Orphan Car Defined

[mrsq]

I would like to hear the accurate definition of what an Orphan Car is. Please respond. Also must an Orphan Car be stock?

[Peter Gariepy]

Orphans are typically defined as cars whos original manufacturer is no long in business. ie: Edsel, DeSoto, Studebaker, Hudson, Packard, etc.

Stock or modified - its still an orphan.

[Barry Wolk]

A couple of years ago I got The Orphan Car Show to accept the Continental Mark II because the Continental Division ceased existence in1958.

[John]

If DeSoto and Edsel are orphans then so are Plymouth and Oldsmobile?

John

[mrpushbutton]

I think the term "Orphan car" was coined to denote cars made by (now extinct) companies that were not part of large industrial combines like Ford, Chrysler and (the ultimate combine) General Motors. The term "orphan" was being used in the automotive industry and press in the early-mid 1950's to describe Packard,Studebaker, Hudson, Nash, Willys, and kaiser-Fraizer, while those companies were trying to survive. The term has since been widened to include brands no longer made by the big three such as Edsel and now Plymouth and Oldsmobile.

One thing is for sure: it's a "think big three" world here in the US. I don't know how many times I've been ased at a stoplight

Q:"what is that?"

A: "Packard"

Q: "what year?"

A: "1956"

Q: "who made Packard?"

A: "Packard made Packard"

Q: "did GM make Packards?"

time to drive on

[mrpushbutton]

"must an orphan car be stock" Loaded question on this board.

I like all cars to be stock, but that is quickly going out of fashon these days. If you have a Studebaker and lets just say for the sake of argument you give it the "#1 streetrod treatment" which goes as follows:

350 cu. in. small block Chevy engine W/ Holley carb

T-350 auto transmission

GM tilt column with custom small wheel

Ford 9" rear end

all the "sissy rod" stuff like power windows, seats, air conditioning,thumping stereo system, etc. (why not just buy a Plymouth Prowler and call it a day?)

many coats of candy apple paint, a very vivid, non-original color/scheme, including painting the bumpers (whcih should be chrome) body color.

So, someone does all that. Is the car still a Studebaker?

I tend to feel that it is not. It is now something else, branded by that builder's whims.

[Restorer32]

To quote from my 1922 Dykes Manual "An orphan car is one which is no longer being manufactured". They then go on to list several hundred sources of parts for "orphaned cars". Those of you working on an AMERICAN UNDERSLUNG are directed to the American Motor Parts Co in Indianapolis. For parts for a CINCO contact Auto Salvage Co in Kansas City.

[1937hd45]

They stopped making Plymouths? When did that happen?

[Guest AlK]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1937hd45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They stopped making Plymouths? When did that happen? </div></div>

About 3 to 4 years ago!!!!!!!!!

[West Peterson]

It seems the definition of "orphan," as used by the old car hobby, is exactly opposite of Webster's definition...

Old Car Hobby: "A car (child) no longer being manufactured"

Websters: "A child (car) deprived by death of its parents."

The parents of DeSoto, Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Edsel, Continental, Camaro, Firebird, et al, are not dead. They are accepted at orphan car shows so that the show will be more successful. No other reason.

I suppose it could be argued that Oldsmobile is an "orphan," cuz once upon a time it was a stand-alone maker.

That's my opinion. No disrespect meant to anyone.

[Peter Gariepy]

West,

I see it opposite of you.

Old Car Hobby Orphan: "A car who's manufacturer has gone out of business"

Orphan: "A child who's parents have died."

I agree that that Plymouth and Oldsmobile are technically orphans - although I dont think the hobby in general considers them so -- yet.

I dont agree that Camaros and Firebirds are orphans, their manufacturer exists, just the product that died. Otherwise there would be hundreds of other cars considered orphans - Pinto, Pacer, New Yorker, Duster, etc. etc.

[West Peterson]

I don't think we're on opposite sides, Peter. I think we have a difference in opinion as who the parent is...

My feeling is that the manufacturers of DeSoto, Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Edsel, Continental are still alive. The parent of DeSoto and Plymouth is Chrysler; and the parent of Edsel and Continental is Ford; and the parent of Oldsmobile is General Motors.

I do not consider "Divisions" as being parents. I consider Divisions as being siblings.

Chevrolet and Oldsmobile are siblings. General Motors killed one of its siblings.

Edsel, Continental, Mercury, Lincoln and Ford (brands) are siblings, Ford (corp.) killed two of its siblings.

