Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Brooklyn Beer said:

Notice that the chrysler logo is not on the nose and wonder if it is a Windsor Newport or if the highlander interior made it something else

 

I think it's not a Newport because it's not a hardtop.  It's a Windsor coupe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look close I think they are original seats as the arm rest in the back seat matches and it does look like the exact colors and patterns i have seen on other Highlander interior equipped cars.  Not sure if it made it a model change or was just optional in any model. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mercer09 said:

SURE THOSE ARENT SEAT COVERS?

 

That is definitely a factory Highlander interior.  I believe the Highlander was an interior option rather than a model, although my '48 Windsor Highlander had "Highlander" script on the dash, as seen in this photo.  (Sorry for the poor quality -- taken off the internet.)

 

chrysler-highlander_LI.jpg.f85967ca7f364e5a5ec47f7621b351a0.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Chrysler finally threw a problem at me and would like to get a couple opinions as I think I already know what it is but other peoples are always welcome.  Two weeks ago I changed the headlights out as I thought they looked kind of dim.  Went to Wagner halogens.  Still have old ones. They looked great on the ride to the diner the next morning but only 3 miles. Last night drive.  On thursday morning we were going to have a nice day here. 60 and full sun so at 530 am away I go to work at 30 degree's.  About a 34 mile drive. 5 miles from work I noticed the headlights were getting dimmer and dimmer yet the amp gauge was reading fine.  Well past the point of no return now I kept driving to work and pulled in barely seeing 8 feet in front of the car. Nothing odd on the amp gauge. it was charging fine.  At break (930) I went out with a multimeter and checked the battery. 6.3 volts.  OK, so were charging and not off the battery.  Car ran fine and never missed a beat. Was 27 at work when I got there. What could cause the headlights to go dimmer the farther I drove yet still charge the battery?  Checked battery again before leaving and 6.3 volts and it is a pretty new battery.  Drove the same distance home with lights off and the amp gauge was still reading fine. Battery still showing 6.3 this morning

Edited by Brooklyn Beer (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

You will probably need a wiring diagram, Do you have one?

 

Here is how I would start looking for clues: With the engine running and the headlights on, High beam if you were using high beam when they went dim. If you were using only low beam on that trip, then use low beam. Run the engine at 2000 rpm or so enough to make it charge real good, and hold it there. With the engine running like that, check the voltage from:

 

1) Battery positive to negative. Go right to the middle of the post (not the cable clamps).

 

2) Voltage regulator "BAT" terminal to regulator ground

 

3) Headlight positive to headlight negative, measured at the socket, for whichever beam you are using, Leave the bulb in the socket and probe from the back side of the socket if you can.

 

This should provide clues about what to do next (I hope)....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the manual yes. Curious to other folks opinions. I am thinking a ground issue as well and will start at the bulb connection to frame and see how that ground is followed by voltage at the bulb after 10 minutes of driving RPM. 

 

Dimming bulbs I have personally always found to be lack of charging in the past but with nothing show that not happening I was thinking ground.  Question on the BAT to regulator ground.  Would that check not show up as a drained battery and not charging on the amp gauge?   I was also thinking too much resistance in a corroded wire causing more resistance as it heated up. That would show up in the bulb socket check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1949 Dodge Coronet 2 door.    This is not a bad car for the money. I bet you could do some negotiating.  These 2 doors are not a common sight.    Interior is nice and some work on the paint with glaze and polish make a nice driver.

 

  https://www.ebay.com/itm/1949-Dodge-Coronet/233440962145?hash=item365a2a6661%3Ag%3ASm8AAOSw8Udd~adU&LH_ItemCondition=3000|2500

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't clear across the country I would think on it as the 53 plymouth four door I saved and drive to work all the time is always getting asked if I would be willing to sell it. Know I could easily double my money. If this was within 400 miles I might have to go get it and sell the 4 door which I only gave 1700 for. If you want a dead solid dependable car for a true daily driver that is filled with old car feel, you can't beat a 50's Mopar for that and price.  Parts are everywhere to boot.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brooklyn Beer said:

Question on the BAT to regulator ground.  Would that check not show up as a drained battery and not charging on the amp gauge?

