West Peterson

For a beginner restoration, you may want to consider spending more than $1,000. At that level, there may be too many areas where advanced body repair skills are needed, i.e. major rust repair. Also, at that price point, there may be a lot of missing parts, so in the end you'll have spent way more than you wanted just in finding missng parts, or replacing unrestorable parts. It has been my experience as a novice restorer that complete and rust-free examples are not as frustrating, making it easier to maintain focus on completing the job. Many, many well-intentioned restoration projects end with a completely dismantled car, then sold for next to nothing because few people are interested in buying a "basket case."

We used to own a 1942 120 four-door sedan (with factory air!), and it had the whiskers. That car was sold to someone in Ohio more than 20 years ago. I wonder what happened to it???

There was a thread in another forum wanting to know what car company first used downdraft carburetors. I proposed that Marmon was the first to utilize downdraft induction on their 1927 Model L "Little," but since there weren't downdraft carburetors in 1927, they devised a way of using an updraft carburetor. It was one of the most powerful cars in the industry at the time, leading the carb industry to start building downdrafts. Does anyone have an answer as to who used the first downdraft carburetor, and what company built the carburetor?

It's missing the "whisker" side trim on the front fenders. Are you sure it's not a 1941?

The correct lighter for a '40 I believe should have an amber cat's eye. It does for the senior models, anyway. I'm not totally sure about the junior models.

Regarding the use of Downdraft carburetors: Marmon developed the use of downdraft induction for its 1927 "Little Marmon," or Model L, an eight-cylinder car. Ironically, its revolutionary dual downdraft intake manifold was fed by an updraft carburetor. This engine ultimately led carburetor companies to start building downdraft carburetors. I guess the question still goes unanswered, though, as to who used the first downdraft carburetor?

Limousine in Europe, many years ago anyway, was merely a sedan. It did not necessarily mean it had a division window and/or jump seats. And of course, remember the more recent Lincoln Town Car, which was anything but... and the current Volkswagen Phaeton. The rape of body style nomenclature is almost as bad as the glorious model names that are pasted on current four-door sedans (as good of cars as they may be), such as the 300/300C, GTO, Magnum, Charger, et al. Good grief, take a lesson from Ferrari and kill the name when the configuration takes a significant change. Camaro/Firebird, for instance, should have dropped the name(s) in 1970, Eldorado in 1967, etc.

As DeSoto Frank says, whatever a car company calls it, that's what it is. Just as the Model A Cabriolet is actually a convertible coupe, the Cadillac All Weather Phaeton is just a convertible sedan, and the Cord Phaeton is a convertible victoria.

That was the tour that started from Amelia Island and was headed up toward . It was the reminents of the Millenium Tour that was started by a well-known Silver Ghost owner from Florida. It is not limited to Rolls-Royce. In fact, there was a 1911 Oldsmobile Autocrat on the tour, as well as a 1911 Locomobile, 1930 Duesenberg and a 1931 Nash.

A cabriolet and a convertible coupe are not the same. The cabriolet is the same as a convertible victoria. They would both have a back seat.

I went also, saw every car, and did not see the Buick you speak of. I'll ask Bill Warner next time I talk to him what happened to it. I'd be happy to answer the question as to "what is car 110", but I do not see any numbers on the photos.

Harry J You are correct. My goof. The current owner's name is Locke.

Roger, I believe that see-through hood would have been dealer installed, not factory. They were quite common. Dealer's (not just Ford) bought them to put on the show-room car(s).

I remember seeing a beautiful 1931 Mercer convertible coupe with a Locke body on it (Yes, 1931).

Matt, Email me, please. StelvioGT@yahoo.com

Post deleted by West Peterson

Novaman: There's no mistaking a 1950 Buick. They're the only ones where the grille looks like a whole bowl of spaghetti is coming out of it, right over the bumper. I'd love to have one. Especially a convertible. What a sight!

Restorer32: How did you get over the want/need to have an XKE. I'd like to take the serum.

120,000 dimes. But its location is secret until I've exhausted all possible ways of purchasing it myself. It may not be worth that much, but it is to me since there isn't any rust repair involved. I've seen people pay half that price but for rusty junk. Plus it comes with a new rubber set, NOS exhaust tips and an extra set of correct wheels.

I pulled the sock out to buy my computer equipment.

If you've got a rule that states a maximum displacement, then the ONLY way to get more power is using a substitute. Whether it's a magical octane booster solution or modern technological wizardly, it's a substitute, but I'm not talking about modern wizardry. The engineers at Stutz had no money to develop a 16, so, as I keep bringing up, with 122c.i. less than Cadillac, they accomplished almost the same power (that is, if you can believe the 75-year-old figures). I'll concede that Stutz bored and stroked as much as they possibly could while keeping the integrity of the block. The depended on the engineering finesse of twin overhead cams to get them to the same spot. Let's discuss Apples (it's past dinner time and I'm hungry): Cadillac's unblown 8-cyl. powerplant at the time was 353c.i. -- Stutz' unblown 8 was 322. Cadillac produced 115hp while Stutz produced 156. Packard's unblown 12 with 445.5c.i. produced 160hp. Stutz' unblown 322cid 8 produced 156hp. The Clint Eastwood-type myth that bigger is better can be exploded with 75-year-old technology, not computer-age Wassitz technology. By the way, I think I'd go with the lighter, faster weaponry and make my shots count. But then, I don't know nuthin' 'bout guns or using them.

What your're saying is that there's no substiture for more fuel! By the way, I found my spoon.

I think you're admitting that there IS a substitute for c.i. by stating that the Big CID engine will go faster with the add-ons. By saying there is no substitute, you're trying to say that only more CID will increase power. The 322cid dohc 8-cylinder Stutz was nearly as powerful as the 452cid 16-cylinder Cadillac. What I'm saying is that there is a more efficient way to increase hp. You're it. I quit. (My wife sent me off to work with a bowl of soup and a fork... beat that!)

I believe Miller started blowing after seeing what was under the hood of that 1924 Indy winner.

Still too small.