[Jay Wolf]

Every show I have been to there is always a Corvair in the orphan class. I used to enter the orphan class with my Amphicar and my Elgin. (True orphans)

[Peter Gariepy]

West,

I'm with ya - but you gotta admit cars like DeSoto and Edsel always seem to have the Orphan label?

[Peter Gariepy]

Hey... lets simply start an "OFFICIAL ORPHAN CARS LIST"

Simply copy/ paste my list into your post if you are going to add, delete, update, etc. Please be sure to state your case when deleting. I'll start:

Packard

Studebaker

Hudson

Rambler

Kaiser

Fraser

Crosley

King Midget

[Peter Gariepy]

Just a side note:

Prewar cars never seem to be labeled orphans, it always seems to be postwar. Thoughts?

Peter

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Peter Gariepy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prewar cars never seem to be labeled orphans, it always seems to be postwar. Thoughts?</div></div>

Good question. Of course, that list would be 5,000 strong!

With so many non-orphan cars labled as such, and there not really being a fixed rule on its definition (i.e. Corvairs accepted, but not Camaros???), how about we just drop the term altogether?

[mrpushbutton]

I think we should start an "Orphan Car Club of America (OCCA for short), we should get together a panel of experts and decide what IS and IS NOT an orphan, hold fast to that list (unless someone high up gets a real deal on a clean, low mile, unmolested Olds, Plymouth or other "gray area" car, then that model will be added to the list quietly).

We will have judging meets that all take place on the same day throughout the country so that our OCCA first place awards can't be shopped around. We will look down our noses at other big three offerings, and become incensed if someone throws around the term "orphan" loosely, and not within our chosen definition. It will become such a twist in our undies that we will declare that only the cars on our list to be "full orphans". The elders among us can tell the younger of the halcyon days when no one wanted orphan cars and they could be bought for cheap.

We can have one lady in the midwest run everything and be the queen bee of the group.

[Restorer32]

You are only an orphan until you reach the age of majority, usually considered to be 18. After that age you are just an adult whose parents have died. Therefore I would define an orphan car as a car that was cast out by its parents before it was fully developed and could fend for itself.

[West Peterson]

Here's a question: What would be a better term for the cars that "orphan" show organizers are trying to attract?

[Barry Wolk]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrpushbutton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think we should start an "Orphan Car Club of America (OCCA for short), we should get together a panel of experts and decide what IS and IS NOT an orphan, hold fast to that list (unless someone high up gets a real deal on a clean, low mile, unmolested Olds, Plymouth or other "gray area" car, then that model will be added to the list quietly).

We will have judging meets that all take place on the same day throughout the country so that our OCCA first place awards can't be shopped around. We will look down our noses at other big three offerings, and become incensed if someone throws around the term "orphan" loosely, and not within our chosen definition. It will become such a twist in our undies that we will declare that only the cars on our list to be "full orphans". The elders among us can tell the younger of the halcyon days when no one wanted orphan cars and they could be bought for cheap.

We can have one lady in the midwest run everything and be the queen bee of the group.

</div></div>

ROTFL. That was great!

[mrsq]

Thank You all for your imput. I sponsor an Orphan Trophy at our club's Friendship Meet, open to all vehicles, every year and there is always some sort of discussion on my choice. This year it was a Nash with a modern V-8 in it. The Nash's body was kept stock looking. It just is not practicle to drive an older car with the stock running gear for any distance. I do, however, try to give the trophy to a stock orphan (Whose parent company no longer produces vehicles). As can be seen by the postings here, it is an expirence trying to define the term. Thanks again for the interesting discussion.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Mr. Peterson, obviously you are a youngster and do not understand the real history of these "divisions". Back in the day before consolidation the Divisions were pretty much autonomous with their own plants, own parts, own engineering, etc.

I think some of these are indeed orphans (Oldsmobile,Plymouth)as they no longer have any visible means of support! GM and Chrysler are still around but they no longer are supporting DeSoto,Edsel, etc. Corvair in my mind was a model and not a separate service agreement so technically they should not be considered an orphan.

Hey this is all my twisted logic but it is mine!

[MCHinson]

I think you know it when you see it, but it is obviously open to a lot of intrepretation. I also always thought of the different GM Divisions as separate companies and thus consider my Oldsmobile Silhouette a recently orphaned vehicle.

West, I never thought of GM as a murderous parent....

I have been informed and amused, by this discussion.

So, I guess my Oldsmobile will get me into the OCCA!?!

