LINC400

I have noticed that no one cares about getting in the way of your photo. Some are just oblivious, and others couldn't care less. If I am walking past a car and see someone about to take a pic, I will stop and wait for them to take it. However, I am not going to stand there forever while they wait for the perfect shot or take 20 pictures from every angle. If I don't see them, well that can't be helped. By the way, very few say thanks if you stop or step out of their pic.

I don't know anything about the 1936. Aside from that the woody would be the most valuable. The Custom Eights are rare, but I don't know that it would bring enough if it is apart to make it worthwhile. The '53 and '56 should be worth at least $3k - $5k each if they are fairly decent and driveable. I would base my offer on the condition of the woody and then add some for the others. A guy here had his 1941 Packard's wood replaced by a guy that does wooden boats. It was cheaper and better work.

Yes I wonder that myself. It seems that there are a lot of members (not singling out anyone in particular) that say they don't mind XXX. Live and let live everyone has their own taste blah, blah. Then turn around and bash something they don't like, say a 1985 for example . I don't worry about my opinions being politically correct. They are my opinions. By the way, the 1985's plates expire Nov. 1. So it can be running antique plates as of Nov 1, 2009. As far as antique, I do not like seeing antiques being destroyed. They are a non-renewable commodity. However, whether something is antique or not does not change my opinion of it. A 1959 Cadillac was wonderful when new, dated in 1965, laughable and tacky in 1970, kitschy in 1980, and a valuable, highly prized antique now. The car never changed. Neither did my opinion of it. I like them. It doesn't have to be 25 years old or more for me to like something. If I didn't like a car when it was new, I won't like in 10 years, or when it turns the magical 25 years old. The 1985 hearse is not my car and not my taste. But it would still upset me if someone butchered it into a rat rod. There are only 2.

What image is that? I didn't do or say anything to the guy. He probably thinks I was just as enthralled with his plans as the other guy he was talking to. I agree everyone has different tastes. But he could have just as easily done all his plans to a hulk pulled out of a junkyard. He replaced the entire drivetrain, was planning on gutting the interior, and was going to chop the top and repaint. So why did he have to get an excellent condition 26,000 mile all original car with very nice interior and paint to do this? This is just as sickening to me as someone that takes the low mileage grandpa's treasured Imperial from an estate and runs it in a demo derby. I have nothing against demo derbies if newer old junk cars are used. But there is no reason to destroy nice antiques. Same deal with customizing. I don't care for customizing. But the 1937 Packard from my previous post doesn't bother me. It would probably still be sitting in a junkyard or crushed if it wasn't for that guy. But the 1957 Chevy was a beautiful car that would have been treasured by many if only they had been able to get to it first. Even though the body still exists, an all original part of history has been lost forever. And even if you like customs, this guy's work was not good.

I have my mom's Buick that she bought new. Same thing happened. She never used the parking brake. Apparently on this car anyway it is supposed to adjust the rear brakes every time it is used.

Yep, 1957 Chevys that are not customized are quite rare around here. I walked over to it and was thinking if you just remove the engine and repair the hood, and fix a few other cosmetic things it would be very nice. That is when the owner walked over and told me he bought it from the estate. Everything that needed fixing (lousy repairs too, not just customizing) was what he had just done to it, and then he told me the rest of his plans. I had to restrain from punching him in the face. Fortunately I was spared from having to make any comments by someone else that walked over and told him what fabulous ideas he had. I just walked away. Never saw the '55 Chevy program. I tend to ignore those shows although I have seen a few.

Those Malibu lights that line the driveway are always burning out or acting up. This is a much better solution.

True. These cars are a non-renewable supply. There are some cars out there that are the only known examples to exist. How sad if one of these were chopped and customized beyond repair so that the only way to see what they are supposed to look like is in some old b&w photos. On the other hand, most newer cars have zero character and personality, and are built by the hundreds of thousands. Yet nobody chops and customizes those. All they do is put on 22" wheels, some bolt on bling, 12 DVD players in the trunk (which I really don't get, I don't sit in my trunk to watch TV), and a huge stereo. I have seen 3 customs which impressed me. Unfortunately they are kits, not one-off special creations. First two are a 1953 and 1962 Corvette look-alike based on 1990-2000's Corvettes. The third is a 2000's era Town Car limo done up to look like a new Bentley. Why can't people do interesting things like that or take a new Town Car and put suicide doors on it and make it into a retro-'60's convertible. Or take a 1990's-2000's 2 door and chop the top and make a hardtop out of it. Now that would be impressive. #1, 2, and 3 have been done many times before.

