Jump to content

I found a car that I'd love to own, but


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, auburnseeker said:

 I saw a dandy Hollywood Hardtop for sale recently.  I often forget they made a hardtop as you usually see post models. 

Hollywoods are pretty scarce. They're nice looking cars, but for some reason I've always found a coupe even more attractive. The Broughams (2dr sedans) were the nicest looking Step Down made. Their proportions were perfect, in my opinion.  I can't believe that they relegated that body to the lower priced models and not the Hornets or Commodores. Of course, as you guys know, Hudson wasn't making very good decisions in those years.

 

 

 

 

Image result for 1949 hudson brougham

Edited by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hudsy Wudsy said:

 

Sadly, the dash was one of the weakest points in a '39 Chrysler. The plastic which surrounds the gauge set was an early plastic, tenite, perhaps(?), and prone to warping and cracking in some climes. Also, the paint under the glass was prone to peeling. Xander, you joked earlier about putting a Hudson engine in this Chrysler. Coincidently, I have a 254 (eight cylinder) out in my garage with everything needed to rebuild it. That wonderful, whisper quite old splasher would be a big step up from that "teenager's dream" that is under the hood now.

I do not know the years, but a Chrysler guy told me that around the war when petroleum products were not in large supply. the plastic parts on the Chrysler"s were made from soy bean oil. And they did not last, and had a funky smell. The Hudson club coupe is the only way to go. But you have to lower the sun visor to follow the roof line. Have never owned a two door brougham, had a 52 Hollywood hard top. And a 53 Hornet club coupe, but the hood ornament went south on the 53. They fixed it on the 54, picking up the accent lines on the hood. And what is the deal on the 53 interior? Who thought that was a good idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Xander Wildeisen said:

I do not know the years, but a Chrysler guy told me that around the war when petroleum products were not in large supply. the plastic parts on the Chrysler"s were made from soy bean oil. And they did not last, and had a funky smell. The Hudson club coupe is the only way to go. But you have to lower the sun visor to follow the roof line. Have never owned a two door brougham, had a 52 Hollywood hard top. And a 53 Hornet club coupe, but the hood ornament went south on the 53. They fixed it on the 54, picking up the accent lines on the hood. And what is the deal on the 53 interior? Who thought that was a good idea?

As Hudson continued to be in the red financially,  exterior and interior trim reflected the hard times....less ashtrays, no headliner trim, less stainless on the exterior, and so on. '52 Hornet was the Zenith for style, pizazz, and quality materials....it was all downhill after that. As for the Hollywood, IMHO it lost the look of the cool stepdown design with the high roof line with  way too much glass. Remember....its always dark in a Hudson!

20180224_135439.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be my problem.  With the price of a Hollywood Hardtop,  you can get a convertible,  so why not have a hardtop look that you can lower down on nice days? 

8 hours ago, 1937hd45 said:

NOBODY has the money to afford the purchase of a Top Shelf Historic Hot Rod, much less the desire to make it stock again. 

 

 Well if someone wants an original paint  (still very presentable) finished in 1958 27 T on Deuce rails with tons of period tricks,  very well built and finished,  I might have a slightly more affordable one.  Though I need to get enough out of it to buy a 31-33 Auburn Conv't Sedan or Cabrio.  Around #3 shape.  

I have the history and it was and still is the track record holder as they tore the track down,  though they have reunion runs at a nearby track for it.  It was class record holder in the street roadster with a flathead V8.   

Being a dragster it is finished better than many of the Magazine cars of the day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sftamx1 said:

As Hudson continued to be in the red financially,  exterior and interior trim reflected the hard times....less ashtrays, no headliner trim, less stainless on the exterior, and so on. '52 Hornet was the Zenith for style, pizazz, and quality materials....it was all downhill after that. As for the Hollywood, IMHO it lost the look of the cool stepdown design with the high roof line with  way too much glass. Remember....its always dark in a Hudson!

