by removing the post altogether, or using the edit button and changing the post by removing the sarcasm. When a shixxy or sarcastic comment is made, and an apology occurs a few posts later (or by unknown PM), the sarcastic comment still sits there bothering the person forever. So 1st don't do it because sarcasm seldom works the way you intend, and if you do make a mistake, remove it as soon as it is brought to your attention. You'll feel much better too! Hope I haven't pushed your buttons.

[Where will SUV's place in AACA as time passes?]

I guess the buying public cannot be wrong, if SUV sales are near 50% of all vehicles nowadays. Carry-All seemed like a good generic title! Eventually I suppose the AACA 38 Category will be refined from it's Blazer/Bronco type thinking to having a good look at the whole array of modern variations. I can see 2 categories, "car based", and "truck based" , or light duty and heavy duty. I don't personally feel strongly one way or the other about them(I have 4 sons, they drive a 4Runner, VW Atlas and Nissan Rogue, Honda CRV, and Subaru Crosstrek, so I need to mind my manners. Other than some of the short comings mentioned in the Wiki article, at their current popularity, combined with the current pressure for more EV or other fuel reduction strategies, it will be interesting to see where vehicle design goes in next 5 years. EV effectiveness presses for reduced weight. 4WD should be easy with electric powered vehicles, no need for complex transfer cases etc, and easy to switch in and out of AWD. So I guess we will all have to stand by and see where it all goes. 

[Where will SUV's place in AACA as time passes?]

In several topics recently, the ubiquitious SUV has raised the ire of more than one poster. Is it a car, is it a truck, is it a good idea, poor idea, is it really at all sporty, is it utility focused, just what the hell are they really? I've personally always viewed them for the most part as a poor compromise between a decent hatchback car and a small club-cab truck. Recently drove in a friends 2012 Porsche Cayenne and my sons 2016 Toyota 4Runner. The Cayenne was not at all up to Porsche's reputation, pretty blah, while the 4Runner was a great ride, posh, well mannered, and economical. 

 

Here's Wikipedia's latest dissertation (remember it is drafted by volunteer writers) on the subject. Where do we see this type vehicle being sectioned off in the AACA car shows of the future, like it or not! (edit- Steve M indicates their is already an AACA category, never knew! wil leave post anyway, food for thought).

 

A sport utility vehicle or SUV is a car classification that combines elements of road-going passenger cars with features from off-road vehicles, such as raised ground clearance and four-wheel drive. (sounds about right -editor)

There is no commonly agreed-upon definition of an SUV and usage of the term varies between countries. Thus, it is "a loose term that traditionally covers a broad range of vehicles with four-wheel drive." Some definitions claim that an SUV must be built on a light truck chassis; however, broader definitions consider any vehicle with off-road design features to be an SUV. A crossover SUV is often defined as an SUV built with unibody construction (as with passenger cars), however, in many cases, crossovers are simply referred to as SUVs.

The predecessors to SUVs date back to military and low-volume UV models from the late 1930s, and the four-wheel drive station wagons and carryalls that began to be introduced in 1949. The 1984 Jeep Cherokee (XJ) is considered to be the first SUV in the modern style. Some SUVs produced today use unibody construction; however, in the past, more SUVs used body-on-frame construction. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the popularity of SUVs greatly increased, often at the expense of the popularity of large sedans and station wagons.

More recently, smaller SUVs, mid-size, and crossovers have become increasingly popular. SUVs are currently the world's largest automotive segment and accounted for 45.9% of the world's passenger car market in 2021.^[2]

SUVs have been criticized for a variety of environmental and safety-related reasons. They generally have poorer fuel efficiency and require more resources to manufacture than smaller vehicles, thus contributing more to climate change and environmental degradation.^[3] Their higher center of gravity increases their risk of rollovers. Their larger mass increases their braking radius, reduces visibility, and increases damage to other road users in collisions. Their higher front-end profile makes them at least twice as likely to kill pedestrians they hit.^[4] Additionally, the psychological sense of security they provide influences drivers to drive less cautiously.^[5]

[Door latch I.D.]