Yes, but wheels can be unbolted and removed. It would be a lot harder to unchop a roof.

#3 as shown with no other info appears to be a tasteful, well-done (quality wise) street rod. I would not say it was butchered. That being said, I'd rather see it returned to stock if possible and would probably just walk right past it at a car show.

Yes, that is the problem. It is not two blocks of wood where simple physics rules apply. It makes a big difference if the 2009 Malibu hits a 1959 Chevy, another 2009 Malibu, or a 3600 lb. block of concrete. Same weight for the 3 different objects, but the result will not be the same. The same as if the 1959 Chevy rams into the drivers' side of the 2009 Malibu. The Malibu driver might not fare so well then. There is way too much gray area to make a blanket statement that new cars are always safer. As for the '60's video. Ever see a car door get stuck shut in an accident? Do you think the accident results would be the same if no door was there? Automakers always put reinforcements in the body when making a convertible. Aftermarket coachbuilders do the same when converting a car to a convertible. Ever see the cars advertised as "parade cars" where someone sawed the roof off and it doesn't have one? I rode in one of those where they supposedly did some reinforcing. You could feel the body flex over every pothole. So I am not going to believe that sawing the roof off or sawing holes in it is not going to affect the structural integrity of a car, new or old. I remember these videos from high school except then you were supposed to be watching them to see what happened when you didn't drive safely. Now they are being used to show how unsafe old cars are. Now they take a new car and crash test it. For these '60's and '70's videos, they did not use new cars. They took old beaters and crashed them. Some were probably ready to fall apart before they even got hit. So seats and doors flying may be a bad design, or may simply be a car in lousy shape. I worked for a gas station in the late '80's - early '90's. There were still a good number of 1970's cars on the road then. We had the state police towing contract and would frequently bring in accident vehicles. Ever see the plastic barrels in front of concrete barriers on the expressway? They absorb the energy from the car to lessen the impact/injuries on the passengers. A full size 1970's car will use the crumple zone of a newer car to absorb energy in that same manner. The 1970's car does not need to have the crumple zone itself. That leaves you with just airbags in you new car with less size and weight. I saw plenty of 1970's cars destroy 1980's and 1990's cars with no or minimal injuries to the passengers of the '70's car. As far as the 1950's and earlier, we did not bring in any accident victims that old. So I cannot say for sure. But I do not think all old cars would be as unsafe as a 1959 Chevy. The Smart Car is very well designed. It's crashworthiness is very impressive considering its size. But I do not think its passengers will be injury free when it is flying backwards into a tree after a head on collision. I'd rather be in a Smart Car vs. 1959 Metropolitan. But I would still rather be in a 1959 Imperial or 1970's Lincoln Town Car in an accident against a Smart Car. I walked away uninjured from 2 1970's Lincolns. So a couple of videos are not going to convince me that they are deathtraps. Plus my accidents were not carefully staged. They happened in the real world, where accidents happen. Not in some test room. By the way, if new cars are "safe", and old cars are "unsafe", what is the magical year that makes all cars "safe"? 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999, 2009?

I agree, what they start with makes just as big a difference as what the end result is. If they pull a rusty hulk out of a junkyard and build #3, well it was probably headed for the crusher anyway. If they take a repro body and build #1, I have no problem with that. If they take a beautiful condition original car and make #2 out of it (pun intended), I have a problem with that. Plus there is a current movement to use nice original or restored cars to build your rat rod or custom. According to many sites I have seen, it is so much easier to start with a restored car. You don't have to do any body repair and can just start chopping and cutting. Any parts taken off can either be sold to "some old fool that likes them stock" or scrapped. The cash you get can then be used for more chopping and customizing. An original car can always be appreciated. What happens when whatever current custom fad is over in 5 or 10 years? Can it be rebuilt or is it just sold for parts and scrapped?

Installing an electric fuel pump so that the car runs better is not butchering. It is minor and can be removed if someone wants to do that. The same with changing wheels. The 1957 Chevy in my post is butchered. A nice original was ruined, and it cannot be returned to stock. It had to be customized to make it "different", the same as all the other customized 1957 Chevys and black primer jobs.

