Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL) Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I guess I am not the typical antique car owner. I am not interested in the cars of my youth. Instead, the older the better. Our club is becoming a lot more active lately, making many day tours. We have recently moved 75 miles away from our club, but want to stay active in it. Making frequent trips like that in the Model A will quickly diminish it's condition, not to mention take forever. We have considered getting a more modern antique for these long hauls, but remember, the older the better. What is the oldest, yet affordable, vehicle that is capable of respectable highway speeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Harwood Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 When we used to tour when I was a kid, the cars that had no problem cruising on the highways were the big classics (Classics?). We had friends who had Packards and Cadillacs that would cruise all day at 60 MPH without breaking a sweat (in fact, most of them <span style="font-style: italic">drove</span> their cars to the out-of-state tours, as well--no trailers in that crowd). We also had a friend who had a 1913 Lozier 7-passenger touring that was as big as a garage, and it would hammer down the road at 60 pretty easily, too. Stopping it was another matter altogether--what with externally contracting drum brakes on the rear only! My father's 1925 Buick model 25 standard touring would run 50-55 but never seemed very happy about it (left us stranded on more than one occassion--#*!&ing vacuum tanks!).The big luxury cars will do it, even the older ones. I'd say anything below a Buick or Oldsmobile probably won't. Unfortunately, these are also the cars that cost more.Have you considered an overdrive or a 5-speed swap on your Model A? That might help and will give it 55-60 MPH cruising abilities without diminishing the car in any really noticeable way and can easily be put back to stock. I've seen Tremec 5-speed conversions for Model As in Hemmings, and it isn't terribly expensive (certainly cheaper than a new car!).Hope this helps. Let us know what you decide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R W Burgess Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Matt, Tell us about your vacuum tank problems. Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AlK Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Howard If I may suggest a possible alternative. Your post seems to indicate that your concerned with getting to the starting point of the tour. I know that some tours do not start and end back at the same place, however some do. So for the ones that do, trailer it to the starting point, do the tour and then trailer it back. I know trailering it is unpleasant for those of us that love to drive our prized possessions, however sometime compromises must be made. My 55 Packard will do the trick but I trailer to events unless it's local, because of the old adage, squat happens and I have never been able to go into an Auto-Zone and ask for a part for a Packard. To more specifically answer your question, I would think anything in the 1932 and up range that has a v-8 or straight-8 would do the trick. I have heard of several guys that own those types of cars have no trouble at the speeds that you want. My .02 cents for what it is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryJ Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Hal....An early Chrysler product will cruise at 55-60 all day long; even the PA & PB Plymouths ( four bangers ) will move right along and they have hydraulic brakes. The Chrysler flat head sixes of the twenties and thirties were quite well engineered machines in their day and you can pick one up for a reasonable price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Hal,I'm not sure how you'd define "affordable", or how well the car would need to brake and steer to be practical for your situation, but 1910 and up Stanley Steamers (from what I've read) are able to hold 55-60 mph with little trouble unless they hit a sustained steep uphill grade. As for their range at that speed I can't find any information, but reading posts on the stanleysteamers.com phorum from people who tour with them it seems to be pretty reasonable. You might enquire there if interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Green Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Hal, I am finding in my area that 55 to 60 MPG just doesn't cut it any more on the expressways when getting to an event. Its more like 65 MPH and up and at that you will be the slowest on the road. It is downright dangerous and not any fun wondering if your going to break something or get run over. My 55 Pontiac will cruise at 75 MHP all day but after a 4 year nut & bolt restoration I am not crazy at pushing it that fast especially with the possibly of stone chips. Maybe a few years down the road? The Amphicar is scary at 60 MPH plus sustained driving at a high speed would hurt it, plus parts are scarce and expensive. The 72 Corvette will keep up just fine however.I trailer the 55 and 67 to the events if it is 35 miles or more then enjoy then. Less stress and I don't have to constantly have the accelerator to the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leadfoot Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Hi Hal -I had the same problem you have - moved much further away from a lot of driving events that I used to drive my '23 to. Solved the problem by getting a more modern "antique", a '64 Studebaker. This orphan car has amazing parts availability, factory set-up for A/C, and it