Pontiac59

I guess you haven't seen the price of scrap steel, or the price of some of the trim parts on that car, lately.

I fully expect the car to be too rotty to do anything with but part out. I'm just hoping there's enough left to flat-tow. But they tell me it is a V8, manual trans car. Is the rearend in these cars the same as the later Omega/Nova/etc. ? I do need a rear for a '50 Chevy project I'm working on. I can't remember if the perches are the same as 75-79 and the 70-81 Camaro/Firebird, or not. Thanks for the info -

There was a '35 here locally that could be had for $250.... but we didn't buy it and I'm pretty sure it's at a scrapyard now.

I have a shot to pick up a 73 or 74 Olds Omega (like a Nova) parts car with a 3-speed manual trans in it. What V8 did these normally run? I know the Pontiac Ventura had a Pontiac 350 and it seems like these were the last cars before the corporate engine era really got going, so it should have an Olds motor, which is what the guy says it has. I don't have a book to check it out in, though. What other GM blocks will the bell, flywheel, etc. work with? I'm not up on my late Olds interchanges... Pontiac made it easy, everything post-65 swaps out, I assume the bell is BOP, but is the crank flange bolt pattern shared with any other Olds? I have this '69 455 sleeping away in a Toronado parts car, be nice to be able to use it someplace.

All the ones I've been underhood on seem to be using a standard flexible hose, including the '57 ragtop we sold last summer that had sat since about 1965. Does anyone even still make those?

Assuming the cables aren't frozen up. Isn't the cable brake about the same as an emergency brake?

The engine is the same 308 as the earlier Hudsons. I'd be interested in the intake and carbs, but I'm too far away to get the whole car. Would think that factory continental kit would be worth something. In '54 Nash and Hudson merged to become what would eventually be known as AMC, and to update the by then dated Hudsons they tooled new stampings around the Nash body shells. In retrospect, it might have been better to update the Hudson shell, since it was at least lower and long looking, but it all was moot by '57 as they concentrated on selling Ramblers and did away with Nash and Hudson cars entirely. These are pretty rare cars, by most standards; 55 and 56 had the Hudson motors but '57 was V8 only. It's basically a Nash shell dressed up as a Hudson; none of the body panels directly interchange except the roof, although I'm sure you can bolt the doors up. 55 has a wide, cast-looking eggcrate grille that kind of bows out in the middle. '56-'57 is a finer mesh with a wide V shaped bottom and a narrow V going down in the top center. I forget the figures but I don't think for all Hudson models combined they made more than 50,000 for the three years (compared to Ford and Chevy selling close to a million cars some years, thats not many). There is a very active Hudson board over to classiccar.com, you might find someone interested there.

70 Gran Prix used to pull that once in a while, would not start when hot. I'd stick a screwdriver down the carb to hold the flaps open and it would start every time. It's entirely possible, if going over the ignition doesn't cure this, that there could be some dirt in the fuel system that causes an intermittent blockage - you'd change the filter, then blow out the line, then worst case drop the tank and make sure there isn't something in there that sometimes blocks the pickup.

At one time most of them were yellow, or yellow with a black band. Some had reflectors in the letters. They turn up for sale now and then.

Given the way they spent weeks clearing brush, moving to a cleared spot, and even building a fence around the cars I would have to believe the land is included. There are the following 33-34 Fords: At least 4 5-window coupes, at least two tudor sedans, at least one Vicky body. If you can't pull $5000 each out of the best ones (two of the coupes are old stock cars), you're doing something wrong. The Vicky is up there with the 3-window coupe as far as desirability and everything a street rodder needs - a shell and doors - is there, looking like it needs minimal work at most for paint. $25,000-$30,000 return for the price of a few Hemmings ads or eBay auctions. Anyone that buys this yard can expect to easily get a $100,000 return on their investment in under 3 months selling the best 30 or 40 of the complete cars. And you will still have over 100 cars that should each easily bring $1000 or more each. The worst or the most unsellable of the cars can be parted out and scrapped. Once the cars are gone, you aught to be able to sell the land and buildings and get a good portion of the initial investment back. All you need is time and whatever the asking price is.

Maybe you should read what I wrote again. I buy cheap and sell high, not buy high and sell slightly higher. Then again, you're the one who said some of these cars are worth more as scrap: 28-9 Model A Roadster Pickup 36 Ford tudor 37 Ford tudor 37 Lincoln 4dr 38 Ford tudor 39 Ford tudor (several) 39 Ford coupe 39 Lincoln 4dr 39 Buick convertible 40 Pontiac tudor 40 Ford tudor 41 Nash coupe 41 Plymouth convertible 41 Olds coupe 41 Ford tudor (several) 46 Mercury coupe All complete or near complete and no rot holes visible, only surface rust and minor dents on most of them. Some of these cars are on tires that still hold air, for crying out loud. And I'm not even halfway through the slideshow yet.

