Myth Buster Destroy Plymouth Fury

[Guest]

I sat there with my jaw hanging down when the Myth idiots took this clean 1968 Plymouth Fury out on a run way and drop the drive shaft at the front u-joint to see if the car would poll-volt ass over tail.

Needless to say, then destroyed the fury by ramming the drive shaft thru the trunk and taking the rear axel with it.

[R W Burgess]

Tommy, is there a point to this post? W.

[Dave@Moon]

Try to imagine a world where something like that would be done deliberately to a street rod.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tommy, is there a point to this post? W. </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Respect...

...for our hobby...

...among the general population...

..is [color:\\"red\\"]dead.</span>

Do you need a bigger point than that?

-----------------------

For those who don't know <span style="font-style: italic">Mythbusters</span> is a show on the Discovery Channel that investigates all forms of myths and urban legends, not just car-related stuff. Never-the-less I'm sure this isn't the first or last antique car sacrificed for TDC's ratings. This particular episode will re-air Sunday afternoon for those interested.

[Guest]

Howard,

Myth Busters is a TV program on the Discovery Channel. The post might make more sense now.

[Matt Harwood]

Anybody been desperately looking for a clean, yet completely clapped-out '68 Plymouth Fury?

Anyone...? Anyone...? I didn't think so.

Just because it's old doesn't mean it's valuable, guys. I, for one, am <span style="font-style: italic">really darned sick</span> of going to car shows and seeing the lots filled with clapped-out '68 Plymouth Furies and '67 Chevy Biscayne 4-door sedans and '76 Ford Thunderbirds and '86 Pontiac Fieros and '76 Buick Electras. Perhaps if there were fewer of them they'd get more interesting.

Or not.

/flame away!

[1937hd45]

I'd LOVE to see MythBusters do some controlled head on collisions with more crap like the Plymouth. A runway of wrecks will keep them off the show field and make room for ANTIQUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Japan is buying more scrap so there is a market for the remains.

[R W Burgess]

Thanks Tommy. The slow ones like me need more info sometimes. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I haven't seen many Fury's in my area for a while. They must not be as popular down here. Wayne

[1937hd45]

Looks like another reason why the Virginia countryside is so beautiful.

[Matt Harwood]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tommy, is there a point to this post? W. </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Respect...

...for our hobby...

...among the general population...

..is [color:\\"red\\"]dead.</span>

Do you need a bigger point than that?

</div></div>

Dave, you and I agree far more often than we disagree and I always read carefully what you write. However, I have to disagree with this observation. I don't think the public is grabbing torches and pitchforks and heading out to the nearest museum to start looting the classics (Classics?) to turn into goofy TV shows (or hot rods). I think the public has a great deal of respect for cars that are obviously special. I also think that John Q. Public recognizes pretty easily that there are a lot of really worthless cars out there not worthy of worship.

Destroying a perfectly worthless piece of crap car on a TV show isn't disrespectful. It wasn't a J Duesenberg for Pete's sake! How does it help our hobby if every car that somehow manages to last for more than 25 years is automatically "a collector's item" or "an antique?" That's why so many garden-variety cars show up at car shows, and possibly why the hobby is dying. I can't be the only person sick of cruise nights filled with guys driving the 1973 Oldsmobile they inherited from their grandmothers.

In my opinion, these perfectly ordinary, run-of-the-mill, mass-produced cars do nothing to help the hobby, and saving every one of them will only cause us to strangle on our own infatuation with anything old. What newcomer would be inspired to join the hobby seeing that Fury at a car show? It looked like a used car to me--nothing special. I'm a hard-core hobbyist, and seeing those god-awful ordinary cars at car shows had nearly made me stop going. Going to car shows today is an exercise in hope: <span style="font-style: italic">I hope, I hope, I hope I <span style="font-weight: bold">finally</span> see something interesting this time.</span>