proved it can handle modern traffic - drove it 700+ miles from Atlanta at 55-60 MPH on the interstate. Sure most of the traffic went around me, especially the trucks, but I don't think it was unsafe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Harwood Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Matt, Tell us about your vacuum tank problems. Wayne </div></div>Same problem everyone has with them--they stop working and nobody really knows how to fix them. I recall a Glidden Tour where my father was driving and my mother was funnelling gasoline into a plastic tube, which was threaded through the split windshield, under the hood, then into the top of the vacuum tank. Once in a while, the wind would gust just right and a spray of raw fuel would be splattered on all of us inside the car (an open touring car, and of course, it was pouring rain--what else is new on a Glidden?). That car is lucky it survived my father's wrath.Our solution was to put an electric fuel pump in and energize it every few miles to refill the vacuum tank. A few years ago, I was working on an automatic system that would cycle the pump as a sensor in the tank directed, but we sold the car before I could complete it./end off-topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Miller Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I had an Borg Warner R10 overdrive installed on my 1932 Cadillac V8. It can now cruise at speeds up to 80 MPH. The price is extremely reasonable...$1,175. Let me know if you want more information. By the way I run into several other Model As that have the same overdrive unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1937hd45 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had an Borg Warner R10 overdrive installed on my 1932 Cadillac V8. It can now cruise at speeds up to 80 MPH. The price is extremely reasonable...$1,175. Let me know if you want more information. By the way I run into several other Model As that have the same overdrive unit. </div></div>So, I guess that tells us that the Model A Fords top speed is 79MPH or less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzyDale Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Dear Bob,I wanna see you stop that Model A doing seventy anything.HOPEFULLY i WONT be watching from my rear view mirror.diz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BruceW Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Most of the traveling in our 31 Ford we do on back roads or roads paralleling an interstate. Usually I want to enjoy the ride and scenery and if I want to go faster I might as well use a modern car.However when traveling on a faster highway is needed, our 31 Ford will easily travel at 55 mph for long distances. It will go faster than that but 55 is comfortable for the engine. It has a stock tranny, no overdrive and the engine is stock except for having a counterweighted crankshaft. Das Awkscht Fescht (aka Macungie) is a 2 hour 15 minute trip from the house at 55 mph.The brakes on our 31 Ford stops great. I friend of mine with mechanical brakes on his 30 Ford Coupe can lock his brakes up at 55 mph. It is all in how the brakes are adjusted.. and that they are maintained.On the other hand, our 1957 Chevrolet pickup has a regular truck rear end, and although it has a 283 in it 55 for short distance is okay but anything over or for long periods of time will make it scream like its coming apart. It would need a car rear in it for touring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzyDale Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Dear Bruce,Our family has had a Model A since 1967.The car is NOT stopping when the tires are skidding,SURE the brakes lock up the PROBLEM is the footprint is NOT very big..SURE it helps to keep up on the adjustment but its NOT.... ABS.TRYING to stop a Model A from 60 is NOT something i want to make a HABIT of.diz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1937hd45 Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Both you guys missed my point! It is Ed's Caddy that has the brake problem, why else would he be running into these Model A's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryJ Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Hal.....The point is well taken, that modern cas have severly out classed cars that are as young 15 to 20 years; performance wise and safty wise. Interstates are out for true antiques, so are some surface streets, driving a pre WW II car for any distance to a meet or show is far more hazardous than it was 20 years ago. Some of todays automobiles can probably out maneuver Ferraris of the fifties, possibly sixties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL) Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Thanks for the replies. What is "affordable"? Open to interpretation, huh? I guess I had something in the $5-10K range in mind. Not a show winner, but reliable, preferably pre-WWII.As far as the interstate goes, I didn't care to get on there. Back roads are fine. I just don't want to drive my A 75-80 miles then do another 75-100 tour and then drive 75-80 back home every month. I'm afraid it would be hard on the car. Bruce, are you comfortable driving at sustained 55 in the A? I had mine up to 60 once, just to see if it would do what Henry said. I could tell it was hard on it and it got awfully light. I prefer 45 on mine, sometimes 50, but when I notice I'm getting that fast, I usually slow back down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzyDale Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Dear Model A Hal,While your on the subject of comfort,i took our A on a 100 mile round trip one