Funny, I had no problem selling over $10,000 in stuff I bought out of one junkyard last year. That with only half a dozen cars, and maybe 30 or 40 parts - all on eBay, and all in about 9 months. To just come in and scrap something like this would be foolish on the level of total idiocy. Once they're scrapped, they're gone forever. I about guarantee I could get triple scrap money on any salvage yard with relatively complete cars, unless they're falling apart un-movable hulks. Sometimes, even then. Compared to the stuff I sold, these cars are in mint condition - I see a lot of very desirable cars, coupes, convertibles, 37-40 Fords, you name it. 33-34 Ford coupes alone are worth such stupid money it's unbelievable. And yes, most of what I see is worth more than $200 each and all very buildable. If you think they're not, then your idea of restoring a car is to wash and wax it and give it a tune up and new floor mats. Some of these cars a single part is worth more than $200. Sheesh.

Is there anything special I should watch for on a '49 Hudson six when I go to start it for the first time since it was parked in 1963? The motor turns over by hand okay, it was kept in a garage that was in the basement of a house, so I believe it was even heated to an extent, at least enough to keep water pipes from freezing down there. But it was just driven in and parked - it still has the battery in it, I think it still has the 1963 coolant in it, etc. Heck it may even be the 1963 air in the tires. I just wondered if I should be watching for popped freeze plugs (in case it really did get cold), or other potential problems, specific to these engines. Otherwise, I'm going to pull the spark plugs, change the oil and coolant, lube the upper cylinders, and see what shape the carb is in, and if everything checks out I'll crank it some to prime the oil system and then try and fire it over with a little gas down the carb. If it will do that, I can probably rig up a gallon can to run a gas line into. I'm not sure where I set my '51 Motors manual, so I may as well ask - how bad are the brakes on one of these to go through? I know these run tapered rear axles with the pressed on drums, but I've never looked at anything else on these to compare to. My other Hudson is a '48 and was last driven in 1996, so maybe between the two I can come up with enough pieces to rig up some brakes to lot drive the car a little.

I went out and bought another one of these, a coupe this time. It was a killer deal, but the car sat in a basement garage for about 45 years and the unibody rails are weak in the back, especially on the left. Would I be correct to assume I'd need to fabricate replacements with box tube or C-channel to repair that damage, or find a donor for them? The main body on this one doesn't have much rot, a little on the lower fenders; the left front probably should be replaced, has a big hole by the grille; and the right rear quarter has a little rot over the wheel. The doors still have original paint on the bottoms, no rust there at all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I had a 54 NY T & C wagon, 331 V8, 180 hp, 2 bbl carb, powerflite tranny, PS, PB w/booster. Ran & drove out great, but it SUCKED gas. 10 mpg was what I averaged, and I got only slightly better on trips. Drove it to PA from TN, gas gauge didn't work, and car only had 17 gallon tank. I knew I had to fill up every 150 miles or so. Also complicating things were the speedometer & odometer being off somewhat, registering around 95 when you were only going a little over 80. A great car, loads of fun, but I couldn't afford to drive it these days. So, your mileage sounds about right according to my experience. </div></div> At 80 MPH it is going to get terrible gas milage, anyways, unless it has like 2.54:1 gears in it. I know a few Mobilgas economy run winners - 1951, Studebaker, 239 V8 - 3 spd - OD - 25 MPG 1960 - Pontiac, 389 8.6:1, 4 speed Hydramatic, 21 MPG 1961 - Chrysler Newport, 361, Torqueflite, 22 MPG The problem with the 1955-earlier Chrysler is the same as the Chevy, a 2-speed trans is just less efficient. I have a 1961 Car Craft with a tech question, a 52 Olds with a '55 engine with a hot cam and he was only getting 9-11 MPG. I think that it would be reasonable to expect 15 MPG from most 50's cars - but as was mentioned a carb rebuild and tune-up may help, and it depends what gear ratio in the rearend and how you drive it. My own '60 Pontiac would do 18-19 highway with a 3.08 rear, the 10:1 compression motor and Hydramatic. It actually got better gas milage than a 1987 Pontiac Safari I had (full size RWD wagon, 307, 200R4), and better than the Suburban I have now. It had 75,000 miles on it when I got it, but was well maintained. I drove it 65-70 on the highway. The key to getting the best milage is to find out what RPM the torque peaks at, and cruise on the highway with the engine around that RPM. My Suburban got a best MPG for me of 17 - fully loaded on a trip I averaged 70-75 MPH on.

