Does this car still exist? Pete & Jake's Flamed coupe

[George Smolinski]

[1937hd45]

You bet! Pete & Jake's was bought out but both this car and Jake's yellow Coupe belong to the company. Now located in Peculiar, Missouri, the website is messed up and I could not get a link.  After the TV show made the car famous it was bought by a collector here in Connecticut, got upholstery and sold back to the original builder. Ford powered it is a great car. Original flamed paint job is starting to show some age, stood along side it 5 years ago at the Grand National Roadster Show.  Bob 

Edited November 9, 2022 by 1937hd45 (see edit history)

[alsancle]

I don't know if I have ever seen the movie "The California Kid".   I did watch "American Graffiti" for the 20th time on a plane flight this weekend.  

[1912Staver]

Seems to me  " The California Kid "was a TV movie even when first released.

[George Smolinski]

1 hour ago, 1937hd45 said:

You bet! Pete & Jake's was bought out but both this car and Jake's yellow Coupe belong to the company. Now located in Peculiar, Missouri, the website is messed up and I could not get a link.  After the TV show made the car famous it was bought by a collector here in Connecticut, got upholstery and sold back to the original builder. Ford powered it is a great car. Original flamed paint job is starting to show some age, stood along side it 5 years ago at the Grand National Roadster Show.  Bob 

Thanks!👍👍

[joe_padavano]

[1937hd45]

I'm amazed that the movie was shot in 1974, where did the 48 years go?

[Twisted Shifter]

 

https://www.streetmusclemag.com/news/hot-rods-you-should-know-the-california-kids-1934-ford-coupe/

 

 

[TTR]

With so many detail and feature differences between the car in the OP (and the movie) and what it supposedly is today, can make one wonder whether it’s even same car at all.

 

Kind of like how many John Milner’s “piss yellow chicken coupe’s” (from “American Graffiti”) there are today ? Hundreds ? More ?

[Swear57]

I like car #1 the best. Wheels, tires & exhaust.

[lump]

I served on the SEMA Board of Directors with Pete Chappouris, who built and owned this car during the filming of "THE CALIFORNIA KID." He told me that he was paid nearly nothing for the car being used in the film, and that it got dinged and scratched and filthy during the action scenes. This is the real car, built by the real guy, and used in the real film. Pete later sold "Pete n Jake's" hot rod shop, and then became the owner of SoCal Street Rods (originally owned by Alex Xydias). Both men were in the SEMA Hall of Fame during my time there, and I considered them both to be good friends of mine. Pete seemed much younger than his actual years, but we lost him a few years ago. Rest in peace, old friend. 

[1937hd45]

After the movie, a local guy in the Hartford, Ct. area offered to buy the car from Pete Chappouris. It took some time and a lot of offers but he was finally beaten down with dollars. At the time it was crazy money, but that $25,000. allowed Pete to go on and do greater things. 

 

Bob

[George Smolinski]

6 hours ago, Swear57 said:

I like car #1 the best. Wheels, tires & exhaust.

The other photos posted would lead a person to believe the cars are not the same, but poor imitations of the movie car.

[TAKerry]

Seeing The California Kid when I was a kid made a great impression on me as far as my love of cars. To me there was nothing cooler than that 3 window coupe. Every model I built after that had hand painted flames! It has been many years since I have seen it though and have no idea if it even has a plot. I loved looking at the car.

[joe_padavano]

2 hours ago, George Smolinski said:

The other photos posted would lead a person to believe the cars are not the same, but poor imitations of the movie car.

Huh? The photo I posted is the original car, in the showroom at the current Pete & Jakes's location.

[Paul Dobbin]

I've been a 1934 Ford Guy since 1972 and never saw that movie or TV film.   I guess I should look for it.

[TTR]

1 hour ago, joe_padavano said:

Huh? The photo I posted is the original car, in the showroom at the current Pete & Jakes's location.

As I initially and then George S. noted, if you look at the first photo (B & W with M. Sheen) of this thread and compare it to one you posted (along with others found on the internet and in P & J website), it’s clear they have numerous detail and feature differences, including but not limited to exhaust, painted flames, rear bumper, stance, wheels/tires, etc, begging a question that if latter is supposed to represent former and there are that many discrepancies, are they REALLY even a same car ?

