slaytonf

That's a nice car!

479 posts in this topic

23 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

I don't know what car this is, but, YOW!:

Untitled.png

 

From Love Affair (1932), with Dorothy Mackaill and Humphrey Bogart.

Maybe a Dusenberg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, slaytonf said:

I don't know what car this is, but, YOW!:

Untitled.png

 

From Love Affair (1932), with Dorothy Mackaill and Humphrey Bogart.

And coming in third place, I was searching a bit last night (I'm not really a very good car guy, though I love seeing antiques like this at car shows) and it looked like it had some similarities to some versions of the 1930 Cadillac v16 452.  In particular, going by the lines along the front and rear wheel wells, but it looks like that car in the pic has no running boards, and I don't think I even see a windshield.  :D  So there might have been any number of different brands that could have looked like this, maybe some with a little more "motivation" than others.  IIRC, "outy" hubcaps shaped like that do seem to appear on some pictures of the Auburn though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MovieCollectorOH said:

And coming in third place, I was searching a bit last night (I'm not really a very good car guy, though I love seeing antiques like this at car shows) and it looked like it had some similarities to some versions of the 1930 Cadillac v16 452.  In particular, going by the lines along the front and rear wheel wells, but it looks like that car in the pic has no running boards, and I don't think I even see a windshield.  :D  So there might have been any number of different brands that could have looked like this, maybe some with a little more "motivation" than others.  IIRC, "outy" hubcaps shaped like that do seem to appear on some pictures of the Auburn though.

One of the problems with trying to identify cars from this period is how they were actually made.  The customer would select the chassis, drive train, etc. from a company such as Cadillac, Dusenberg, etc.  Then select a body to be installed by the selling company.  There were usually catalogs of different style bodies and possible alterations/additions.  Also, the customer may even want a unique design and work with the seller on that.  So the final car would be totally different from the cars coming from the car companies themselves.  Even Dusenberg offered different body styles and treatments.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, those are nice old Mopar muscle cars up there alright Sarge, but what movies were they in?

Remember here, the originator of thread, slaytonf, pretty such started this thread with this in mind. 

Tell ya what, though. After just now checking in the IMCDb website for this vehicle, I found that a Plymouth Duster has somewhat of a featured role in the 2009 movie Adventureland.

(...and if you haven't heard of that movie, I suggest you check it out...it's a great little 1980s period piece coming-of-age story that's well done)

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dusters have a long and venerable history in movies and TV, including Streets of San Francisco, Cagney and Lacey, Kojak, The Deer Hunter (1978), and Car Wash (1976).  But aces in my books is its appearance in Alice in the Cities (1974):

i212739.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1966 Dodge Dart in Le Deuxieme Souffle (1966):

i023796.jpg

Americans used to know how to design cars.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sidebar: 'Cagney and Lacey'? How is that a recommendation? I had hoped to end my days on this planet without ever hearing that show mentioned aloud again in my presence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, slaytonf said:

1966 Dodge Dart in Le Deuxieme Souffle (1966):

...

Americans used to know how to design cars.

Actually slayton, I believe they (we) still do.

Don't know about you, but I think the latest Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes, Cadillac sedans, the Ford GT supercar, among others, are very attractive looking cars.

However, what has transpired in the last decade or so, is that the American consumer has shown a decided new preference for the "crossover" and SUV type vehicle, and away from the sedans such as the Dodge Dart you supplied a pic of above.

(...and because crossovers and SUVs design is based more on the utilitarian concept of form-following-function, the aesthetics of many vehicles in general have changed to what we know today)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah. Back in the day, you drove one of these cars if you commonly and routinely did a full day's work in the course of your life. Working men--that's who these vehicles were made for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Bah. Back in the day, you drove one of these cars if you commonly and routinely did a full day's work in the course of your life. Working men--that's who these vehicles were made for.

Why do you think the Ford F150 pickup is still, and has been for the past 38 years, the best selling vehicle in America, Sarge?! 'Cause now days, THAT'S what the "workin' man" uses to perform that function.

In fact, for the past dozen years or so, MY "main vehicle" has been a 2000 Chevy Silverado pickup.

THAT'S right, a Chevy pickup. Or maybe you don't know that FORD stands for: "Fix Or Repair Daily"!!!  LOL

(...juuuuus' kiddin', all you Ford fans out there) ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Actually slayton, I believe they (we) still do.

Don't know about you, but I think the latest Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes, Cadillac sedans, the Ford GT supercar, among others, are very attractive looking cars.

However, what has transpired in the last decade or so, is that the American consumer has shown a decided new preference for the "crossover" and SUV type vehicle, and away from the sedans such as the Dodge Dart you supplied a pic of above.