Sunday.I got home jumped in my at the time 350,000 mile Astro van and thought i was driving a new Cadillac.diz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Guy Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 You might look at the 40-41 Buick as a choice. The rear axle ratios from the 55 will fit in the original rear end and gives you a 3.42 -1 gear. I installed the later (2 1/4 ) brakes from a 55 , and it increased my stopping ability by a BUNCH! My 40 Super is comfortable on the interstates at 70+ all day long. They also have sealed beams, so you can actually drive them at night. These changes are all invisible, so judging is not a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BruceW Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Hal, We have driven our our 31 Deluxe Tudor numerous times 400 to 500 miles during a 2 or 3 day weekend trip. It drives very smooth with no shakes or vibrations at 55. it is also a very comfortable ride. We love long distance touring in our A. To us, 75-80 miles is just getting the engine nice and warm.NOTE: As I said before, I do normally prefer to run 45-50 on back roads because if I am driving the A, it is to enjoy the drive! But as I also mentioned we have driven it numerous times at 55 when needed on divided highways and it always drove straight and true. Actually once had it 65 going up the interstate with a 57 Corvete and 57 Thunderbird in trail for about 40 miles.I don't like to go higher speeds on twisty roads because the 450x19 tires don't have a good feel when they start to flex. But have never had any problems with contact on the road when stopping. Granted they do not stop as well as a wider tire but it has always stopped for me in plenty of time.Have never felt our Deluxe Tudor go "light "at higher speeds as you mention it. Don't know what the reason for that is. Our Deluxe Tudor does drive the best with a full tank of gas in it, but even when less than half full, there is no lightness or darting. A lot of the driving can be done one handed.I have driven a lot of Model A Fords that were not very comfortable or much fun to drive but most of these were usually worn out or not well maintained. We are the third owners of the Deluxe Tudor that is mostly original with about 97,000 miles on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skyking Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I vaguely remember the 70's gas crunch when the speed limits were reduced to 55mph. Wouldn't that be a nice welcome. Maybe more lives would be saved too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I vaguely remember the 70's gas crunch when the speed limits were reduced to 55mph. Wouldn't that be a nice welcome. Maybe more lives would be saved too! </div></div>When the 55 mph national speed limit was dropped traffic fatalities dropped immediately and have kept dropping, and are now about 10% lower than the last year of 55 mph. It's largely believed (but can't be proven) by traffic researchers that the improvement is due to a more uniform speed among cars on the road. With a 70 or 65 mph limit nearly all drivers uniformly drive at the more reasonable limit. When the limit's too low people try to cheat as a matter of human nature, leading to disaster at times.As for the fuel savings, most of today's cars are more aerodynamic and geared higher than in 1974 which normally results in a gas mileage peak at a higher speed anyway. Even back then it was a percentage shot that didn't apply to some cars. I had an '80 Datsun that would consistently get 37-38 mpg @ 60 mph, and would easily top 40 mpg @ 70 mph. (One had to be <span style="font-style: italic">very</span> judicious in making those kinds of tests back then! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanley735 Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Hal,Being fortunate and broke enough to own a Stanley, I have one of the later condensing cars. They are not as fast as the earlier cars due to the weight (3850#)without fuel and water. My car has not been operational long enough to report how fast it will go. I am guestimating 55-60 mph. I would imagine it could hold a sustained speed of 45-50 mph. I will be able to report on that later this year. All trips so far have been of short duration as we have been working the bugs out of the systems as the car had been in a barn since WWII. It should get about 10mpg on kerosene and 150-200 miles on a tank of water once the condenser is repaired. As there are about 5-600 surviving cars, they are not inexpensive. Jim Showers1921 Stanley 735B Touring1953 Packard Cavalier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
07premier Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Get a 1929 and up Franklin ,these cars are very good over the road,no overheating,4 wheel juice brakes ,and parts are not hard to find.Also consider a 1936-48 BUICK,quite affordable and reasonable to buy.GREAT ROAD CARS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A by the sea Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 The problem with most "restored" cars is they are not properly restored mechanically. This even includes the fifty and sixty's cars. My brother and I were in his car in a long run with the club. We had the oldest car with the rest being newer than 1950. They asked us to slow down as they could not keep up the 55MPH we drive in the A.His car is very stock with only having a B cam as a mod from Henry's design. This was the same car we drove to Wisconson once.So the question is not which newer car will do your trip, but which car do you chose to make mechanically correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BruceW Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 I always say that an ugly, non-flashy antique car needing paint but is mechanically restored will be a lot more fun to drive than a shiny, freshly painted one that is not mechanically sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 It must be truly frustrating to be stranded on the side of the road, if the car is "trailer-queen gorgeous"...My De Soto is no longer "pretty", but I trust it implicitly as to its mechanical integrity and point-to-point driving reliability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL) Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Thanks a lot for all the suggestions and discussion. It looks like it will be a lot newer than pre-war. She now has her mind set on a Mustang, preferably '67 Fastback, but probably any '67 or older. It will probably still be a few weeks before we get anything, but that is where her mind is right now. Mine, on the other hand, is moving the opposite direction. I'm looking at older and slower than the A. T or TT is looming on my horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Hal,The "T" is probably a "safe bet", if for no other reason, then simply because there were so many made and it is one of the easiest brass/nickel era cars to get parts for and keep on the road...As for "more recent= happy highway cruiser"...not necessarily...I just got my '59 Edsel station wagon (thinly disguised '59 Ford) back on the road, and was surprised by how fast the engine was sounded at 45 mph...I checked-out the rear axle code on the patent plate, and discovered that my grocery-getter originally came from the factory with a 3.70:1 rear end ...(and 3-speed stick). It'll cruise on the Interstate I guess, but that 332 V-8 will be mighty busy at 65 mph, and the gas mileage will definitely be hurtin'.Fortunately (?) the rear-end sounds like it's got "issues", so if I have to rebuild the Ford 9-inch, that will afford me to opportunity to select a ring & pinion that'll get down towards the low 3's...better for the highways, plus the 332 will still have enough torque to deal with the taller gears.Moral: "newer does not necessarily guaranty better highway gears"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzyDale Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Dear De Sota Frank,How do you think the V-12 sounds in my 39 Zephyr coupe at 65 with the factory original 4:44s .Not to worry i am installing the Columbia over the Winter.diz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Guy Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 My 40 Buick came with 4.44 gears, and I installed a 3.42-1 set, and I'm in love. Itmakes a real cruiser out of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Diz,I'll bet it sounds " Bizzy "... When I was about 12 years old, my Uncle Mike somehow came into posession of another uncle's 1939 Lincoln Zephyr 4-door sedan, which I recall being solid, but needing some TLC.The original V-12 had been replaced by a flatty Ford V-8, which looked quite lost in that engine bay.Uncle Mike offered the car to me for $150... (c. 1978); unfortunately, my old man balked at the notion, and "we" passed on it. Uncle Mike sold the car to another party for $500. Wish I could've latched onto it; it was a neat car.Speaking of low rears, I just took my 1961 Willys pick-up for annual safety inspection today..."Super Hurricane" six and 4.88 rears...screamin' @ 45 mph ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Speaking of low rears, I just took my 1961 Willys pick-up for annual safety inspection today..."Super Hurricane" six and 4.88 rears...screamin' @ 45 mph ! </div></div> I'd have paid <span style="font-style: italic">real</span> good money to have watched the tech trying to set that thing up on the dyno for the emissions test. Next time (even if it doesn't need it) you may want to spring for the emissions test and sell tickets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 "Emissions" ?(I think "dino" emissions test might be more appropriate !)Yeah, it "emits" ! There's a significant decrease in the mosquito population whenever I drive the beast ! I'm doing my part to fight the spread of West Nile Virus... I get kind of a secret jolly by blowing a big blue cloud in front of the joker tailgating me in their $50,000 "fluffy four-wheel-drive"... Best of all, I don't have to worry about "valve seat recession" ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzyDale Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Dear De Sota Frank,I bet that Willys covers the first 10 feet pretty QUICK with that much gear,one of those cars or trucks you drive and you get to 50 and your lookin to move the shifter at LEAST one more time.Speakin of DINO,thought i saw Fred and Barney drivin that Willys down at the quarry,Sounds like you can pick up a little spending money,start chargin the City of Scranton for mosquito FOGGING while your out for a cruise.diz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest De Soto Frank Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Diz,It gets even slower when I put it into "4-wheel-LOW" !It would climb a wall if it could get enough traction !For a while, I had a Warn overdrive in it, which dropped the effective final drive ratio to around 3.41...it would achieve 60 mph or more, but other scary things would begin to happen...the whole truck would begin to "ripple" like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and generally felt very scary...I don't think the early 4WD suspension & steering geo-metry lent itself to high speed driving... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now