Does anyone have reasonably good documentation of the car's history and VIN from the movie to showroom ?

 

How many similar claims have been made of “Bullit” Charger or Mustang, the deuce or ‘55 Chevy from “American Graffiti” and countless other “famous/movie” cars ?

Edited November 9, 2022 by TTR (see edit history)

[1937hd45]

The car is the star of the movie, the Sherriff is not the bad guy, just a grieving parent that lost a child to a speeder. 

[Scott Bonesteel]

That 34 Ford coupe was probably most responsible for my now life-long fascination with old cars, particularly any make from 1934.  Or, perhaps, it was that photo above which was the cover of Rod and Custom titled "Are Coupes for Chickens?", which was a common saying in that time frame.  Granted, there were other aspects of the photo that appealed to a guy like me in his early 20s.  The car first appeared in Rod and Custom in a 'Garage Scene' issue, where cars being built all around the country were briefly profiled, single, black and white photo of the car in an unpainted state, taken from the rear.  Yes, the California Kid movie was a 'made for TV' movie starring Martin Sheen, Vic Morrow, Nick Nolte and Michelle Phillips.  There are shots in the movie taken of the engine compartment which show a flathead Ford V8, which I don't believe was ever in the car.  The more modern Ford V8 would not have fit with the period piece movie.  Great looking car done perfectly for a period hot rod/street rod.

[1937hd45]

There was a feature, most likely in Rod & Custom, that pointed out all the movie modifications, the flathead shot was taken from an entirely different car.

[Peter Gariepy]

 

[Peter Gariepy]

The entire movie can be seen here:

 

 

[George Smolinski]

3 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

Huh? The photo I posted is the original car, in the showroom at the current Pete & Jakes's location.

I don’t doubt you. Look at the b & w photo and compare it to yours. Mine looks like a car that is driven. It has steelies, beauty rings, and caps, and side pipes. Looks like the rake on it is different than yours also. Paint not as shiny as yours. (Granted my photo is old). Yours has super shiny paint, wrong wheels and probably tires, and what looks like a different rake/stance.

The photo with the girl looks like a Dale Klee. And the car looks to have the same inconsistencies as your photo, when compared to the original photo.

[George Smolinski]

11 hours ago, TTR said:

As I initially and then George S. noted, if you look at the first photo (B & W with M. Sheen) of this thread and compare it to one you posted (along with others found on the internet and in P & J website), it’s clear they have numerous detail and feature differences, including but not limited to exhaust, painted flames, rear bumper, stance, wheels/tires, etc, begging a question that if latter is supposed to represent former and there are that many discrepancies, are they REALLY even a same car ?

Does anyone have reasonably good documentation of the car's history and VIN from the movie to showroom ?

 

How many similar claims have been made of “Bullit” Charger or Mustang, the deuce or ‘55 Chevy from “American Graffiti” and countless other “famous/movie” cars ?

Well  said. Thank you.

Edited November 10, 2022 by George Smolinski (see edit history)

[Peter Gariepy]

https://www.peteandjakes.com 

[joe_padavano]

3 hours ago, TTR said:

As I initially and then George S. noted, if you look at the first photo (B & W with M. Sheen) of this thread and compare it to one you posted (along with others found on the internet and in P & J website), it’s clear they have numerous detail and feature differences, including but not limited to exhaust, painted flames, rear bumper, stance, wheels/tires, etc, begging a question that if latter is supposed to represent former and there are that many discrepancies, are they REALLY even a same car ?

Does anyone have reasonably good documentation of the car's history and VIN from the movie to showroom ?

 

How many similar claims have been made of “Bullit” Charger or Mustang, the deuce or ‘55 Chevy from “American Graffiti” and countless other “famous/movie” cars ?

Right, because it is completely unreasonable to think that the car was restored at sometime in the last half a century after having the crap beat out of it filming that movie. It's a hot rod, not a concourse restoration. Hot rods get modified over time. The sidepipes that were in style in the 1970s are out of style today. The flames are the same, it's the pinstripe below the windows that was deleted. And wheels and tires? Seriously? It's not like it takes an act of congress to swap wheels and tires. This car was driven (not trailered) to many rod runs in the years following the movie.