20180224_135439.jpg

 

This picture takes me back fifty years. I had a Dalmatian that loved to ride in the deck shelf of my blue '49 Brougham. The second that I opened the door, he would barge past me and take his place up there. You know,  I think that you're right about the roof line on the Hollywoods being just a little too high, especially toward the rear. I remember the first time that I saw a Step Down convertible. I was just blown away by that substantial header above the windshield. It simply wasn't like anything else that I had ever seen. I think, from my casual observations, that the price of Hudson converts has leveled off some. There are still some selling for over $100K, but I see more under $50K than I have in quite a while.

Edited by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I saw that car out and about in my travels, I’d certainly stop to take a look at it. If by chance I saw the SBC motor, I’d slowly close the hood and walk away quietly. 

 

I wouldn't have anything nice to say. So like Pappa said, “keep your mouth shut and you’ll be fine”. 

 

To each their own. Speaking for myself only, the car is, well...Not for me. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 10:56 AM, 1912Staver said:

Matt , you must go to much better swap meets than I do. Last C.J. I built was $ 9,500.00 { the good old days when the looney was close to par} in parts and machine work, excluding the cost of the core, and no forced induction just a single 4160 Holley on a sidewinder. And it ran 550 on a chassis dyno with a S/S legal cam and stock C.J. manifolds into street legal turbo's. Mind you there was also a second hand set of Dove heads I got a very good deal on

The first guy can dump tens of thousands of dollars on parts and the rebuild of an engine but when it comes time to sell,  you will be lucky to get much more than 25 percent of that investment.  Especially if the seller is in a pinch.  Think of all the old engines we see on here from guys resto rodding their car. You can often buy a completely rebuilt engine and the rest of the drivetrain/ underpinnings for 1500.   Even with a pile of receipts for all the work done on those parts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

when it comes time to sell,  you will be lucky to get much more than 25 percent of that investment.

For years I have been saying for every $1,000 more you are willing to pay you can get $4,000 worth of the other guy's work.

 

Oh, the other thing, from observation I have learned to split my money pretty close to even between mechanical and cosmetic. Just in case the is a fire sale- shiny sells.

Bernie

Edited by 60FlatTop (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, auburnseeker said:

The first guy can dump tens of thousands of dollars on parts and the rebuild of an engine but when it comes time to sell,  you will be lucky to get much more than 25 percent of that investment.  Especially if the seller is in a pinch.  Think of all the old engines we see on here from guys resto rodding their car. You can often buy a completely rebuilt engine and the rest of the drivetrain/ underpinnings for 1500.   Even with a pile of receipts for all the work done on those parts. 

 

C.J.'s are a bit of an exception. I didn't make any money but time excluded came close to breaking even. And that was without the sidewinder intake which I still have on a shelf. And I had my fun with it. Even core CJ's aren't cheap. It went into a pretty spendy Cobra replica . I definitely made a profit on the 427 Lo- riser I later sold to the same guy.

Greg

Edited by 1912Staver (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an auto spell feature that keeps sneaking in. Winder was the word. With the i pronounced like y, not winder like I have in my house.

 

I had a Ford. It was a pretty good car. Didn't buy another because I figured I'd be pushing my luck. Kind of like the one Volkswagen I had.

 

To the old Chrysler, on topic. That Buick Roadmaster comparison falls short. Like Packard, Chrysler stretched the wheelbase for the longer engines, but shared bodies across makes. A New Yorker or Windsor would have the same body. Buick didn't do that. I was working on a '49 New Yorker two years ago and it was a '49 Plymouth body with long front fenders. With a Buick you get more.

image.png.91b3320a298c8141f6d63d73229dfabb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 9:00 AM, 60FlatTop said:

There is an auto spell feature that keeps sneaking in. Winder was the word. With the i pronounced like y, not winder like I have in my house.

 

I had a Ford. It was a pretty good car. Didn't buy another because I figured I'd be pushing my luck. Kind of like the one Volkswagen I had.

 

To the old Chrysler, on topic. That Buick Roadmaster comparison falls short. Like Packard, Chrysler stretched the wheelbase for the longer engines, but shared bodies across makes. A New Yorker or Windsor would have the same body. Buick didn't do that. I was working on a '49 New Yorker two years ago and it was a '49 Plymouth body with long front fenders. With a Buick you get more.

image.png.91b3320a298c8141f6d63d73229dfabb.png

You're absolutely right. The Roadmaster analogy was feeble. I should have qualified that more. Still, in the four model line up, New Yorker was positioned in a relatively similar position as a Roadmaster.

