Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About 6219_Rules

  • Birthday 07/19/1956

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

6219_Rules's Achievements

5,000+ Points

5,000+ Points (5/7)

  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Sorry I missed your post, 6686L. I do not know why the Toyota failed. Dad ran cars very hard and most stood the test. Chrysler did well until the 1960s when the best he got out of one was 48000 miles. But then again, Dad is cheap. Any problem that will cost him outside of the warranty is grounds to dump the car. As far as the Toyota goes, I remember he had burned three of its valves. It was toast. Personally, I think Toyotas look and drive like crap. I have had many of them. Good, reliable cars... read: boring, hard or mushy, and about as intrisically valuable as a used hanky. Sure they are well made and have a good reputation. I look for that but also something indefinable that tells me it is a car of choice and taste. Not many modern cars even come close. But that time is past. I have no need of a new car, warranteed or otherwise. And the old '56 still looks better and gets more turned heads than a 2007 Bentley Continental. For what it is worth... <shrug>
  2. Each and every time I have had a problem running my car, whether the 1947 or the 56, at altitude in the summer, it was fixed by an electric pump mounted low back by the tank. My cars are not beautifully restored Cadillacs. They are drivers with old and aging parts that are replaced when I can afford it, or when the breakdown forces me to replace it. New fuel lines are a must just as new brake lines are for the proper operation of the car. However, just my experience with old aspirated engines is that when they buck and studder, or refuse to restart, an electric pump solves the problem. Ah for a new Rochester four barrel on the '56! That would be loverly.
  3. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hi, this is to share with you my 63 Special, aluminum V8, beautiful midsize sedan. Purchased new in 1963 in Berlin, Germany, transferred to Costa Rica the same year. All history documented since first full tank in Berlin. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> </div></div> Welcome, Hugo! And she is a beauty! Well kept and documented... thank you for that great effort. A lovely car for a lovely place. Glad to have you here.
  4. West, allow me to add that to keep the car looking original in the engine compartment, keep the fuel pump on, as long as the pump is in good condition (if not, fix it), and install the electric back low and by the tank as instructed by our dear senior member of the CCCA with the V-12. I had a 1956 Cadillac with an original electric pump with a big glowing button. It solved my last vapor locking issue.
  5. Ah if I had the money... where have we heard that before? ... I would love a car along those lines. The Metropolitan, the Isetta (BMW-Fiat), Renault Dauphine, 1950s-60s VW bug or bus, Corvair, Falcon... these are all great small cars, fun to drive and should make reasonable gas mileage. I may end up doing it when my pickup dies. A VW Bus would fit the bill perfectly, or a 1962 Falcon Ranchero... Even the new Smart. I kind of like the Aveo, but without income to afford it, it aveos me not. (ROFL) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
  6. I was able to find your color for 1957-1958. They were painted a Mopar Engine Silver. The fan, oil cap and filter, and wire covers were black. Here is where I got the information: Hemi Engine Color You might also want to check on New Yorkers specifically. I just Googled "1957 Chrysler Hemi Engine Color" I hope that helps!
  7. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave, I think we, the older generation, should take some blame for what our children buy. We love old cars. We understand how they are different. It's hard to explain to them what we like the most about them. My own personal preferences; 1. I like chrome (if plated, metal, not plastic) 2. I like performance 3. I like that grunty V-8 sound 4. I like the handling of a rear drive car (with a light steering touch, not heavy like a front driver) 5. I like a style that is different from the rest 6. I like bright colors (I'm sick of these greys, whites, and dull "off colors") 7. I'd give up a little gas milage for these cars, and even pay a little more for them Two related experiences here; I took my oldest daughter for a ride about 2 years ago in my injected '65 Vette. She had no idea of the response of a mechanical fuel injection system. A year before that, my middle daughter had an accident in her 2003 Cavalier. she had to use our '88 Conquest (I know, it's a rice burner, but a rear driver). She was shocked about the speed she could go around turns, and the acceleration of a turbo. Her Cavalier has forever been just a car to her. The point is, that as long as our kids don't know any better, they'll continue to buy these lackluster automobiles. As West Peterson has offered for our next Hershey, "Drive my Packard! and see why they were the best cars of their time." <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Sorry about the tirade. Like I said before, Chrysler was on the right track, now I'm afraid it may be over. I don't trust Management, Beancounters, and Lawyers, sorry Dave B. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Wayne </div></div> Ah Wayne, you said it so gracefully. My family likes cars, most of them at any rate, but until I rode in something special I did not realize that a car could be anything more than a car. Then I got to drive, at the tender age of 16, a 1962 Imperial, black on black, out at the NJ shore. The man, a friend of a family friend, was very nice to let me do it. And I was stunned at the power, grace and sheer elegance such a beast could put forth. I was once again in love. First with the 1950 Buick Roadmaster my Uncle had, then by this Imperial sedan. Wow. My Father prefered small (now Japanese) cars that were cheap, and efficient. What can you do? He's a Scot and 6'6"... there is something in the rules that say really big people like little cars. We would never have a car like that Imperial. Heck, we only got A/C in 1977 when he bought a Toyota off the lot with it. So I understand the difference, and appreciate the difference. And while I have owned both Japanese and American cars, I will never be as satisfied or as happy with anything with more plastic than glass. There is just something special in that full sized rear wheel drive sedan for me. I did not follow my Father's trend, or my Brother's... or any family member except my Uncle, now deceased. When I saw the 300c, I was surprised and mightly pleased. The new Imperial was a bit to get used to, but I loved the suicide doors and the styling.... because it was different. I like the Crossfire, and the Magnum... a station waggon with guts. So I am very unhappy to see this turn of events too. No bean counter, especially a super conservative one like ex-Treasury Head Snow, to give a rat's patootey for cars or the American Automobile Industry. They just want to bleed it dry. I guess time will tell.
  8. I can attest to that statement, since our new car for 1971 was a red Toyota Corona Deluxe sedan. It was a nice car, black interior, and different. Dad specifically asked the Toyota dealer in New Jersey if the car could make the trip out to Montana and back, the answer was an absolute 'YES'... 'You can drive it like any American car!!" So we did. On the way back, the car burned a couple of valves and the engine died. We came into Pennsylvania in a crippled vehicle running bearly on three cylinders. Toyota took the car back, repaired it and we waited until 1972 to buy the same model, now rebadged as the Corolla. The dealer assured us that the problems had been handled and the engine could be driven hard. He was right. It was a hardy car that lasted years. But they had a problem underestimating American driving habits and producing an engine that could handle it.
  9. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which leads me to my earlier post regarding the cost of new cars in relation to what they were 30 years ago. If an $8 increase in a vintage car tour outing is going to keep someone home for the day, then they probably wouldn't go -- or couldn't afford to go -- in the first place. So, what I'm saying is that the number of people who go shouldn't change at all. </div></div> Ah! I get it. Good point! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> My son keeps telling me, no matter how bad it gets, there is nothing I, personally, can do about it. So enjoy the car while you can. If it gets to the point where you cannot, then we will do something about that. I have a very supporting family... a true blessing. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
  10. 71333: I checked and according to the Auto Paint Color Library, Vermillion is a Tomato Red for 1947-51. Unfortunately there is not 1952 listing. But Vermillion is a sharp Red so I would take that as a good indicator. Here is the chip selection : 1951 Ford Truck Vermillion Hope that helps!
  11. You have brought up an interesting point, which I am sure Dave will have a perfect answer to, and that point is that in all of the talk of dollars per gallon and the adjustment for inflation, where is the percentage figures of a family's income that is dedicated to buying gas? Was that the same in 1950 as in 2007? Where were wages in 1950? I know that the income for most families has dropped slightly over the last 10 years while inflation has gone up. Industry is not keeping pace with inflation where the worker is concerned. While you may pay an additional dollar or two for each gallon, where is that money coming from for the modest to low income family? And if you are on a fixed income, and say $900 of $1500 monthly goes to bills, leaving $600 for food, clothing, and gas (plus maintenance) and other incidentals, that dollar or two per gallon suddenly starts biting into the kitty. So we cut back on frivolous driving (does anyone frivolously drive any more?) combining trips so you only go out once. So I understand what Wayne is saying. It may not seem like a lot, but it can impact a strict budget. And really all Americans should be more concerned about budgetting, and spending within their wage limits. But if we all did that, the economy might fall down! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> I know I beat this drum fairly frequently lately because I am on a fixed income. And it worries me. I am afraid the answer is to do without rather than figuring any way possible to feed a desire. And that may have a negative effect on the hobby.