Of 19 latches, only about 7 different vehicles (mostly pre-war?), 7 of one type, 4 of a second type, 3 of a 3rd type, 2 of a 4th type. and 3 odd balls. A close up of each specific one with dimensions might help, but their are likely 500 variations in that era. My advice is ask $5 apiece and see if anyone wants any.

[Looking to identify my Grandfather’s car]

The RS Step location and  and hood louver pattern (Olds has an extra border) suggest '31 Olds. 

[The Greatest Car Companies and their Icons.]

Through the history of GM, Ford and Dodge/Chrysler (and some other American Companies like International, REO), one vehicle I think they generally did very well was pickup trucks. This seemed to be a uniquely North American vehicle, perhaps due to the nature of our large countries (USA, Canada, Mexico), the nature of jobs (ranching, construction, hauling, rural vs urban), and for the best part of their production (1930's-1970's), the companies stuck to keeping them simple and versatile, with the occasional upgraded one for marketing purposes. They understood the pickup buyers wanted an economical, no nonsense, reliable set of wheels that would make them some money and last a while. These 40-70 year old products retain a strong market, and even restored, can be used like they were always intended. Interestingly, most of the companies in my list did not produce much if anything in the way of trucks. Ever wonder what a Ferrari, Bugatti, Jaguar, Aston, Porsche, Rolls, Alfa, truck might look like? Would make for an interesting design exercise.

[The Greatest Car Companies and their Icons.]

This is the recreation of Monsieur Esders Type 41 Royale. Might be the most impressive roadster ever made? 169" wheelbase, 21' overall length, about 7000 lbs. Talk about cruising in style! But as Bryan says, never at night!

 

And verbatim from dictionary: (I'll be changing original text, thanks nzcarnerd for reminding me)

Marquee : chiefly British : a large tent set up for an outdoor party, reception, or exhibition. 2a : a permanent canopy often of metal and glass projecting over an entrance (as of a hotel or theater)

Marque: A make of car, as distinct from a specific model  - 'Marques such as Bentley, Ferrari or Porsche"

 

As for Iconic, I suppose quintessential would work. NO! LOL

 

 

 

 

[The Greatest Car Companies and their Icons.]

GregLaR, I like your debating style and substance. You said "Hmmm? I'm wondering if you actually believe any of this rhetoric or if you're just baiting us and looking for a spirited debate?  

 

I mentioned in my opening salvo that "  In arriving at a list, I decided “profitability” of the company/business and other aspects of a purely “business” nature would not be a factor as that would require substantial un-interesting (at least to me) research. So I'll accept your thoughts on the business angle without reservation. If you add that to criteria, 9 of my picks will disappear to be replaced by GM, Chrysler, Citroen, British Leyland, Honda, Toyota, Renault and Studebaker/Packard. Photo essay will be hohum!

 

The same thing applies to music. Yes Elvis, Frank and the Beatles sold millions. Few would hail Elvis or Frank (who could only back up a 100 piece band) as great singers/musicians, I don't recall they ever wrote or played anything, but the industry marketed them heavily and as such they became the rage. The Beatles were a great band, (wrote, sang, played, marketed, invented, did it all), almost no one would question their place in music. My idea of fine US singers include Diana Ross, George Jones, Hank Williams, Whitney Houston, Patsy Cline, and Johnny Cash, people who sang purely what they lived. Or Willie Nelson, who started with Folsum Prison Blues in 1957 and still shines today. What a run.

 

You said "Building the finest machine one could possibly conceive, with the highest quality engineering available, wrapped up in a body designed by the most distinguished artists of the era would bring a cost in the stratosphere and then offer a model run of how many?  A couple dozen at best?" You talking about Ferrari's business plan for last 75 years? 