 

Sort of. I was really curious what the voltage was. With the system revved up and actually charging, and the battery full, charging voltage should be something like 7.5 or so (book would tell for sure). 

 

The regulator BAT terminal is the output terminal of the charging system, similar to the big terminal on the back of the alternator on an alternator charging system. All of this voltage (7.5 or whatever) should make it to the battery, but in the real world there is a little loss. Hopefully not much. If the battery voltage is real close to the BAT terminal voltage, and both are up where they should be  that proves everything is ok through the ammeter and back to the battery.

 

Since the light is dim, the voltage at the light must be low. Obviously not 7.5-ish or even close. Voltage would be supplied probably from an ammeter terminal (which we may have just proven ok). It would be the ammeter terminal that connects to the regulator BAT terminal. Power for stuff on the car is tapped there so that power used by accessories (lights etc) will not register as charge on the ammeter, only current that is charging the battery.

 

Assuming the ammeter circuit is ok, current flows from the ammeter terminal, through the light switch, which usually has a circuit breaker (that introduces some loss), through the dimmer switch, and on out to the lights.

 

On the other hand, yes, you could have just lost the ground to the headlights. If that is the problem, the headlights find their ground through the unused filaments in the headlights. If you look inside, you will see both filaments glowing. Should be only one if the ground is ok. Good luck.

 

Sorry for the thread derail guys... back to bargain Mopars.

 

 

Edited by Bloo (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha.  And we are talking bargains and the Chrysler was a bargain so issues with a bargain are good topics. A lot of folks followed this bargain and I was lucky enough to have grabbed it. So if the weather is good tomorrow I will check out what we talked about.  My stupid "Holy crap that is a grenade" arthritis is acting up with the cold mist but we are working on it with a coupling heaping helpings of Irish Whiskey

Edited by Brooklyn Beer (see edit history)
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very few people lie awake at night thinking of four door  '74 Apollo's, but how many of these do you see? It's got 51k miles, supposedly, and the price is already under $3500, but you could certainly get it for less.  This is the kind of car that makes me feel sorry for  tri-five Chevy  and Mustang guys at car shows - people will flock around it because it's uncommon and so original.

s-l1600.jpg

 

 

 

1974 Buick Apollo | eBay

Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it going to make you smile when you walk into the garage like that Chrysler Brooklyn Beer bought or even that Franklin?  For me I can say no. Would i glance at it,  when I'm at a Car Show?  Probably.  Would it becon to me from across a field of other cars, nope.  Craigslist and Facebook is full of similar Ho Hum Sedans, many in spectacular shape.  Looked at a beautiful 67? Chrysler sedan parked on the street of a very big car show I was at,  because it had a for sale sign in it and was all original.  I suspect the hood may have been repainted at some point, probably when it was near new,  but every little piece of chrome was perfect.  It very likely was otherwise all original and the interior was exceptional.  It was an upscale model, probably a NY'er, but after a quick look over I walked away though I could have bought it on the spot.  It was just another really nice nothing special sedan that really didn't ding any bells other than condition and was probably priced at the top of where it should be.  I spent more time looking over the tired Jag XKE Conv't freshly pulled from storage with peeling paint that was for sale.  There is a reason all those 57's and Mustangs sell for more money and are more sought after.  It's style,  Like it or not.  Rarity comes in somewhere bottom of the list.  Style is number 1. 

I can guarantee a tired looking all original 57 Chevy or early mustang will draw more of a crowd,  Even in a row of restored counterparts.   I prefer the more unusual stuff though. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Inexpensive yes, but priced appropriately.  I would rather a ton of cars with some interest in less shape though, I suspect the market overall reflects that.  Harder to call a bargain as it is not underpriced, imho.  That said, I do remember when these were everywhere in 6 cyl. Sedan form, chevy, B.O.P. still boooring... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

Inexpensive yes, but priced appropriately...Harder to call a bargain as it is not underpriced, imho....

