James B.

Can someone tell me why I find that the Blackhawk by Stutz which was a separate brand much like when Chrysler made Imperial a separate entity... some times I see it spelled Black Hawk when I understand that the one spelled with two words was still part of the Stutz line of cars and cost more. Which spelling for which car is correct? And why would they make two different series with basically the same name?

I have also learned that Russell Begg also worked at Hudson but can someone tell me what years? Thanks.

I am a little confused and hope someone can set me straight. Who was the chief engineer - or the chassis engineer, when the Blackhawk made by Stutz came out in January 1929? I see that the engineer (but may have been for engines only) up to January 1928 was Charles Sharp Crawford. Then Russell S. Begg took over his position but must not have been for long before going to Budd. Then there is a Greg Kuiper thrown in there somewhere too unless that is a mistake. Trying to figure out who designed the Blackhawk chassis? I figure that Crawford may have designed the Safety Chassis with that unique underslung worm gear rear end. But would "chief" engineers that design engines also design frames? Thanks ahead of time! Jim

Seems to be true and existed. Here is a link from a Corvette club forum that shows the car and the chassis with the rear engine. It was XP-819 and the engine apparently was a marine version of the small block Chevy motor. Rear-Engine Corvette Concept To Re-Appear Next Spring | Corvette Online

I don't want to post his information here but he is listed in the phone book and can find him through Whitepages or other Google searches. His proper name is Dennis D. Eggert and he lives in St. Paul, MN. He is also associated with the Aviation Art Museum in St. Paul.

Yikes, I cringe looking at the rope tie downs on the convertible because the movement from wind and bounce will damage and wear the paint down where they lay across it. Especially after junk gets on and under them! I don't even like using bungee cords to tie down a trunk lid when hauling stuff from a store.

Man, granted it has been 30 years or more since I even thought about transporting a car but I seem to recall that back then it was a LOT cheaper... something like $200-$300. ? Jim

NTX, I ran across this 2011 post which is interesting and possibly you can expand on? And....

Thanks Willis, that was a great well thought out response. Jim

I have also been interested in purchasing a 1970s Rolls-Royce but I also know of the downfalls to be expected. The price is cheap because 1) Dealers are few and far between... 2) Repair shops or mechanics now days know nothing about the systems because at one time shop manuals cost thousands and were kept under lock and key for only qualified technicians. The cars have redundant systems too. 3) The cost of parts due to supply and demand as well as the brand name specific only. 4) The cost of gas as this is a 10-14mpg on the highway car. 5) Insurance costs. So it is not unlike what I have seen recently about printers and ink cartridge replacements. They can sell the printers cheap but get you on the cartridge costs. You can buy a Rolls or Bently cheap now days but watch out for the after purchase costs.

I think 1972 was the last year Chrysler used torsion bar suspension.

There has bee a puzzle looming at our house about the history behind GM’s decision to use a different convertible car like frame on the 1960-1962 Chevy and GMC light duty trucks along with torsion bar suspension? Then they dropped it all for a more conventional setup in 1963. Some say the X was needed for the torsion bar system but it was anchored to a separate cross brace running between the side rails. Some say that Chrysler sued GM over patent infringement over the torsion bars but I have found no evidence of that in newspapers or legal journals of the time. This may be one of those urban legend things or someone believing the outcome to drop torsion bars for coil springs was simply plausible stating Chrysler had a hand in it. Truth is, torsion suspension has been around since 1921 in the US and Europe and GM used it on the first generation front wheel drive Cadillac Eldorado and Oldsmobile Toronado. In fact, I don't even find a patent for Chrysler's design used starting with 1956 production of 1957 model year cars. There was a lawsuit by Czechoslovakian Tatra cars against Ferdinand Porsche and VW for using their torsion bar design and VW lost in 1961 having to pay 3-million DM. The time frame fits but the manufacturers don't. Any ideas... suggestions as to why GM dropped the working torsion bar suspension for coil springs in 1963? Even if they removed the X brace (and why did they use it for only 3 years) they could have still used the bars like they continued with the rear suspension without the center X brace. Jim<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