I was at the Cleveland Auto Show last night and in the basement, they have a display of "collector" cars. What did I see? Well, about a dozen <span style="font-weight: bold">'57 Chevies</span> with a tired 350/350 combination and cheap braided stainless sleeves over the hoses and repro Torq-Thrust wheels, a <span style="font-weight: bold">Fiero</span> with a <span style="font-style: italic">Cowl Induction hood</span>(I'm not kidding about this--he even had the badge glued on the side), a putty-colored <span style="font-weight: bold">1976 Buick LeSabre</span> 4-door sedan, complete with bubbles under the vinyl top and a pockmarked hood, a <span style="font-weight: bold">1998 Corvette C5</span> <span style="font-style: italic">(with a sign proclaiming that it was, ooooh! one of only 4,561 made that year with a black interior--oooh, rare!)</span> with every mail-order catalog piece of chrome you can buy stuck to it, and a <span style="font-weight: bold">1976 Ford Thunderbird</span> with goofy wide-whitewall tires. The most interesting car I saw that I spent even more than 30 seconds examining, was a '57 Ford Retractable that was nicely restored. Oh, and wait! There were some <span style="font-weight: bold">Cobra replicas</span> there, too--one of them even had a Ford motor in it! So, so cool! This is the crapola the public sees and doesn't respect--<span style="font-style: italic">this</span> is the state of our hobby! <span style="font-style: italic">This</span> sorry display was the <span style="font-weight: bold">best</span> the local enthusiasts could come up with for an International Auto Show with 1,000,000+ visitors! One '30s Packard would have made my day. Just one! <span style="font-style: italic">Feh.</span>

Let these worthless cars rust in peace or turn them into hot rods or whatever you want--it's your $500. Nobody will mourn their passing. The public respects nice cars, whether original or rods.

<span style="font-weight: bold">What they don't respect are old rental cars masquerading as collector items.</span>

[DizzyDale]

Dear Matt,YOU are on a roll today.WELL said.diz

[R W Burgess]

You're exactly right, Matt. There are junk yards here in Virginia full of those so-called "special" cars that are just asking for someone to restore them. So, then what would you have, a $25,000 restored 4 door that nobody's interested in? There are only so many restoration shops and hobbiests in the world that can restore cars. Use their talents for the best, before they are gone. Wayne

[Guest De Soto Frank]

I think "respect for anything or ANYONE is just about dead," these days...

Given the behavior I see on the public roads, in public buildings, oh, and on TV too...

'68 Fury's not my favorite car either...but, still...

Seems to kind of smack of "sensless blood sport" to me...

Wonder how long it will be before reality TeeVee turns to recreating the "tournaments" of ancient Rome, with thousands crowding the "Colisseum" to watch people/anmals rip each other to bits...

[Nick_S]

Well, I dont care that Mythbusters used that particular car. Frankly, the only things useable wouldve been the rearend for a drag car. It even had a 318 in it, didnt it? Thats kind of like saving a 305 chevy. What I really HATE to see is movies and such using nice , rustfree, desireable cars and wrecking them, rolling them, crashing them into boats. I only have so much time to restore cars and the less metal work i have to do the better!

[Dave@Moon]

<span style="font-weight: bold">A.</span> I'll bet in 1975 plenty of people were pushing 1938 Plymouths off of cliffs for fun and curiosity, so what the he!!? No loss. I wouldn't walk across the street to urinate on a burning 1938 Plymouth today. Would you?

<span style="font-weight: bold">B.</span> I'm sure every last person watching that show has <span style="font-style: italic">exactly</span> same perspective and values that all us true red-blooded American <span style="font-style: italic">cognoscenti</span> possess, and not one would think that because a 1968 car is worthless then a 1958 or 1948 car is just as much a piece of crap. Nah! Everyone on earth is equally discerning. Besides, it hasn't happened yet (<span style="font-style: italic">right?</span>), so why worry?

<span style="font-weight: bold">C.</span> What was that load of bull about trying to attract younger people into the AACA? I don't remember a thing either.

<span style="font-weight: bold">And WE have the nerve to wonder WHY all the '57 Chevys in Cleveland have 350's!

Unbelievable.</span>

It's going to get worse.

[1937hd45]

When those '70's wrecks started to show up at car shows they drove all the TRUE antique cars and their owners away. I have a lot more respect for the Hot Rod and Street Rod owners they at least have good looking pre 1948 vehicles.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When those '70's wrecks started to show up at car shows they drove all the TRUE antique cars and their owners away. I have a lot more respect for the Hot Rod and Street Rod owners they at least have good looking pre 1948 vehicles. </div></div>

I'm sure the proud owner of this year's first ever AACA Junior Chevy Citation is just going to feel <span style="font-style: italic">so</span> welcomed by this group. I can't anticipate any future problems for a comprehensive organization with this kind of outlook. Can you?

<span style="font-weight: bold"> [color:\\"pink\\"]Life is just rosey all over!</span>

[Guest imported_Joe Kieliszek]

Hello,

How about when the "Mythbusters" took a perfectly good '87 Corvette

and stuffed it with two expired pigs; the point was to see if the

car could be re-sold after the mess from decomposition had been

cleaned up. Believe it or not, it was sold for parts..