[CHuDWah]

It's the same car and has the provenance to prove it.  Twisted's pic (which was a R&C cover) is the car's pre-movie appearance.  The OP pic is the movie version with fake side pipes, steelie wheels and nickname under the door windows.  In the movie, the sheriff's car has push bars which he uses on car, so the 34 Ford rear bumper was replaced with a piece of C-channel.  If there's a stance difference, it may be a "rubber rake" as the movie car appears to have taller rear tires.  The OP pic was taken on movie location.  As for less shiny paint, there was a lot of dust kicked up during filming and the car obviously is dirty in the pic.

 

Joe's pic is the post-movie version with pre-movie wheels/tires and no pipes.  The nickname was retained but not the pinstripe behind it.

 

 

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Bob S., I remember snapping a couple pics of the kid at either Stafford or Compounce in 78 or 79.  Very cool car!

I remember hearing it was in CT, guy supposedly had a 57 Belaire with 100 miles or such as well.  Things one remembers...

[lump]

13 hours ago, TTR said:

As I initially and then George S. noted, if you look at the first photo (B & W with M. Sheen) of this thread and compare it to one you posted (along with others found on the internet and in P & J website), it’s clear they have numerous detail and feature differences, including but not limited to exhaust, painted flames, rear bumper, stance, wheels/tires, etc, begging a question that if latter is supposed to represent former and there are that many discrepancies, are they REALLY even a same car ?

Does anyone have reasonably good documentation of the car's history and VIN from the movie to showroom ?

 

How many similar claims have been made of “Bullit” Charger or Mustang, the deuce or ‘55 Chevy from “American Graffiti” and countless other “famous/movie” cars ?

In this case, you have to remember that the guy who built it is the guy who "authenticated" it, repeatedly. And do keep in mind that, as I mentioned above, the car did sustain numerous scratches, dings, and etc by the time the movie was finished with it. And it remained Pete's car for quite a long time. Pete did not then put the car away, carefully documenting every facet of it and refusing to change anything. He used and drove the car a great deal. And like most rodders/customizers/builders, etc, I'm sure he was constantly upgrading the car. Pete was a real rod builder, who went on to build LOTS of hot rods, and to sell many tons of custom parts for other builders all over the world. It's easy to assume that he probably tried many different things on this '34. But he was the guy who secured it later and put it in the showroom at Pete n Jakes Rod Shop. 

[1937hd45]

1 hour ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

Bob S., I remember snapping a couple pics of the kid at either Stafford or Compounce in 78 or 79.  Very cool car!

I remember hearing it was in CT, guy supposedly had a 57 Belaire with 100 miles or such as well.  Things one remembers...

I first saw it at the Hartford Autorama, within a year of the movie coming out, there were a lot of large movie photo banners behind it. A good friend got to cruse down the Berlin Turnpike in it. Still looked great 5 or so years ago out in LA. 

[CHuDWah]

14 hours ago, lump said:

...He used and drove the car a great deal...

From what I've read, he built the car in the early-70s.  So the build was only 2 or 3 years old when the movie was made.  There's a quick shot of the speedo in the movie and the odo reads over 14K.

[TTR]

16 hours ago, lump said:

In this case, you have to remember that the guy who built it is the guy who "authenticated" it, repeatedly. And do keep in mind that, as I mentioned above, the car did sustain numerous scratches, dings, and etc by the time the movie was finished with it. And it remained Pete's car for quite a long time. Pete did not then put the car away, carefully documenting every facet of it and refusing to change anything. He used and drove the car a great deal. And like most rodders/customizers/builders, etc, I'm sure he was constantly upgrading the car. Pete was a real rod builder, who went on to build LOTS of hot rods, and to sell many tons of custom parts for other builders all over the world. It's easy to assume that he probably tried many different things on this '34. But he was the guy who secured it later and put it in the showroom at Pete n Jakes Rod Shop. 

This ^^ reads like a convincing endorsement for its “authenticity”.