 

You're correct, I'm sure, but one of my points was to present this car as a contrast to the vast quantity of old cars out there currently that are very expensive, and priced very inappropriately.

 

Many of those are cars I've seen for sale online to a national market for a year or more. (NOT talking about dealers of finely restored high end and collectable cars..talking about "barn find flippers" who want 8 grand for a rusty non-running '66 Impala hardtop.) I totally get that this Buick isn't for everyone - or me, even - but, believe it or not, the same is true for '30's Packards and '57 Chevys, as cool as they are.

 

I wasn't being snide in my initial statement. There was a show I went to last year were a BMW Isetta was right next to a conventionally rodded '57 BelAir, both cars beautifully restored. Guess which one I spent all my time looking at? I sincerely felt bad that I didn't spend some time talking to the Chevy owner about his beautiful car, but I'd never seen an Isetta in person before so what was I going to do? This Buick is nowhere as unique as that BMW, but I don't see Apollos around anymore.

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

Here's a something more desirable than a Buick Apollo: a '71 Chevy pickup in driving project condition...for under 3 grand. Usual eBay caveats would apply, but it looks like seller has sold some other vehicles with positive feedback. Appears to be a California truck with no discernible rust through, but some damage on passenger side. Looks like it'd be a blast to run around in while you're getting it in shape. No "long road trips" though! :)

 

 

s-l1600.jpg

 

 

1971 Chevrolet C-10 C20 350 4 SPEED CALIFORNIA TRUCK! CLEAN!!! | eBay

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

For folks that just like driving an old car all the time I would get this just to drive back and forth to work.  Same as the 53 four door Plymouth I bought for dirt cheap and the 63 dodge 880.  Nothing special. Will never see a car show. But i get to drive an old car doing everyday things which for me is the enjoyment of owning them. I am still on the look out for a mid 50's Desoto and if it is a 4 door I can drive to work once a week it would suit me fine. I get tons of smiles and waves the entire 30 mile ride each way so people who never get to see old cars doing what they should be doing get enjoyment from them as well.

Edited by Brooklyn Beer (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh  I will take the pick up, that could be fun. 😊

 

I get driving an older car just for fun of it, was somewhat common but not so much today.  When i had my 56 Chevy in the 80s, some tri five guys had sedans or wagons to drive daily, year round in some cases. fun! 😊

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I never looked at the hobby as only driving an old car from late April to mid September. What do you do the other half of the year?  hence a beater or two. Cheap and no worries about what happens to it.  Make sure the heater works and have at it.  Fluid drive cars are excellent in the snow.

Edited by Brooklyn Beer (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early 70's when I first started driving and buying cars it was common in eastern Canada to find a rusty winter beater to drive the same, (parts wise) car as your main driver. Problem was on my budget trying to make one driver from 2 cars plus parts from another. Mid 50's Ford's and Meteor's were my favorite.

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

Good point on unusual cars James.....  The Buick seller is at least in the right range. 

 

Thanks for understanding the spirit of my comment. I'm basically living in the past on price (emotionally)...and it's totally unrealistic on my part. But old cars remind me of my own past, which was:

 

First car: 1966 Impala Super Sport...price paid: $200

Second Car: 1970 Chevelle Super Sport 396...$700

Third car: 1967 Pontiac Lemans, 2 door hardtop, 326, bucket seats...$225

Fourth car: 1959 Chevy Apache pickup (pretty much in the same condition as the Chevy I just posted)...$275 (and I worried for a few months after buying it that I paid too much.)

 

The first three were solid cars in good running condition, well under 100k miles, from about 7 to 10 years old. The truck was my first "vintage" vehicle; something from the 1950's and a full 20 years old!

Edited by JamesR (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the snow,  it's the salt.  They use alot of it.  Everything around here is rusted in a few years.  It's the salt and they use alot of it.  Did I already mention something about the salt?   You get where I'm coming from?  Even my insane greasing, fluid filming, of the undercarriage and liberal doses of WD40 to everything under the hood,  rust still appears though much slower. 

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...