Edited by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 8:21 PM, Hudsy Wudsy said:

Here's three '39 New Yorkers from Google, including a coupe. That long wheelbase on the coupe is mighty sexy:

Image result for 1939 new yorker

 

 

I think the red one with the sidemounts looks awesome! You'd think that the old-fashioned sidemounts would fight with the fresh fastback styling, but I disagree. It looks big, expensive, and impressive, which is surely the intent. I wish I'd discovered Chryslers earlier in my car career, because I have yet to have one pass through my hands that I didn't find to be an excellent car with superior road manners for its period.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

I think the red one with the sidemounts looks awesome! You'd think that the old-fashioned sidemounts would fight with the fresh fastback styling, but I disagree. It looks big, expensive, and impressive, which is surely the intent. I wish I'd discovered Chryslers earlier in my car career, because I have yet to have one pass through my hands that I didn't find to be an excellent car with superior road manners for its period.

Yes, Matt, I agree with you. I think that the hood line is still high enough that the side mounts blend in nicely. I wish I could remember more about the bodies Chrysler Corp used in this unique year. Maybe there was a fire or a strike at the Briggs plant, but I'm really punting on that point. Perhaps someone will chime in that actually knows what I'm talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall now that '39 was a year when Hayes bodied coupes were available from Chrysler, DeSoto and Dodge. Mercury also offered a Hayes coupe body for '39 and '40. They were distinctive with their narrow "B" pillars, but their bulbous roof lines and low, short decks left me cold. I actually think now that the whole '39 Chrysler body line may have been made by Hayes. The exception to that was the Plymouth bodies which were holdovers from '38 with the addition of a new two piece windshield and cowl.

 

1939 Chrysler Windsor Coupe:

 

1939 Chrysler Model C-22 Royal Windsor Hayes Victoria Coupe r3q

 

 

Edited by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

There is an auto spell feature that keeps sneaking in. Winder was the word. With the i pronounced like y, not winder like I have in my house.

 

I had a Ford. It was a pretty good car. Didn't buy another because I figured I'd be pushing my luck. Kind of like the one Volkswagen I had.

 

To the old Chrysler, on topic. That Buick Roadmaster comparison falls short. Like Packard, Chrysler stretched the wheelbase for the longer engines, but shared bodies across makes. A New Yorker or Windsor would have the same body. Buick didn't do that. I was working on a '49 New Yorker two years ago and it was a '49 Plymouth body with long front fenders. With a Buick you get more.

image.png.91b3320a298c8141f6d63d73229dfabb.png

Plymouth didn't share bodies with Chrysler. 1949 Plymouth and Dodge shared bodies, DeSoto and Chrysler shared bodies but they were much bigger. An easy mistake to make because they all looked very much alike. That was the year they basically had no styling department, everything was designed by the engineers and it shows.

 

Interesting comparison of new 1950 Chrysler New Yorker vs Buick Roadmaster. See which one gave you more.

 

 

Edited by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Only the small run of Hayes-bodied coupes were the only bodies Hayes built for Chrysler who sourced the others from Briggs. Hayes was building Combination Coupes for Graham Sharknose with the same handsome thin, chrome window frames.   The '39-'40 Mercury coupes of similar detail were Murray is memory serves.

 

About twenty to twenty-five years ago at the Dunkirk Flea Market, I came upon an unrestored original black 1939 Chrysler C-23 (eight cylinder) Victoria Coupe by Hayes on a car trailer for sale.  There were only 35 Imperials, 99 New Yorkers and 134 Saratoga Victoria Coupes built, it was a New Yorker, in decent, restorable condition. I never saw or heard anything of it again.  Does anyone know of this car and its disposition?

 

Steve 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 To put that car on this web site is sure to rouse a few (or more) feathers.

 I had a similar car that was beyond restoration (money and labor wise) that I replaced the chassis under it and then sold it for above the price listed.

 The appearance was similar, and was a real attention getter. When I showed up at many shows, they wanted me to put it in the antique class.

