Guest ClubHabel Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Are there any websites that will tell you the widths of various cars??? I want to restore a car but am not sure what yet. I think though that I want it to be wide (width) but cant find the info I want on the web. Anyone know of some of the wider cars ever produced regardless of year (although Im more interested in the 40's and 50's)Thanks for any and all help.email me directly at CLUBHABEL@COMCAST.NET-John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1937hd45 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 I've desided that the 1950 Chevrolet Fleetline is TOO wide and plan on selling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buicks Rule Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Many states have laws on the books limiting the maximum width of a passenger car to 80 inches. Roughly in the 1959-1963 era-different years for each manufacturer, GM, Ford, Chrysler all got into some trouble by making cars that were slightly over wide at 81/82 inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skyking Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 AMC Pacer was a wide car, in fact in some of their commercials, they drove a Chevy Nova inside it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Wolk Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 My '77 Lincoln Towncar is 6'6 1/2" wide and 233 1/2" long. It weighs 4,950 lbs. Most had 460s and C-6 transmissions. Pretty bulletproof. They also made a Town Coupe which was much better looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Randy Berger Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 The 1960 Ford was one of the widest cars made. I think laws had to be changed in some states to make them legal.The doors were really thick, but didn't have that much moreroom inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The 1960 Ford was one of the widest cars made. </div></div> 81.5" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 You'd probably do better to pick a car first and search the web for dimensions. There won't be too many sites doing a comparative on width for wide ranges of cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Wolf Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 The VU Student Auto Club has one they are tying to sell,they had it on Ebay but it didn't sell, they are open to offers. 1977 Town coupe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aanderson44 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 1959 Chevrolet's were advetised at 82" (6' 10") wide, and they are wide inside as well, just as wide as the '59 Cadillac (all GM full-sized cars in 1959, save for the Cadillac Series 75 and Eldorado Brougham, used exactly the same body shells. The 1960 Ford Galaxie/Fairlane/Custom series full-sized cars were slightly wider.Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buicks Rule Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 If I remember correctly, no state law change to accommodate the fat cars. However, auto manufacturers were given the message that if they didn't voluntarily cut back the width, states could refuse to allow the extra wide cars to be sold in their state. $$ talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aanderson44 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I remember correctly, no state law change to accommodate the fat cars. However, auto manufacturers were given the message that if they didn't voluntarily cut back the width, states could refuse to allow the extra wide cars to be sold in their state. $$ talks. </div></div>I believe you are right, except that it was mostly political posturing and hot air--after all, what state was going to ban the sales of virtually every new car for 1960 save for Studebakers and Ramblers? None, that's who. However, I do seem to recall that after a "slimming down" across the board by 1961, by 1972-73, car widths inched right back out there again--I'm not sure just how w i d e the '73-'76 Eldorado & Toronado were, but they were at least as wide as the '59's from GM--even the last huge Chevy Impala's and Caprice through 1976 were over 80" wide.Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aanderson44 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are there any websites that will tell you the widths of various cars??? I want to restore a car but am not sure what yet. I think though that I want it to be wide (width) but cant find the info I want on the web. Anyone know of some of the wider cars ever produced regardless of year (although Im more interested in the 40's and 50's)Thanks for any and all help.email me directly at CLUBHABEL@COMCAST.NET-John </div></div>John, Better than digging through all those websites, pick up the Standard Catalog of American Cars. Std. Catalog has all pertinent dimensions of each year, make and model, overall length, wheelbase, width and height. How about them apples? There's a ton of other useful information in there, on each car.Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Peterson Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 This isn't a website, but Automotive News Almanac always had a complete list of that year's automobiles, showiing all specifications: wheelbase, overall length, width, interior dimensions, height, etc. See if you can find a library that has these (I bet the AACA Library has them, and for a small fee, I think Kim would photocopy the list(s) for you). For earlier cars, Motor Annuals did the same thing. In either case, you'd probably be able to find some for sale on eBay, although I know the Motor Annuals go for $75-$100 in good condition. The covers are works of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">John, Better than digging through all those websites, pick up the Standard Catalog of American Cars. Std. Catalog has all pertinent dimensions of each year, make and model, overall length, wheelbase, width and height. How about them apples? There's a ton of other useful information in there, on each car.Art </div></div>That's where I got the width of the '60 Ford. Unfortunately that series is very spotty in it's coverage of specifications, with width being one of the least listed. For instance if didn't list the width of either the '60 Mercury or '58-'60 Lincoln, both of which I suspect are wider than the Ford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buicks Rule Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 60 Merc-probably not--same body as Ford.Lincoln likely as Imperial was too fat until Engel slimmed it down. I think Imperial was the last over wide to be built either 63 or 66 as last wide body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">60 Merc-probably not--same body as Ford.</div></div>That's not true. In 1957-1960 Mercury (for the only time in it's life) had a unique platform and body, and a <span style="font-style: italic">monster</span> it was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buicks Rule Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 Dave,I knew 57-59 Merc had it's own body/chassis/engines. Given that they didn't sell well and the Edsel issues, including sharing Merc/Edsel chassis/engine, I thought Ford did a lot more sharing between the 60 Ford and Merc lines. The 60 Merc is a very unique looking vehicle, looking very different from the 57-59's.The 61 Ford was still too fat but I think the 62 was legal. Probably same for Mercury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave@Moon Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 The '60 was a severe facelift of the '59. It was probably a near desperate attempt at justifying the separate body, which was already cancelled before the car was released. Except for the 1960 windshield (largest ever for a passenger car in square inch terms), the roof lines between '59 and '60 are the same. Otherwise you're right, the cars don't even look like they were from the same company. I once saw a stand-up comic on <span style="font-style: italic">Comedy Central</span> do a routine on Mercury designers. He claimed it must be the easiest job on earth. He pantomimed someone handing him the new Ford design, pretended to scribble a few lines on it, and proclaimed <span style="font-style: italic">"Done! Call me next year!"</span> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 One of the widest bodied series of cars that I can recall were the 1958 -1960 Linclon Mark III - V models. Not to be confused with the <span style="font-weight: bold">SUBSEQUENT</span> Mark III, IV, etc. series.hvs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aanderson44 Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 <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">60 Merc-probably not--same body as Ford.</div></div>That's not true. In 1957-1960 Mercury (for the only time in it's life) had a unique platform and body, and a <span style="font-style: italic">monster</span> it was! </div></div>David, Not quite true, I'm afraid. The first two years of Mercury (1939-40) had completely different bodies than those of either Ford OR Lincoln, along with a unique chassis, in that the frame was (I believe) 6 inches longer in wheelbase than that of the Ford. Mercury shared body shells entirely with Ford 1941-48, but again, a longer frame than Ford. It is also very well documented that the 49-51 Mercury was again its own unique body shell, the only shared body with Ford in those 3 years having been the station wagon. Mercury again shared the same basic bodies with Ford 1952-56, then embarked on a wider, longer frame AND body shell 1957-59.Ford adopted the same wider, longer frame of the Mercury for 1960, along with many of the internal body structures, including the single most expensive stamping, that being the firewall/cowling, but with different windshield, roof stampings, and of course, different lower body sheet metal. Beginning in 1961, however, Mercury used the same basic body shells as Ford, albeit with different lower body sheet metal, and has pretty much done so ever since--only a few stamping differences since.Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aanderson44 Posted August 13, 2005 Share Posted August 13, 2005 <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave,I knew 57-59 Merc had it's own body/chassis/engines. Given that they didn't sell well and the Edsel issues, including sharing Merc/Edsel chassis/engine, I thought Ford did a lot more sharing between the 60 Ford and Merc lines. The 60 Merc is a very unique looking vehicle, looking very different from the 57-59's.The 61 Ford was still too fat but I think the 62 was legal. Probably same for Mercury. </div></div>Structurally and dimensionally, 61 and 62 Fords are the same--the only difference being at the rear, where for 62, Ford lost its fins, and got a new, more rounded, sloped design--doors, roofs, substructures, cowling/firewall, front end sheet metal are all the same, save for any changes in the positioning of trim locating holes. Grilles are interchangeable, but themes were different.In short, the final "flowering" if you will, of the cost-cutting, penurious nature of the future architect of USDOD, Robert S. McNamara (who was the chief financial hatchet man at Ford before JFK persuaded him to move to Washington).Art 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