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steve Moskowitz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr. Peterson, obviously you are a youngster and do not understand the real history of these "divisions". Back in the day before consolidation the Divisions were pretty much autonomous with their own plants, own parts, own engineering, etc.</div></div>

I cannot argue with you on your first point, and I don't disagree with most your second point. While autonomous with plants, parts, engineering, styling, etc., they were still under the umbrella of the "Parent Corporation." Who made the decisions to build (and to stop building) these cars?

Was it Oldsmobile that decided to stop building cars... or was it GM?

[MCHinson]

West, I guess we should listen to our Elders.... (Especially the "Elderly Gentleman" among them)

[Steve Moskowitz]

Since you are "ill" today I will spare you the history lesson young man. But the legal entity of Oldsmobile was entirely different pre-197?. Actually I have the exact date that Olds Motor Works was still the legal company squirreled away some place and shockingly it was not changed until modern times.

Yes, GM did commit the murder, no question on that but again if there is no parent to provide the nurturing, support and no longer recognizes the "sibling" as family than they are an ORPHAN! Makes sense to me anyway!

[West Peterson]

Actually, in one of my earlier reponses WAAAY up there, I did say that an argument could be made in the case of Oldsmobile.

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Steve Moskowitz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and no longer recognizes the "sibling" as family than they are an ORPHAN!</div></div>

I bet if you tried to market anything with Oldsmobile's logo or likeness, you just might find that they'd recognize the sibling... Same for Plymouth, Edsel, DeSoto, et al.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Uh, wippersnapper, you are right about that but that is strictly a "will" issue that was handled in probate. The fact is that there are no more sales and service agreements for these brands and thus no support. Quit arguing with me, I am right and you are wrong. Besides if you persist I will bring up a certain subject...

[West Peterson]

How 'bout them Braves, eh? I guess the dynasty's over! And did you read about that Santana guy from Minnesota. Quite a pitcher, he is. Must be getting close to free agency arbitration... And those Tigers. Could they try any harder not to win the pennant again this year. Do you remember last year's last game of the season fiasco? Of course, they made up for it in the play-offs, but still...

[novaman]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My feeling is that the manufacturers of DeSoto, Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Edsel, Continental are still alive. The parent of DeSoto and Plymouth is Chrysler; and the parent of Edsel and Continental is Ford; and the parent of Oldsmobile is General Motors.

I do not consider "Divisions" as being parents. I consider Divisions as being siblings.

Chevrolet and Oldsmobile are siblings. General Motors killed one of its siblings.

Edsel, Continental, Mercury, Lincoln and Ford (brands) are siblings, Ford (corp.) killed two of its siblings. </div></div>

West, I tend to disagree with you on this. Here's why. I would think you would agree with me that Maxwell, Kaiser, Fraiser, Willys-Knight, Stearns, Stearns-Knight, Willys -Overland, Overland, AMC, Hudson, Nash are all orphan cars. Under your definiation, they would not be as they all fall under Dimlar-Chrylser.

Maxwell was bought by Chrysler.

Stearns became Streans-Knight which was bought by Willys.

Overland became part of Willys.

Kaiser merged with Fraiser to form Kaiser-Fraiser then became part of Willys and ended up as Kaiser Jeep.

Nash and Hudson merged and became AMC

1970 AMC merged with Kaiser Jeep and became AMC Jeep

About 1987 Chrysler bought Jeep and dropped the AMC name/line.

More recently Chrylser merged with Diamlar.

Therefore there is still a parent company still manufacturing vehicles. Think of it this way, if it hadn't been for Willys, we would not have the Jeep. Therefore Diamlar-Chrylser would not be producing Jeeps today. In each merger/ buyout a part of that "orphan" company remains in the new "merged" company. I'm sure the companies were not bought out or merged with soley to cut out competition. It was because they had something to offer the other comapany.

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: novaman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> My feeling is that the manufacturers of DeSoto, Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Edsel, Continental are still alive. The parent of DeSoto and Plymouth is Chrysler; and the parent of Edsel and Continental is Ford; and the parent of Oldsmobile is General Motors.

I do not consider "Divisions" as being parents. I consider Divisions as being siblings.

Chevrolet and Oldsmobile are siblings. General Motors killed one of its siblings.