(...and because crossovers and SUVs design is based more on the utilitarian concept of form-following-function, the aesthetics of many vehicles in general have changed to what we know today)

Per'aps.  Everyone takes their own cup'a.  To my mind the cars you listed appear as steroided descendants of their originals.  Cars of the early and mid-60s (not all of them) had a cleanness and sharpness of line, and balance of proportion that stands out in all the history of design.  It echoed, or paralleled contemporary styling in other areas of culture, like clothing and architecture.  And for SUV function-to-form, I submit to you the grandaddy of 'em, the Chevrolet Suburban:

800px-1961_Chevrolet_Apache_Suburban.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dargo said:

THAT'S right, a Chevy pickup. Or maybe you don't know that FORD stands for: "Fix Or Repair Daily"!!!  LOL

(...juuuuus' kiddin', all you Ford fans out there) ;)

*snif!* You hurt my feelings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Per'aps.  Everyone takes their own cup'a.  To my mind the cars you listed appear as steroided descendants of their originals.  Cars of the early and mid-60s (not all of them) had a cleanness and sharpness of line, and balance of proportion that stands out in all the history of design.  It echoed, or paralleled contemporary styling in other areas of culture, like clothing and architecture.  And for SUV function-to-form, I submit to you the grandaddy of 'em, the Chevrolet Suburban:

800px-1961_Chevrolet_Apache_Suburban.jpg

I'd say your statement, "To my mind the cars you listed appear as steroided descendants of their originals" might hold true for the modern Mustang and Camaro, but I'd also say the newer Caddy designs have gone in a new, different and refreshing direction, anyway. And, even though it's taken me a while to come to appreciate their sharp-edged look.

(...btw, that big ol' Suburban there is sure in great shape, isn't it?!)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

*snif!* You hurt my feelings!

LOL

Drive a Fix Or Repai...ahem...I mean, drive a Ford do ya, slayton?! ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

1997 F150 XLT I bought--new.

My "Ma" (my birth mother up in British Columbia, who just passed away this past Christmas Eve at age 86) owned a 1986 F150 that she and her late husband purchased new and which was converted to run on propane fuel, and I have to admit it always ran great whenever I drove it around up there.

(...think it has somethin' like 150,000 miles on it)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condolences on the loss.

And that conversion to propane sounds interesting.  But I know some who would razz you about driving a BBQ grill around!  ;)

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Bah. Back in the day, you drove one of these cars if you commonly and routinely did a full day's work in the course of your life. Working men--that's who these vehicles were made for.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  But not unexpected.  My mother and my sister both drove Dodge Darts and they were not working men.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, slaytonf said:

Per'aps.  Everyone takes their own cup'a.  To my mind the cars you listed appear as steroided descendants of their originals.  Cars of the early and mid-60s (not all of them) had a cleanness and sharpness of line, and balance of proportion that stands out in all the history of design.  It echoed, or paralleled contemporary styling in other areas of culture, like clothing and architecture.  And for SUV function-to-form, I submit to you the grandaddy of 'em, the Chevrolet Suburban:

800px-1961_Chevrolet_Apache_Suburban.jpg

Actually, the granddaddy of them all (SUV's) was the Jeep "station wagon" of late 40's.

Image result for Jeep station wagon of 1948

As for design, I am a big fan of cars from 1940 through the 70's, but many of them were God awful ugly, especially in the mid to late 50's.  Impressive in their own way, but not what people today would want.  My favorite is 1959 De Soto.

But the people who actually purchase cars today in large numbers want pick-ups, SUV's, Crossovers and small, economical sedans.  Except for the few who still purchase muscle cars.

As for Cadillac, I never have liked them and the new ones just look weird to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just speaking generally and broadly, I know I'm right, right, right. The country in general, was harder-working then, more so than it is now. Thanks to the explosion of the information age, and the rise of the service sector, if nothing else. The increase in 'sedentary' professions. No need to single out individual family to support your viewpoint; individual exceptions don't really signify when discussing macro trends on this scale...I mean, I could cite all scores of hard-working men in my town who drove these cars when I was growing up..it wouldn't matter in the end, because its all purely anecdotal. We're talkin' 'helicopter-view' terms here...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Just speaking generally, I know I'm right, right, right. The country in general, was harder-working then, more so than it is now. Thanks to the information age, and the rise of the service sector, if nothing else. No need to specify or single out individual family members to support your viewpoint; individual exceptions don't really signify when discussing macro trends on this scale.

And as usual, you have no "macro trends on this scale" (whatever the hell that is) to prove your point either.  Many of the compacts of the 60's and 70's were purchased by men for their wives or daughters to actually use.  Financing of the time discriminated against women, as well as insurance, etc.

You seem to imply that men working at labor intensive jobs were harder working than men and women working in service, technical and many other jobs today.  BS!  Working hard is working hard.  Growing up in the 50's and 60's I knew a lot of lazy men who did minimal enough work to keep from getting fired.  As well as many who did not work at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider too, the rise in automation (especially factories) and the decline of US steel and other big American industries. The increase in products made overseas, which flood all our stores these days. At one time we made our own products and the world came to our door and bought them from us. I admit my original remark sounded glib and cheap, but this is what underpins the sentiment. Muscle cars were not just an affectation or a style, when they first emerged. That's all I'm saying...

Share this post


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

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us