 

This is fun GregLaR, but I think we are really on the same page.  Great cars and great car companies standout to everyone and don't struggle to hold their own against lesser brands among people who know.

 

I'll call your '56 Chevy and raise you a Jaguar XKE! Cheers mate.

 

   

 

[The Greatest Car Companies and their Icons.]

In preparing this topic I followed my own philosophy about what a great car should be. My template likely comes from my Architectural training where phrases like form follows function, less is more, and truth will garner appreciation. As an example, when Ettore Bugatti set out to design the Type 35, he knew his car was to be a grand prix racer. He designed the chassis and running gear accordingly. He designed the engine to withstand the rigors of racing. He sheathed the rolling chassis with a minimalist skin, and a rad shape easy to make and a signature. If you look at the cars, there is not a part out of harmony with the whole car. "Pur Sang" or pure blooded, thoroughbred. Even as he moved on to later models including tourers, he followed the same careful script

 

In compiling my Companies List, I applied this regimen. Did the company typically design their cars for a specific use (racing, touring, luxury cruising, utility, carrying many people, speed, longevity), and how well did they deliver on their intention. The biggest problems many companies had is they tried to create one vehicle model that would do everything (the old Camel versus horse adage). As a consequence, the end product did not reflect a solid answer for any of the intentions, no thoroughbreds. 

 

For example take a 1956 Chevrolet (and I'm not picking on them for any specific reason). GM delivered the same basic chassis with maybe 10 different bodies, 3 different power plants, 2 transmission options, 2dr, 4dr, hardtop, soft top, 50 different paint options, and endless accessories and interiors to choose from. Great for a mass market, but did the car excel at anything. No. It's best use in the day was as a grocery hauler.  This does not mean GM's business model was not sound, it was very sound. Their primary interest was not in designing and building great cars, it was in selling cars. 

 

So many cars of the Big 3 suffered from this same issue: designed for mass market sale, and not for being a great car. "Jacks of all trades, masters of none". 

 

But occasionally they would devote a sliver of their business profit to try to create a much better car, such as GM's early work on Corvette (it follows Bugatti's model to some extent, i.e. very purposeful, a 2 seat sports car end to end, top to bottom, and with no other use in mind). Same for 55 T Bird, Continental, 1931 Chrysler Imperial Roadsters, Ford GT40, maybe even the Viper. But these slivers of their business output don't overcome the much bigger picture: these companies have always been about producing for the masses average quality, multi-use platforms delivered with no goal other than sales. 

 

Finally there is the quasi-legitimate vote for Cadillac. This brand never likely achieved more than 1% of GM's total production (I don't know the correct #). The 1930 era cars were certainly among the best in the luxury field, but with the exception of the V-16s and some open cars, looked pretty much like everything else. Consider their competition, PA, Duesenberg, Cord, Auburn, Packard, Imperial, Franklin, Lincoln, did they really stand out? Their other time in the limelight was the 50's. What was their then claim to fame. They were the epitome of flash and dash, a mediocre platform  (designed solely for cruising but poor road handling or MPG), and gussied up with every conceivable cosmetic one can imagine, inside and out (power everything, chrome, fins, length, exclusivity). I consider them the "hooker" of the era, and the Johns that drove them were not really car people. A bit harsh, maybe, but who can disagree. Today, they do draw crowds, but usually because today's younger car enthusiasts marvel at the excess manufacturers went through to sell cars 60 years ago. 

[The Greatest Car Companies and their Icons.]

Thanks Pfeil for the excellent photo essay on VW's. You obviously have access to some great archives. Last 10 days I have been dealing with a severe sinusitis/bronchitis bout and needed something to do. Had a draft of the written stuff, but no assembled pictures. So I culled them quickly off internet as needed. My favorite of all the photos I included is the Dr Esders Type 41 Bugatti Royale Roadster. What a huge 2 seater, must have been an amazing car to see rolling down the street in 1930's. Original met it's demise, but has been recreated as you may know.