Edsel, Continental, Mercury, Lincoln and Ford (brands) are siblings, Ford (corp.) killed two of its siblings. </div></div>

West, I tend to disagree with you on this. Here's why. I would think you would agree with me that Maxwell, Kaiser, Fraiser, Willys-Knight, Stearns, Stearns-Knight, Willys -Overland, Overland, AMC, Hudson, Nash are all orphan cars. Under your definiation, they would not be as they all fall under Dimlar-Chrylser. </div></div>

You're grasping at straws, Novaman. If you go back to the first response in this Post, Peter says "original manufacturer," and that's where I'm basing my argument. However, I feel Steve has made a good point, and I don't say that cuz he's holding something over my head.

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mrsq</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Nash's body was kept stock looking. It just is not practicle to drive an older car with the stock running gear for any distance.</div></div>

Did anyone pick up on this? What's up with that??!!!

[TG57Roadmaster]

Guess I'll have to put the Roadmistress up on blocks till I find a Mustang II front end and "modern" running gear for her.

Shall I go Chevy small-block or an LT-1?

Decisions, decisions!

TG

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TG57Roadmaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guess I'll have to put the Roadmistress up on blocks till I find a Mustang II front end and "modern" running gear for her.

Shall I go Chevy small-block or an LT-1?

Decisions, decisions!

TG </div></div>

I think they're both small blocks, but I'd go with the crate 383 Chevy small block stroker, 510HP, 490 ft.-lb. torque, mechanical roller/forged rotating assembly, and Dart Pro-One aluminum heads. This gives you good mid to high end power. Don't forget to top it all of by chroming EVERYTHING under the hood. Everyone loves that.

[mrpushbutton]

"The Nash's body was kept stock looking. It just is not practical to drive an older car with the stock running gear for any distance".

Tell that to people who take totally stock cars, with old flat head engines on tours, driving hundreds of miles each day. I have a friend who has taken his 1917 Packard on tours, keeping up with traffic just fine.

I think there are two kinds of people in the hobby, those who respect and enjoy the challenge of keeping a car original, learn how to turn back the clock re: drivability, cooling systems, brakes, suspension etc. and enjoy that car as it was built, and there are those who only embrace the street rod--modification hobby. Every car NEEDS a small block Chevy engine, auto trans, etc. to be "reliable" or "drivable".

we're a pretty orthodox group here, the cars I have seen at the AACA fall Hershey meet have been some of the finest examples of cars restored (well, over-restored actually) to the original configuration.

To my (stick-in-the-mud) way of thinking, the owner of the Nash decided that the Nash corporation did not know how to make an engine, or a car (by extension--the engine is the heart of a car) and so they modified it to what they know to be "right", probably a big three power plant, dollars-to-doughnuts it's a small block Chevy, an engine that in no way is an orphan.

As powerless president of the OCCA (the queen bee in the midwest has the true power) I object to this misuse of the term "orphan" to desctibe this car!

Having ranted all of that, keep on gifting that award for that show, as you see fit. There are so few orphans at some shows that you can't get too picky in the big, bad GM-Ford-Chrysler world we live in.

Note to Novaman: Chrysler is no longer Daimler-Chrysler (pronounced "Damn-near Chrysler") it is the NEW Chrysler, or just Chrysler, for short.

The Walter P. Chrylser Museum sponsors the Ypsilanti orphan car show every first Sunday in June. Those of you who enjoy "those weird cars" would enjoy taking part in this growing, great event.

[TG57Roadmaster]

Going to high school in Kenosha, WI, in the early '70's, it was a treat to go to the first-ever Nash-LaFayette Club held there in the summer of 1971.

There were Bathtub Nashes, Nash-Healeys, Metropolitans, LaFayettes, and Nashes of all descriptions in attendance.

I can not, and <span style="font-style: italic">will</span> not <span style="font-weight: bold">ever</span> accept that because Chrysler bought AMC, those cars (and all their forebears) have magically morphed into Chrysler products!

Even though Charlie Nash and W. P. Chrysler were friends and contemporaries, the former must be spinning in his grave at the thought of his cars being included at Mopar shows.

Y'all, this is why we have marque clubs; to revel in the uniqueness of individual makes.

Long Live Quirky Orphans!

TG

[TG57Roadmaster]

West, should I tub the Roadmistress while I'm at it, or will that affect its highway-cruising performance?

TG

[West Peterson]

Tubbing, as far as I know, is when you put on those super-wide racing slicks in the back, and have to completely re-do the trunk to make them fit within the body. That will certainly affect highway performance and I wouldn't do it... but it's purely a personal decision. It's your car. However, I would install the very popular scissors doors on it. Those attract chicks (the real smart ones) faster than tiger mosquitos to fresh flesh at 3pm in the afternoon!