 Because I like to weld and manufacture different things, it was just what I wanted and also just what the new owner wanted. he has taken many trophy's with it and loves to drive it.

 I only sold it because I wanted to build another car and I have too many others to store it.

 So to condemn a car because you don't like it, is like telling others that if you don't do it my way, it is no good, because I am the supreme authority on all cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Roger Walling said:

is like telling others that if you don't do it my way, it is no good, because I am the supreme authority on all cars.

 

THAT'S exactly what I have been trying to put my finger on since 1961. Well worded.

Bernie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roger Walling said:

 To put that car on this web site is sure to rouse a few (or more) feathers.

 I had a similar car that was beyond restoration (money and labor wise) that I replaced the chassis under it and then sold it for above the price listed.

 The appearance was similar, and was a real attention getter. When I showed up at many shows, they wanted me to put it in the antique class.

 Because I like to weld and manufacture different things, it was just what I wanted and also just what the new owner wanted. he has taken many trophy's with it and loves to drive it.

 I only sold it because I wanted to build another car and I have too many others to store it.

 So to condemn a car because you don't like it, is like telling others that if you don't do it my way, it is no good, because I am the supreme authority on all cars.

If you are talking about the car at the very beginning of this thread, the '39 New Yorker, then you should reread my words. I'm not condemning the car. I love the car. Why would you liken it to your car "that was beyond restoration'"? Even if this Chrysler needed an engine and a transmission, they would have been available with a little searching and probably at a lower price than a big block Chev engine with a blower.  No, I don't condemn the car. I, along with quite a few others who have weighed in here, simply dislike the poor judgement of whoever thought that putting a monstrous, loud, gas guzzling engine into it was a good idea. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roger Walling said:

 To put that car on this web site is sure to rouse a few (or more) feathers.

 

So, you're saying that I'm being too provocative by bringing this car to the attention of likeminded folks? You know this isn't the H.A.M.B., correct?

Edited by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hudsy Wudsy said:

So, you're saying that I'm being too provocative by bringing this car to the attention of likeminded folks? You know this isn't the H.A.M.B., correct?

 

 My post was not in reply to your original post but to comments made or inferred by others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

It seems to me that there is just one too many elements up front on these Chryslers. I think that the two horizontal bars in the center of the bumper detract from or conflicts with the neat waterfall grille. Here simpler might have been better:

 

1

Edited by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Peter S said:

it's maybe a grille-protector...

 

I'm sure that you're right about that, Peter, and I wouldn't have had any better idea even if some Chrysler designer had asked me. (time travel involved there.) Still, I like the grille lots more than I'm bothered by the bumper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me say something.  I've been oggling late 1930's to 1949 cars since I was about 10 years old.  My grandparents owned a 1939 Chrysler during all those years.  Because of that I've always had a soft spot for them.  In all these years I've only seen ONE with dual sidemounts (or even one sidemount which I've never seen).  I looked at that one car in Knoxville, TN a little over 20 years ago.  It was missing the emblems in the center of at least one sidemount cover.  I figured that would be impossible to find.  1939 Chryslers had pearlized plastic facing over much of the dash, and especially the glovebox door.  I remember as a small child how that was all cracked and warped in my grandfather's car.  To add to the rarity of this particular Chrysler pictured, it looks like the glovebox door is good.  That alone would be worth $500-1200 if the picture is correct.  Without cracking they are 100 x impossible to find.  To think that somebody would ruin this particular car, while not even painting it, to me, is unthinkable.  Why people with a penchant to change the wheels, engine, put in front clips and all of that can't pick on ordinary and more plentiful cars is beyond me.    Either you want an antique car or you don't.  Any car as rare as this one should be restored and saved.  It only goes back to the lack of interest and respect today for the cars that brought America through World War II and into the "Fabulous Fifties"  To me that is sad.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I am a restorer. I pay attention to the smallest detail in order to do a car the way it sat on the showroom floor after dealer prep.  For me, originality is everything.  One must remember that a car is an inanimate object. 

It is as dead as a rock.  If a guy does not hit his wife, abuse his his children or kick his dog,  he can do what ever he pleases to his car.  Get over it ! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...