Thanks,

Joe Kieliszek

[nearchoclatetown]

Those two clowns are the funniest thing since Jim and Tammy Faye went off the air.

[Matt Harwood]

As I said, <span style="font-weight: bold">Dave,</span> I respect your opinion. But sarcasm isn't going to lead to intelligent discussion, and looking down your nose and wagging your finger at those of us who dissent probably won't help matters.

I understand the problem you've pointed out. I don't think anybody is saying that some erosion of the "purist" hobby (vs. the rodders) hasn't happened. I simply question the outpouring of tears over what are, to virtually everyone's eye, <span style="font-weight: bold">very</span> inconsequential cars. I also question the value of treasuring every used car as if it were some lost artifact to be preserved for history's sake.

Yes, we need to attract younger people to the hobby. But trying to do it with clapped out--dare I say it--<span style="font-style: italic">used</span> cars probably won't work. Who wants to spend a pile of dough on a worthless car? Not even this poor, wretched hypothetical kid we keep talking about recruiting into the hobby with these heaps. Don't you remember when you were a kid, <span style="font-weight: bold">Dave?</span> Would you have wanted to buy and restore what was, to your eyes, a car like the Fury in question (say, a '38 Plymouth 4-door sedan)? Or would you have lusted after something with a little more panache, a little more style, a little more <span style="font-style: italic">something</span> instead of just grabbing any old car and saying, "Well, good enough!" You cry a river for this hypothetical kid, and you assume that he actually wants these heaps you're trying to save for him. You don't give him any credit for having taste, just for being "poor" and therefore, we should save worthless cars for him because that's probably all he can afford. He should be grateful for all the worthless cars we're preserving, right?

I shed a tear for every all-OEM-steel '32 Ford 3-window with a chopped top. I shed a tear for all those ridiculous 30s Packard sedan street-rods. But I refuse to shed a tear for every single car that's more than 25 years old just because it was lucky enough to simply survive. There aren't enough tears in the world for that idea...

Less sarcasm, more discussion, please!

[1937hd45]

Matt, Two great posts, thanks, I stand with you and your views on this topic. I don't have the time or interest to worry about four door grocery getters that have outlived their usefulness. Lets all be honest, if you were GIVEN one of these things how long would it take to sell it and what would you get for it over scrap?

[Guest imported_DaveZZZ]

Well, I guess some people think that it is up to them to define beauty for everyone else.

Personally, financial considerations aside, I'll take my 67 Olds 98 convertible over most anything else. Those full-sized 60s convertibles are among my favorite cars. And I don't care if you like them, and I do feel sad whenever one is needlessly destroyed.

Incidentally, I'm 31 and make a surprising salary- I could buy a much more valuable car if I wanted. And if people like me drive you away, then fine. The difference is that I don't look down my nose at you.

-Dave

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Don't you remember when you were a kid, <span style="font-weight: bold">Dave</span>? Would you have wanted to buy and restore what was, to your eyes, a car like the Fury in question (say, a '38 Plymouth 4-door sedan)? </div></div>

Actually I started with a 1951 Pontiac sedan. In 1974. I felt <span style="font-style: italic">very lucky</span> to be so well off as to be able to. No one else my age where I lived was even coming close to that. A 1938 Plymouth of <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> description was so far beyond me at that time as to be laughable.

It's funny what makes one feel well off, and what one can leave behind as a result as time goes on.

We're [color:\\"red\\"]<span style="font-weight: bold">never</span> going to attract new people to the hobby with immaculate Packards. They start coming to our events with clapped-out Mavericks (often whether they're wealthy or not). If they leave exposed to the attitudes displayed here, they'll be street rodding the first '32 they can afford. You can bet on it.

I would've.

...right after I dropped the driveshaft on the Maverick to see what happens.

I wonder what the guy who used to own the Fury is cutting up right now?

What people who don't like my posts on this subject <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> understand is that <span style="font-weight: bold">not one has been about [color:\\"purple\\"]<span style="font-style: italic">cars</span>!</span>

[Guest Moepar]

Well guys, with what I see being posted here, I guess it's high time for me to get the heck outta the hobby, being that I own late 60's & early 70's Mopar C bodies & a '76 Olds that are worthless. I happen to like them. They drive well, handle well, absoultely run over everything on the road, & yes, are still 'cheap' to buy. Yes, I can buy a 'expensive' old USED car (lets face it, they're all used), but I refuse to spend more on a car than I did on my house with 19 acres. Aint gonna happen. So I own a '70 & '71 300, a '61 Newport, & a '76 Olds. I like 'em, I drive 'em, I show 'em & get a kick outta 'em.