There has bee a puzzle looming at our house about the history behind GM’s decision to use a different convertible car like frame on the 1960-1962 Chevy and GMC light duty trucks along with torsion bar suspension? Then they dropped it all for a more conventional setup in 1963. Some say the X was needed for the torsion bar system but it was anchored to a separate cross brace running between the side rails. Some say that Chrysler sued GM over patent infringement over the torsion bars but I have found no evidence of that in newspapers or legal journals of the time. This may be one of those urban legend things or someone believing the outcome to drop torsion bars for coil springs was simply plausible stating Chrysler had a hand in it. Truth is, torsion suspension has been around since 1921 in the US and Europe and GM used it on the first generation front wheel drive Cadillac Eldorado and Oldsmobile Toronado. In fact, I don't even find a patent for Chrysler's design used starting with 1956 production of 1957 model year cars. There was a lawsuit by Czechoslovakian Tatra cars against Ferdinand Porsche and VW for using their torsion bar design and VW lost in 1961 having to pay 3-million DM. The time frame fits but the manufacturers don't. Any ideas... suggestions as to why GM dropped the working torsion bar suspension for coil springs in 1963? Even if they removed the X brace (and why did they use it for only 3 years) they could have still used the bars like they continued with the rear suspension without the center X brace. Jim

Now that we have identified this... NEXT

If a 1932 could be a Essex Terraplane... Hudson, Essex and Terraplane all became one company about this time and all except Hudson used that hexagon center shape. 1932 Essex Terraplane 2-door above.

The shape of the center cap of the wire wheel looks like Essex... probably a 1931 Essex?

True... that is a bit baffling and also wonder why they not only continued using the obsolete frame thru 1970 on the Riviera but also Buick abandoned the X with side frame late in the game using the questionable cruciform style starting with 1962 when other GM models was abandoning it except Chevy? Anyone have any ideas? And to add to this puzzle, the 1960 Chevrolet pickup (C-10) had a x brace frame used only 3 years and wonder why they decided to go with that and only 3 years?

I would think the FMC-A would simply be an indicator for the seller that it fits Ford Motor Company cars and is a Style A or something similar?

Good starting point for the layman but not 100% accurate.

If you have literally looked at thousands of hood ornaments / mascots, then it is safe to say this was not a ornament that came on a factory car. It is definitely the head of Mercury but do not see anything like it on their cars or trucks. I would suggest looking at old J.C. Whitney catalogs from the 1960s-1970s... They had a large selection of them then and many were "close to" factory ones of many makes. The mounting screw even looks aftermarket.

Just putting this out here showing the frame of a 1960 Chevy. They highlighted in darker color the body frame structure which includes the rockers, to show that there was some side impact protection even if it wasn't deep side rails. I think with the 1958 Impala crash photo where Nader said it split at the fork meeting the center section, the engine's weight slamming up against the tree acted a major part in the breaking of the front section. It wasn't a matter of the floor pan tearing but the frame breaking and then the bolts, however many at that point of left, shearing off from the floor.

And that gets back to wanting to see the final result. There was a reason for this crash test, not just to sit and watch a crash in slow motion. I am sure they studied the physical damage between the two and that has to include the difference between unibody versus body on frame cars and the damage of?

Hey... did anyone get a chance to take any pictures? :-)

Bob, that may have been a different car? I have seen others posted that were not Chevy but Oldsmobile or Buick and cut in half after hitting trees broadside at a high speed. The '58 Impala shown also hit the tree broadside at a high speed on a slick road. All seemed to have been convertible models I saw. From what Nader stated the frame did break at the joint I mentioned and GM officials came to the scene to investigate what happened. I never found out their findings though (has anyone?). There was other incidents I have read where other GM cars had been hit broadside and killed people and lawsuits were filed against GM. Problem was that at the time the company was only liable to make a safe car from manufacturer defects, not from a collision. That changed after 1966 I believe?

John, my theory in the severed car photo is that there may have been a flaw at the welds and there is only a couple of bolts and rubber holding the body to the frame.