OTOH, whether this car is authentic or not makes no difference to me. I was just commenting my observations on two different appearances shown in the pictures and how they could lead someone to think “maybe different cars ?”

 

While I’ve always been into period-correct, early style hot rods (have had mine 33 years and counting), I never quite learned to appreciate Street Rods, which this car, at least in my mind, represents.

Most “Street Rods “, especially all those with the aftermarket modern and/or pre-fabricated bodies/chassis, creature comforts and running gears, not to mention latest bling and gadgets, just appear and feel like kit cars someone assembled by checking  boxes from an online or print catalog

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by TTR (see edit history)

[George Smolinski]

40 minutes ago, TTR said:

This ^^ reads like a convincing endorsement for its “authenticity”.

OTOH, whether this car is authentic or not makes no difference to me. I was just commenting my observations on two different appearances shown in the pictures and how they could lead someone to think “maybe different cars ?”

I think we ruffled a few feathers when we dared to say that comparing the two photos, it looks like they may be 2 different cars. Just for the record, the car in the photo I posted is the one I would want.

[1937hd45]

1 hour ago, George Smolinski said:

I think we ruffled a few feathers when we dared to say that comparing the two photos, it looks like they may be 2 different cars. Just for the record, the car in the photo I posted is the one I would want.

I thank Peter every day for giving us the "Ignore option", some people just need to collect stamps and find something else to complain about. 

[TTR]

2 hours ago, George Smolinski said:

I think we ruffled a few feathers when we dared to say that comparing the two photos, it looks like they may be 2 different cars. Just for the record, the car in the photo I posted is the one I would want.

Well, some feathers just are like that. And since we're going "for the record", I wouldn't want it in either form.

OTOH, besides the one's I already do, there's a very limited number of cars I would actually want to own. 

And if I did, more feathers would likely be ruffled, mainly because I would actually use them "as intended", instead of trailering and showing them at just concours events or organized tours.

[CHuDWah]

7 hours ago, George Smolinski said:

I think we ruffled a few feathers when we dared to say that comparing the two photos, it looks like they may be 2 different cars. Just for the record, the car in the photo I posted is the one I would want.

Well, I can speak only for myself but my feathers weren't ruffled.  But whether "The Kid" is a period hot rod, a street rod, whatever and regardless whether it appeals to one or not, it is iconic.  So it deserved to be pointed out that the posted pictures show the same car in its various iterations and that it isn't (or at least wasn't) a trailer queen.  I suppose it's understandable that differences in the pictures could lead to questions but hey, how many of us look the same as we did 50 years ago? 🤣

 

And "just for the record," the movie version (maybe without the side pipes) also is the one I would want...but with the street rod creature comforts, running gears, and gadgets. 😁

Edited November 11, 2022 by CHuDWah (see edit history)

[lump]

Like CHuDWah, my "feathers" weren't ruffled. But when I saw the question, "... if latter is supposed to represent former and there are that many discrepancies, are they REALLY even a same car ? Does anyone have reasonably good documentation of the car's history?" I took those to be genuine questions. And since I enjoyed personal direct communication with the owner/builder of the car, it seemed like the right thing to do to share that with fellow members on this forum.

 

Thus, yes, there is adequate documentation of the car's history. And yes, it is REALLY the same car. 

 

I truly enjoyed asking Pete about this car and found his stories about it fascinating. I thought perhaps others might, as well. 

[R W Burgess]

On 11/9/2022 at 9:04 AM, Paul Dobbin said:

I've been a 1934 Ford Guy since 1972 and never saw that movie or TV film.   I guess I should look for it.

You need to see that one Paul! Great movie plot, excellent movie!

[Shootey]

The new issue of Hotrod Magazine is the 75th anniversary issue. It has some fun early hot rod stuff in it. 

[CHuDWah]

4 hours ago, R W Burgess said:

You need to see that one Paul! Great movie plot, excellent movie!

No disrespect but I have to disagree about the plot - IMHO it's pretty mediocre.  But yeah, "The Kid" and other cool cars, some young stars before they became superstars, great action, and some scenic locations definitely make it watchable, especially for gearheads.