poci1957

Members
  • Content Count

    2,399
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

214 Excellent

About poci1957

  • Rank
    AACA Member

Profile Information

  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Decatur IL
  • Interests:
    Comet & Pan American Decatur IL Assembled Cars
    1957 Pontiac

Converted

  • Biography
    Graduate of McPherson College Auto Restotation 1987

Recent Profile Visitors

2,008 profile views
  1. Considering 1963-64 GM B bodies you are no doubt aware that there are LOTS of parts available for Impalas. I have had a 1963 Pontiac for many years and can confirm that your Buick (and my Pontiac) can also use the following Impala parts: Convertible top and related frame, motor and hydraulics, cables, weatherstrip, etc. All glass and window frames, including brackets and regulators. Door and windshield weatherstrip PROBABLY outside door handles and locks and most related hardware As you note these are all Fisher Body interchanges, there is very little shared in chassis mechanicals. Good luck with yours, Todd C
  2. Exactly my experience, that if I find something like that I'll buy an extra or two for (relative) pennies thinking someday it may save me a trip into town searching for a hard to find little part
  3. If it works I will remember to get you the royalty payments
  4. Sounds good, if they work well you might grab a few extra while you have them available
  5. By that time they interchange pretty broadly in like body types (i.e convertible to convertible, sedan to sedan) and may vary slightly only in little attachments. A convertible rear seat should interchange between an Impala and a LeSabre no problem. The front seat MIGHT have a variance in side shields and trim, closely compare some photos and you should find the upholstered part is the same. As Pfeil says the brackets vary a bit but the seat frames cover lots of applications. I personally bought 1964 Impala SS seat covers to install in a 1964 Pontiac convertible interior with bucket seats and all soft trim fit fine, including top boot, well liner and rear seat armrest covers, good luck with yours, Todd C
  6. I am still trying to figure out how I can get a major motion picture to feature 1957 Pontiacs........
  7. Hmmm......I might try to work that into the conversation..... THEM: "Look at this 1975 Chevy Nova 4dr. They built 200,000 but now they are very rare, especially with the optional lighted ash tray." ME: "200,000 built but now few remain? Sounds MEDIUM rare to me." I LIKE IT, thanks Xander, Todd C
  8. Rare is an overused term for sure, usually associated with a sales pitch to imply value and a bit tiresome for me especially when used to hype a regular production car with unusual equipment. Yesterday I saw a Marti report on a Lincoln that showed about 5000 units produced but statistically reduced down to a one-of-one that was painted white with both a cassette deck and a garage door opener (I am not making this up). I think (but am not sure) that the owner saw the absurdity and was good humored about the "honor", Todd C
  9. Hi Matt, I always respect your expertise and candor and I think you are right about 60 years of spotty refurbishment attempts being their usual problem. They were indeed recognized as something special very early and had a following by the time they were 20 years old. I would venture to say most were restored in the 1970s and 1980s so they were restored at 20-30 years old and now the restoration work is 30+ years old, complete with 30 year old tires and rubber. My dad bought a 1955 T-bird in 1980 and that was my first entry into the old car world, so I have a soft spot for them. But alas I am not blind to their faults and unfortunately Bernie's comments about the Budd bodies are all correct, Todd C (PS--Bernie correctly says T-bird bodies did not fit and flow like a GM body but I would add neither did Corvettes from the 1950s-70s)
  10. Well that is pretty much my take, with the added point that leaving your soft top folded while the hardtop is on will ruin it. . Glad that I am not missing the logic on this, thanks, Todd C
  11. Hey Matt, just an aside on this, sports car people in general always love to refer to "both tops" and T-Bird people in particular. What do your customers REALLY tell you about the ownership experience dealing with both tops? I have always thought storing a removable hardtop to be a hassle more trouble than it is worth, is it just me? Todd C
  12. I saw this on Facebook last week and thought it was very clever using an "image-in-the-mirror" appearance like an ambulance:
  13. When I was learning upholstery in the mid-1980s my mentors said the same of Wiss trimmers shears. I made it a point to buy several all of which I still use, it is an honor to have a Wiss family member join us here on the site, Todd C
  14. Hello Flying A, and welcome to the AACA forum. I am speaking to you from the Pontiac side of GM and have long been intrigued by the logistics (or is that illogic?) of GM shipping bodies between plants. SHORT ANSWER I believe Chevy convertible bodies in 1955-57 were indeed built at the Lansing Fisher Body plant and shipped out to their respective assembly plants, so your car is likely correct. IIRC all Pontiac convertible bodies were built there too in this manner in 1955-56 (station wagons also worked this way out of Cleveland). To further check numbers (at least on Pontiacs) you can get the convertible production number and the Atlanta plant serial numbers and see if both body and chassis appear to be from about the same time of the year. LONGER ANSWER and the interesting part of this example to me is that in 1957 all Pontiac convertible bodies were moved to Pontiac (MI) Fisher Body. And now even though the Fisher plant in Pontiac was adjacent to the Pontiac Assembly plant they STILL shipped convertible bodies to the branch plants for final assembly, probably 10-15% of the time. I ask would it not be easier to ship an entire assembled car on wheels rather than a painted body shell as an immobile unit? It all dates back to the earliest days of the automobile when building the rolling chassis and powertrain was the job of the MOTOR division and the responsibility for building a body was a different discipline and subcontracted to a coachbuilder (who had usually evolved from a carriage builder). GM merged in Fisher Body to be their in-house coachbuilder and the car was provided by two divisions—the car division to produce the rolling chassis and the front end sheet metal and Fisher Body to build the painted and trimmed body shell from the firewall back. SO Fisher would ship bodies from its plants to the car plants nearby in Detroit/Flint. As branch assembly plants were built around the country each usually had a Fisher plant nearby to feed it bodies and indeed Fisher was larger and ran more plants than each car division. And even though this division of work was rooted in the early 1900s it was the GM way until the mid-1980s. As Dave39 says, building a convertible or station wagon body rather than a normal sedan or hardtop was unique enough to justify a dedicated separate plant with nationwide shipping. Good luck with yours, Todd C
  15. I had not thought about that, yet another plus for the four post in a home garage. Indeed my 24ft space is actually more like 23.5 inside as frank questioned, Todd C