Hudsy Wudsy

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

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different CJ and definitely a different Sidewinder. But it's a Ford thing, the brand X guy's won't understand.

 

Greg

001-detailing-428-cobra-jet-engine.jpg

s-l640.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have to laugh...I know that I hijacked my own thread by talking about Hudsons, but what the heck is a CJ and a sidewilder? Bernie, did you mean side winder? 

Edited by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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)

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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)

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

 

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

I'm sorry that I misunderstood, Roger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's maybe a grille-protector...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...