Interesting that GM conducted its 1968 crash tests using early 1960's Chrysler products and a few Fords. None of these tests used seat belts which should have been optional at least on all these cars. They can be retrofitted now if the car doesn't have them. My point #1 from the previous post Do you think sawing big holes in or sawing off the roof and removing the doors might affect the structural integrity of the cars? How well would Smart Cars or Focuses do in these same tests with doors removed and roofs cut off? As seen in the other videos with S-Class Mercedes vs. Smart Cars and other small vs. large, size and weight do make a difference. These cars are all the same size and weight. Point#2 The only thing that this video seems to prove, is that Chrysler might have had a problem with its door latches in the early 1960's.

I'd say it definitely makes a difference what the car is before. Two true stories. First is a 1957 Chevy I saw at a local show. The guy told me it was from an old woman's estate. 2 door, light pink with white top, white, black, and silver interior in excellent condition, 26,000 original miles. He ripped out the 6 cylinder and put in a 350 with blower and sawed a hole through the hood for it. He was going to saw open the wheel wells and put on 22" wheels. Then he was going to gut the interior and put in velour bucket seats with flames, chop the top, and paint it flat black with flames. The quality of his work was not good either. I'd say that car was butchered. Too bad it couldn't have found a home with someone that would have treasured it as it was. 2nd car is a 1937 Packard 4 door. It was a rotting hulk in a junkyard, ready for the crusher. A guy bought it and removed the body from the rotten frame. He mounted it on the frame of a 1980's Cadillac stretch limo. He then custom built the stretch between the front and rear doors copying the window trim and matching the roofline. It used the original Cadillac engine and drivetrain. Interior was custom done to look kind of period but offer all the modern comforts. It is rented out for weddings. I'd say that was a nice job, and not butchered.

I guess that is supposed to be humorous? ALL cars including Duesenbergs, Packards, and Stanleys were used cars at one point. There wouldn't be any around now if no one collected them years ago. Interesting how some people can pontificate about how people can do whatever they want with their cars, yet still badmouth people for what they own.

Oh I see. So no one else is allowed to make comments about anything except you. Your opinion is so much better and more important. Guess what. 2010 models are now out. 1985 IS an antique whether you like it or not.

It is one of two combination coaches (hearse) special ordered in 1985. It has completely unique bodywork and looks like no other hearse.

Complaining over and over and over? I have one post out of 4 pages. There is a sign in the window explaining what the car is and its entire history. He answers any reasonable questions for people too lazy to read the sign. I know enough about it to answer any questions if he is not around. But most people would rather watch Pimp My Ride on the DVD player in their trunk than actually read or learn something. Then of course since he knows its entire history and we have personally met the coachbuilder and the customer that originally ordered them, there are always those people people that tell him he is wrong, and they know what it is better than he does. Especially since they have never seen one before.

No one has the right to tell anyone how to build their car. No one has the right to tell me what I am supposed to like or not like either. If I see a car, I am free to express my opinion of it. I wouldn't insult the owner to his face, but that doesn't mean I have to like or pretend to like his car. If I see a car that I would have liked to have bought, but a butchered custom job makes it not possible to return it to stock, it doesn't mean I can't be upset about that. Every car show on TV focuses on rodding and customizing. My friend has a car that is quite unique and one of only two built. Any time it is at a car show people have to come up to him and tell him how they would chop, tub, paint, put 22" wheels on it. It is a shame that people cannot appreciate a rare car for what it is, and feel that they have to customize it exactly the same as all the other customs to make it "different". So he has to hear these comments all the time, but cannot state that he likes cars to be stock? Maybe if there were some programs that showed how to properly restore a car back to stock condition correctly, and educate people on the value of rare stock originals, there would be more appreciation for them.

If you don't like the post or find it boring, no one is forcing you to read it.

Just out of curiosity, if you collect everything named Continental, why don't you have a 1940's Lincoln or Bentley?