  12. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does anyone not find it a little bit unsettling that the company is named after the three-headed dog that guards the gates of Hell? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> </div></div> Not Hell really... just the Land of the Dead ruled by Hades. But yeah... an undying, preternatural beast with three slathering heads to endlessly chew on the unwary. Kind of how I saw Snow's handling of the Treasury <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
  13. It is sad, and certainly unfortunate that Chrysler- Dodge gained the reputation for following rather than leading design schemes, and having a reputation for poor, tacky and cheap interiors with bad quality control in their assembly. During the 60s, we had several and they were fun, but poor vehicles. The 1964 Valient convertible, the only convertible we ever owned, was a lovely little car but was worn out totally by 48,000 miles, and that was with strict adherence to maintenance schedules. Dad is like that. The next, a 1965 Barracuda was a total thrill ride, but again, poor maintenance training kept the leading edge disc brakes from operating correctly; it rattled right off of the lot, and wore thin early on. It was also totally useless in wet and snow. Dangerous really since it had incredible torque and no weight in the rear. Oh and that lovely rear window looked great but acted like a microwave in the hot, humid, Missouri summers. No A/C naturally... Dad did not believe in it. The best Chrysler he ever owned was the 1948 Chrysler New Yorker, with suicide doors and deep, thick seats. It had an excellent engine, and a slush box tranny that worked well enough on the roads. But it was bullet proof. After that, the 1956 Plymouth Savoy was a heck of a car. Great engine, solid transmission, good brakes, plenty of room for a medium sized sedan; but the worst interior... the cloth on the seats was threadbare when they bought it, and had to cover it in clear vinyl seat covers. Those were happy during those hot, humid summers I can tell you. Ugly at times, definitely ahead of the curve with disc brakes very early on; hemispherical designed engines, unique, well designed push button transmissions (I thought they looked weird but Mom liked the one in my GrandDad's basic Dodge... which otherwise was a total POS). But that creeping cancer of poor quality control and cheap, taudry interior materials followed the company from the 1960s. It is sad. I never liked their interiors after 1950. Prior to that, WP Chrysler's interiors were well designed, handsome, and in the upper end cars, luxurious as well as beautiful. I always loved the Imperials. It is a sad end... with some hope. But knowing the character of men like ex-secretary Snow as far as money is concerned, I fear the old company is on its last breath. They will suck it dry, sell out portions, and like Studebaker-Packard, die a slow, painful death. Such a shame. Oh Wayne... you mentioned the unmentionable. We do not talk about that... remember? <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
  14. That is great, Novaman! Since getting involved with Cadillacs, I have found I like all sorts of cars. Especially, get this, Chevys! I love the Nova, Nova II, Corvair and the big sedans like the Impala and Bel air. Great cars, inexpensive and well built. You come to appreciate the cars of the 60s and realize just how good they were. Glad I lived in that time. Hope you enjoy your car each and every time you take her out. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
  15. Thank you, Clipper47! I picked my baby up from the shop yesterday. They replaced a front U joint, a bent wheel and did an oil change. I drove her all the way back home, 80 some miles (I took the scenic route) and enjoyed every second, even the silly traffic through Denver. She has never run so smoothly, and had such get up and go before! (I guess an new U joint that does not vibrate, and a <span style="font-style: italic">round</span> wheel on the power side makes a big difference) <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> Isn't it funny? I get more thumbs up from older people and Hummer drivers! They apparently like what they see. And I get 10 mpg better! LOL Since this is my daily driver (the pickup is my helper's), the only other car I can drive is my ex's '67 Mustang with the Jasper 289 rebuild. hehe It gets about the same mpg as the Caddy but oh my, what a drive <span style="font-style: italic">that</span> is! I hope your Clipper keeps on running smoothly, and keeps the jelly bean cars to the rear. <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
  • Create New...