Dosmo
-
Posts
826 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Events
Posts posted by Dosmo
-
-
Good catch on the grill, 55er. I didn’t notice the incorrect grill, though I thought there might be some issue with the hood alignment.
Yes, tailgate hinges are original.
-
14 hours ago, deac said:
I never owned a Chrysler before and I don't know the market for these these. The brown seats look tasteful but I think I some tears in the front seat. But again I don't know Chryslers and wonder if that interior is correct. Chevy Nomads, Pontiac Safaris and to a certain extent Ford Ranch seem more popular than this Chrysler. If I had a spot for it I would show some interest and call the seller. GLWTS
This interior is correct for this era of Chrysler Station Wagon, 1951-53, although it did change in 1954. The attached image is from a 1951 Chrysler wagon. Regarding the Nomads, Safaris, Ranch Wagons, and almost any other station wagon from this era, these early '50s Chryslers do not enjoy wide popularity among collectors, although their standing seems to have improved in recent years. These are large, heavy cars, and certain sheet metal parts, along with trim pieces, are not easy to find.
Build quality is outstanding, and they are really nice for long trips. The braking system, although state of the art for the era, is woefully inadequate in today's world. Trying to whoa one of these beasts down, in an environment surrounded by small jellybean cars, is asking a lot of the original brakes.
-
2
-
-
Around 1970, a high school buddy drove a '62 Lancer 2-door, white with green trim. Pretty sure it was the same drivetrain as this one, 170 engine, automatic, etc. I drove it a few times, and I really liked it. A peppy car, and handled pretty well, too, especially with five teenagers crammed into it with football gear in the back.
In the midst of a sea of Malibus, Mustangs, Catalinas, etc., his Lancer was possibly the most uncool car in the parking lot, with the exception of my 1960 Studebaker Lark VIII 4-door wagon.
-
1
-
-
Love the layout of the dashboard in the hardtop/convertible pics. I sent an inquiry to the owner of the chicken coop Hudson, no answer as of yet. I think some of the bolt-on trim items would make good garage wall art.
-
The 1957 license plate suggests this Hupp was still on the road until that time. That's pretty dang impressive for a car of the mid-late 1920s era. Do I see an oil filter under the hood on the driver's side? Was an oil filter a common accessory on a car of this vintage?
Considering that this car may have not been moved since being pulled into the barn in 1957, I think it's pretty remarkable that the accessory trunk is still in place, along with the Boyce Motometer sitting on the radiator. A car from the 1920s, barn sheltered since 1957, still sporting most, if not all, of its accessories, nothing appearing to having been ripped off during its 65-year slumber - how often does one hear of such a thing these days? It's a wonder that some of the neighborhood kids, or even grandchildren of the owners, have not been able to find their way into this old barn just for the sake of curiosity of seeing what might be in there.
Moneywise, it might appear to be a questionable investment. But, as noted by ericmac above, the environment/condition in which it has been preserved for many decades, could be enough to make it "speak to you".
-
2
-
-
The "barn find" phraseology actually applies in the case of this Hupmobile. It's not at all hard to believe this car has been in the barn for several decades. Thanks to the original poster for not using that worn-out, over-used term in his honest description of this relic.
If I read or hear the term "barn find" in any automotive setting, my immediate reaction is to become suspicious of the vehicle being referenced. I guess I've seen too many episodes of automobile shows on so-called "reality TV", i.e., American Pickers, or just about any other of this type show on the History Channel or Motor Trend TV.
-
2
-
-
62 & 63 Fairlanes are similar - easy to ID this one as a 63 due to the one-year only concave grille.
-
2
-
1
-
-
A very uncommon car - from the front, the grille looks Cadillac-like, and from the rear, the look is reminiscent of a '49-50 Dodge Wayfarer semi-fastback sedan. Great looking dashboard.
I hope this one gets finished.
-
Here is an example of a similar one.
-
Very creative - I like it.
-
I really like these Nashes - I think that the appearance of this one could be helped by removing the fender skirts. If it were mine, I would consider getting rid of the whitewalls. It seems like the wheels and tires appear too small for the openings.
-
Such an uncommon car - you seldom see one of these anywhere. 1960 Fords & Lincolns are pretty uncommon sights, but these Mercurys seem to be even more elusive. Very cool ride, and I especially like the rear view.