My 1989 Chevy Suburban has a proportioning valve that basically cuts off the rear system if it detects that there's no pressure due to a leak - it's just about impossible to bleed it using the pedal and not kick that switch over. To reset it you have to equalize the pressure on the other side of the system. It could be your brakes have a similar type of problem, it feels like your bleeding is working but if the valve kicks over and cuts off the rear brakes, you won't get all the air out of it. The vaccuum pump however should take care of it. Must be the ABS requires some other proceedures to go with it. Monro Muffler will bleed brakes for like $20 - well worth not having the headache if you ask me - I would have done same on this Dodge had I had this problem with it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1971 I bought anearly new 1971 Chev. Vega to replace my 1969 Plymouth Fury 2 with a 440 Magnum engine. Driven carefully at 55 mph the Plymouth would deliver 18mpg the Vega only got 21! I lent the Vega to my dad for a trip to the east coast and when he returned the car was burning oil so bad I loaded it up with STP and sold it for what I owed. I think the can had less than 30000miles on it. It was the only GM car I ever owned besides my 47 Cadillac which I never drove or licenced. I don't think the American car makers at least GM had a good handle on making a small car work well in North American highway driving any more than Toyota did although I would think they should have. The Pinto was not much better and the Plymouth Valiant was way ahead of the pack in reliability. I subsequently bought an old 66 Volkswagen than gave 40mpg and drove it until 1975. </div></div> The Vega was rushed into production with a poorly engineered motor, I seem to recall they tried to make it lighter by using an aluminum block cast without iron liners for the cylinders, which wore out prematurely. They were also underpowered for the weight of the car. 21 MPG from one of those is terrible, given I was getting over 18 with a 4000-lb '60 Pontiac, with a 389 V8 in it, and you can pull 20 out of a lot of 50's cars with V8 engines depending on what transmission and what gearing they have. But my friend had a 1985 Charger - an Omni with a sportier body - he found from a neighbor with like 4000 miles on it. It too only got 22 MPG. For the 2-3 MPG difference, I'll drive the big Pontiac. It took GM to completely rethink the small car to get reliability, although when they replaced the aluminum motor with all iron 4 and V6 engines in the Vega and it's clones, and continued to use them in the Monza and it's clones, they were reasonably reliable cars. The 1980 X-cars were good for their day, I had one get me home with a flat I couldn't get changed a few years ago too.

My dad is driving an '88. I see those in junkyards here all the time. I think you can get a header in the U-pull-it yards for like $25, or less. I forget what the current price is. Heck, we scrapped a couple cars with good noses not that long ago.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perfect weather! Had a good time, wish there had been more old parts. </div></div> I would have gone down and brought some if I thought I would have sold enough to make it worthwhile; I have piles and piles of that stuff floating around.

If you get stuck finding one there is one more local guy I can check; his dad collected cars and never crushed, so he still has like a dozen 57-65 Ramblers floating around. I wanted to cut one up and reskin an S-10 with it -

Might get better answers over to the boards at www.forwardlook.net - While the motor isn't too huge and runs a 2bbl, assuming it's all original, the trans is only two speeds and that will put a dent in the gas milage; it also depends on what rear gear the car has. Plus it's well over 4000 lbs for one of these. So 9 MPG city is probably about right. A manual trans or even a later 3-speed automatic would improve things somewhat; by 1961 Chrysler won the Mobilgas Economy Run with a Newport with 361 CI motor, at around 22 MPG average.

I believe all of the big Rambler wraparound windshields are all the same, but if anyone has a Hollander they can doublecheck that. Hardtop may differ from post version. Unfortunately the only one I was aware of went to scrap last fall.

Looks like you have enough to slap together a swell little hot rod, if you're not afraid to weld up a frame out of box tube. I wouldn't even paint it, people would love it I'm sure. I know that's sacrelidge on this site, but better that than sitting and rotting. It would be a lot easier and faster - and cheaper - than trying to restore it.

BTT. I also dug out an International Harvester brass carb with the following on it: Cast letters appear to be 4-53T, stamped letters appear to be Y4"JA - Could really use an ID guide for these, I have a couple others tucked away yet.

The only records New York keeps over about 5 years are stolen vehicle reports. If a car is inactive (not registered) over 5 years it drops out of the computer system. I'm not sure how long it's all been on computer, but when registering a car without a registration they check old records in Albany. Currently that is the only way to check old serial numbers.