Oh yeah, & the 4 door grocery getter that I bought, put 35k miles on, took to shows (won 19 trophies out of 20 shows), & sold for plenty more than scrap & more than what I paid for it. But, hey, what would I expect for a "70's wreck"

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What people who don't like my posts on this subject <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> understand is that <span style="font-weight: bold">not one has been about [color:\\"purple\\"]<span style="font-style: italic">cars</span>!</span> </div></div>

It occurs to me that I should further explain why this <span style="font-style: italic">should</span> be upsetting to people who care about antique cars.

This show was exploring an urban myth about what would happen if a front U-joint failed in a rear wheel drive car. It wasn't a story about a specific car. They <span style="font-weight: bold">CHOSE</span> to use a 1960's antique sedan. It isn't like 1992 Caprices or Crown Victorias are all that hard to find and the streets are paved with old Mopars.

Has anybody even given a passing thought as to why they chose the Fury, and what considerations that might've been ignored in that choice? And (<span style="font-weight: bold">much</span> more importantly) <span style="font-style: italic">WHY</span> they were ignored? Anybody?

[Shop Rat]

Let's face it. If we all liked the same thing, only a few people would be able to have that item.

We have a guy in our club, tons of "old money". He has seven or eight restored Rolls Royces, two or three restored Bentleys. And sitting there also is the car that was owned by his step-mother who raised him...a Olds from the sixties. (Don't remember what year.) And back in the corner sits a Corvair convertible that he saw driving through a neighborhood and stopped and talked them into selling it to him.

To keep the hobby going everyone must be welcome, no matter what they choose to restore. From what I understand, many of the best cars are going out of the country along with all the parts that can be had. And to those collectors money is no object. The hobbist can not hope to compete.

[1937hd45]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Has anybody even given a passing thought as to why they chose the Fury, and what considerations that might've been ignored in that choice? And (<span style="font-weight: bold">much</span> more importantly) <span style="font-style: italic">WHY</span> they were ignored? Anybody? </div></div>

Impossible stunt to do with a pre 1949 Ford with the enclosed driveshaft.

[Guest JT]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those two clowns are the funniest thing since Jim and Tammy Faye went off the air.

</div></div>

You've got that right

Back in the Jim & Tammy days they had the "pass the loot" (PTL) club on the radio and there was definitely plenty of material for a laugh.

My kids love Myth Busters and hopefully, at least for TV, it stirs some interst in electro/mechanical things.

[Pontiac59]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd LOVE to see MythBusters do some controlled head on collisions with more crap like the Plymouth. A runway of wrecks will keep them off the show field and make room for ANTIQUES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Japan is buying more scrap so there is a market for the remains. </div></div>

So, I can get rid of all these late 30's and 40's 4dr sedans that infest the yards I visit like a horde of locusts, that no one cares about any more than the '68 Plymouth - which at least ran and drove and could have been useful to someone?

Just because you don't like a car or care about it doesn't mean no one cares about it. The damn Chinese are buying up all the scrap metal they can get their hands on, which means ALL old cars regardless of year. I'd rather have a '68 Fury to drive around than a '98 Neon, frankly. In 5 or 10 years, that probably won't be possible, at least at an affordable price. Having an attitude like this is why you can't find that specific prewar car without an extensive search, why maybe 2% of production of those cars exist anywhere. Because that's what people thought in WWII, during the Korean War, and all through the 50's and 60's - even to this day some people don't care.

In other words, if it's not outright hypocritical (and disrespectful to the people who do like those cars), it definately doesn't help the cause when you do see someone wanting to wreck a '36 Oldsmobile and want to stop them.

My last few cars have included a '60 Pontiac Catalina four-door sedan (my only car for three years), a '72 Pontiac Bonneville four-door sedan and a '72 Grand Ville four-door hardtop. I like the big 1970's cars, and they're the cars I remember from being a little kid in 1979, people driving around. I'm only in an '89 Chevy Suburban now because I need something to haul stuff with and it was cheap and low-milage. I even like Ramblers, and almost no one else does. My buddy had a '69 Plymouth Fury Suburban, a nice solid southern car - I thought about putting the radiator back in it and driving that, too, but it was nice enough I didn't want to waste it using it as an everyday car. I also like to go to shows and see these cars. People often like to restore a relative's old car, the car they grew up riding in. Someone who's 30 is going to remember a '70 Pontiac Gran Prix, a '75 Pontiac LeMans, a '73 Chevy stationwagon or some other mundane car, not a '38 Plymouth, and certainly not a Packard or Dueseberg or V16 Cadillac. Maybe they'd even remember a Datsun or Toyota, at this point.