The problem I have with this video is that it implies that all new cars are safer than all old cars. This is not the case. It is not new or old that makes you safe. However, that is considering both cars when new. Obviously rust, corrosion, dry rot and brittle and cracked things that happen as a normal part of a vehicles aging are of course going to make it weaker than when it was new. There are 3 things that make you safe. 1. Safety equipment. Seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, crumple zones. With two identical cars, the one equipped with these items will be safer than one that is not. 2. Size and weight of the vehicle. A large vehicle is going to do better against a small vehicle. All the safety equipment you can think of is not going to help your 2009 Malibu if you hit a freight train. 3. Design of the vehicle. A vehicle with a bad design, such as an X frame, is going to do worse than a box frame or other better designed vehicle. Sharp objects on the interior are indeed going to hurt more than flat plastic or rubber objects. So it is not just whether it is old or new. It is the combination of 1-3 in the vehicle vs. the combo in the vehicle it hits. Plus there are still unforseen circumstances. Such as an SUV doing well in an initial impact, but then injuring people when it flips over after the impact. In the 1959 vs. 2009 video, the '59 had no safety equipment, a bad design, and at 3600 lbs. no weight advantage over the 2009 Malibu. So is it really a surprise that with #1 and 3 advantages the Malibu won? However, if they were to take a 1959 Imperial at 4800 lbs. and a frame and body design that has caused it be crowned king of the demo derby and even banned in most, and equip it with seat belts that were optional on it, there might be some different results against a 2009 Malibu at 3450 lbs. or even 2009 Chrysler 300 at 3600 lbs. Use the 1959 Imperial against a 2009 Smart Car, and I definitely think you will not be getting the results that newer is better. I have been in two accidents with 1978-79 Lincoln Mark V's vs. newer cars. I am not dead, injured, in fact I felt nothing except a small bump in both accidents. The occupants of the newer car were taken to the hospital. The fact that they say they were specifically looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash leads me to believe that they were specifically looking for a 1959 Bel Air as opposed to any 50 year old car. I believe they knew its weaknesses and wanted to use them to their advantage. Also what has the IIHS actually done to improve vehicle safety? I would say that seat belts would make the biggest difference in safety. Ford and Packard offered them as options in 1956. Maybe others offered them earlier. IIHS came along in 1959, so what did they have to do with them? In fact I believe that the automakers are the ones that came up with the all the safety innovations, not IIHS. GM had airbags in 1974. Now if the IIHS could compile a list of what innovations they have come up with, or what specific contributions they have actually made, not just crashing cars and reporting results, then show how this safety innovation saves lives as compared to a vehicle not equipped with it, then I would be impressed. To simply take an old rusty, poorly designed car with no safety features and crash it, and then imply that this it what happens when any old car hits any new car, and it is all because of them, is B.S. Just because a car is old or new does not mean it is safe or unsafe.

A 2009 Prius is more fuel effecient than old Cadillacs and Lincolns, therefore all new cars get better mileage than all old cars. Not true, Metropolitans get great mileage and new Hummers do not. New Corvettes are faster than Metropolitans, therefore all new cars are faster than all old cars. Not true, new Toyota Echos are not fast and old Corvettes and Hemi 'Cudas are not slow. A 2009 Malibu is better than a 1959 Chevy with a rusty and poorly designed X frame. Therefore ALL new cars are better than ALL old cars in an accident. That is just as ridiculous as either of the other two comments. I have been in two accidents with Lincoln Mark V's vs. newer cars. In both accidents I was very glad I was in the Mark V. I am not dead, the steering column did not impale me. In fact I felt absolutely nothing other than a small bump when I was in the car. I could not believe the amount of damage when I got out of the car. In the one accident, the occupants of the newer car were taken to the hospital. I didn't have a scratch. Is this how they test new cars? The 2009 Malibu does well in a test, so there is absolutely no need to test any other new cars? We will just assume that all new cars are wonderful because the Malibu tested well. But obviously all old cars are bad because a 50 year old 1959 Chevy did not do well. Not to mention that testing a anything, not just car, but anything 50 years old against something brand new is obviously not a fair test. The 50 year old item has 50 years of age, wear and tear on it whereas the new item has zero. How well will a Malibu perform when it is 50 years old? After 5, 10, or 20 years of salty winter streets, is it going to perform just as well as when it was brand new? How a car is going to perform in an accident depends on its design, age, size, condition, what it hits, etc. Not just whether it is a new car or old car.

I would say I'd rather see the car go to someone who would show it and drive it as opposed to someone who would just lock it away. However, either seems like a good home for the car. If I were selling an antique car I would try to make sure that it found a good home with someone that would not hod rod, wreck, or abuse it. You have no control what happens afterwards, but a guy that shows up with a street rod or demo derby jacket would not be very convincing saying he is not going to rod or demo it.. Even so the owner of my '79 Lincoln sold it to me for less than others because I promised to take care of it. I did for 11 years until it was rear ended and totaled. I still feel guilty, which I guess is stupid, it wasn't my fault. But you can never guarantee the future of anything you sell even if you find the right person.