-
1
-
-
On 3/30/2022 at 9:09 PM, MrCap said:
Car is solid no rust thru just surface rust
If there are no areas rusted through, what are the holes along the bottom lip of the trunk lid?
-
That hearse, or whatever it might be, is a sinister-looking beast. I love the looks of it - I would imagine driving it might require a good deal of caution, due to limited sight distance. Very cool vehicle.
-
Check out the rusty looking International truck in the background. The license plate says "Pruck". Is that a combination of the words Prius & truck?
If so, that is even stranger than the Falcon having a Prius drivetrain.
Things are definitely not always what they seem. Or maybe, it's a typo, and the "U" in Pruck is supposed to be an "I".😈
-
8 hours ago, MarkV said:
Generally speaking, it seems that a lot of folks consider the Exner styling started to trend downward after the '50s. I don't necessarily disagree with that thought as applied to the Chrysler, Dodge, DeSoto & Plymouth brands, especially for the 1962 model year. However, I really like the Imperial styling of this era. Whereas, I can find some agreement with those who refer to the so-called "bread & butter" brands as having "plucked chicken" styling, this 1962 Imperial looks pretty much right to me from every angle. Some of the details might seem a little garish, but this profile shot makes the car seem as if it is in forward motion.
It's an uncommon look - I like it, but I guess it's not for everyone.
-
Fairly sure it's a 1937 Chevrolet
-
5
-
-
Difference in the wheelbases of the Chevrolet versus the Pontiac:
1954 Chevrolet 115"
1954 Pontiac Chieftain 120"
1954 Pontiac Star Chief 122"
And, that difference shows in the photos posted by 58Y-L8. In this particular case, I think the orange-toned Pontiac is a Star Chief, as denoted by the 3 little "stars" just below the small kickup at the end of the quarter panel. The Star Chief was a new model introduced for 1954, and one of the key features was the 2" longer wheelbase. It does indeed make a difference in the overall proportions.
Here is a comparison of the blue & white Canadian Pontiac Laurentian with the 115" wheelbase versus a 1954 U.S. Chieftain with the 120" wheelbase. Note the difference in length between the bottom of the front fender and the driver's door.
Even a difference of 5" in the wheelbase is quite noticeable.
-
2
-
-
I’m very curious regarding how this car, which seems like a Chevrolet with a Pontiac drivetrain, performs as compared to the same car with a Chevrolet drivetrain.
Anyone care to opine on the subject?
-
Here is the text from the current ad:
"This car was restored 3 years ago. Started with a rust-free car and put in a new Clutch, Brakes, Wheel Cylinders, Radiator, Hoses, Heater Core, Exhaust, Shocks, Wiring, Tires, Paint, Glass, Rubber Seals, Chrome and interior. The paint looks great from a distance but has flaws."
And, from that same ad, here is a photo showing what the coupe looked like before the current paint job. I'm thinking I might have left it this way rather than having it painted the way it is now.
I like the car, but not $12,000, or even $11,000 worth.
-
3
-
-
Wonder if the engine might actually be a 360 V8, meaning the 306 reference is a typo? I'm thinking the 360 V8 was first released in the early 1970s, which might explain the floor shifted automatic transmission...
Just pondering out loud...
-
3
-
1
-
-
On 2/8/2022 at 1:53 AM, JamesR said:
For some reason the continental kit doesn't look as horrific in that application as it does in others...maybe it's the camera angle.
I agree that the connie kit doesn't look too bad on this car, though I'm not sure I'd keep it if it were mine. The styling on the Dodges & Plymouths of this era was criticized by some for being so short as to look stubby. I think the connie doesn't look as bad on this car as it does some of the behemoth Cadillacs, Buicks, Lincolns, etc., from this time period.
I like these cars a lot, mostly because they aren't all that common.
-
2
-
-
Some of the more interesting photos I've seen in a while - thanks for posting.
-
On 12/28/2021 at 11:09 AM, RansomEli said:
Are you sure it's a '63 and not a 1964 model?
1963 has inverted grille, 1964 grille shown in attached image
Looking at a Studebaker Lark, I have ???s
in General Discussion
Posted
Even if this car held a great deal of sentimental value for whomever was considering its resurrection, it would be extremely hard to justify the effort to bring it back. These are just not that hard to find in reasonable, drivable shape, and asking prices are not all that outlandish, unless an owner is trying to rip someone off.
In the words of Nancy Reagan, just say no.