The whole '60s and '70's sedans are junk philosophy strikes me as kind of cliquey and arrogant, and I got tired of that crap in high school. It's certainly not going to attract young people to the hobby, that's for sure.

Think I'll finish the '72 Grandville coupe I picked up before the '40 Buick or the '57 Pontiac -

[nearchoclatetown]

JT, did you see the episode when Tammey Faye and Mr. T sang a song? He couldn't read the words on the telepromptor and she had big crocodile tears melting her face. I almost fell off my chair laughing. That show was almost as good as Benny Hill.

[Guest Moepar]

Amen. I joined the local AACA region because of the members-these guys are down to earth & not a bunch of snobs. If it's old, bring it on. Yes,several have your prewar, but more have post war, lots of 4 doors, trucks, & some truely weird stuff. Makes it far more interesting.

[DizzyDale]

Dear Dave,MAYBE i am missing your point but i think they used the Plymouth rather than the LTD because the Plymouth was a cheaper deal.GOD forbid they would have used an early 60s FALCON YIKESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.YOU would have REALLY flipped out.I don't like to ADMIT this but in high school my brother and i had a 61 Falcon station wagon with the stump-pullin 144" 6.We were the SMART guys and put a 3 single barrel intake on and headers and had a real SCREAMER.Actually the ONLY one screamin was my DAD cause we use to do all this dickin around in his driveway.Just a couple of CLUELESS kids,SCREWIN around.diz

[1937hd45]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try to imagine a world where something like that would be done deliberately to a street rod. </div></div>

Monday night March 7, 2005 "Monster Garage" will thake a T bucket and turn it into a snowmobile.

[michel88]

There is no older car that doesn't deserve to be collected, restored or just maintained and driven. It is not right for AACA members to decide that certain '60s or '70s cars (4 doors or whatever) are unfit to be collected. I like original cars only and some members say I have no right to tell someone what to do with their car (which I am not doing, just expressing my opinion). Now some of these same people are trying to tell members what should and should not be collected. There is no reason to discourage anyone from collecting any car. Lets be tolerant of everyone's choices in cars.

Woody Michel

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MAYBE i am missing your point but i think they used the Plymouth rather than the LTD because the Plymouth was a cheaper deal. </div></div>

Very doubtful. Even 4-door sedans from 1968 enjoy a minor price advantage over (say) 1988 used cars, if only for parts car content.. You have to look hard (most of the time) to find a decent 1968 car to driver or destroy. Avoiding $1500 Caprices on used car lots and in the want ads is a difficult chore.

This was clearly a choice made to get attention. I think it worked.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Monday night March 7, 2005 "Monster Garage" will thake a T bucket and turn it into a snowmobile. </div></div>

Gee, I wonder if they'll pick a pedigree fifties salt flat racer? Or is <span style="font-style: italic">that</span> where sacrilege begins?

[1937hd45]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Gee, I wonder if they'll pick a pedigree fifties salt flat racer? Or is <span style="font-style: italic">that</span> where sacrilege begins? </div></div>

Just like the Myth Busters Plymouth, if they pay the owner for it it is their car to do with as they please.

[DizzyDale]

Dear Dave,MAYBE....The director of the show and i have the same taste in late sixtys Mopars.The ONLY one worth savin has two doors,preferably a 4-speed possibly a convertible and definitely a HEMI.Loved em when i was a kid and still do,couldn't afford one then and can't afford one now IMHO.diz

[1937hd45]

Diz, Remember this is The Discovery Channel, the owner just spent OVER 3 MILLION dollars on the Olds 88 show car at the Barrett-Jackson auction. The four doors from the '60's -'70's that get wasted are helping to pay for a far better car, make that cars, he paid a quarter LARGE for a Hemi powered MOPAR at the same auction.

[DizzyDale]

Dear Bob,DOES this mean that Dave is going to DICOVER that the shi----Fury I that the show tried to break Bruce Jenners pole vault record with was pretty much worthless.diz