Sign in to follow this  
slaytonf

That's a nice car!

307 posts in this topic

Excuse me here Cid, but what exactly is "road salt"???

 

(...kiddingly asks the native Angeleno...and thus of course the very reason any classic car collector usually looks for a vehicle which has spent most of its life in the American Southwest)

It's that stuff they put on roads up North when it snows or ices-terribly corrosive to metal.  Unfortunately, they even using it in Sunny South Carolina now.  One name for it now is slurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrysler products were infamous for rust in the mid to late '50's.  There were no  inside wheel well  covers so all the mud, water and road salt was thrown up into those tall tail fins, as well as other parts of the cars.  One of reasons why they are so rare today, at least in good shape.

The biggest issue with the late 50's Chrysler cars was poor build quality. Water easily leaked past the glass areas  and got to the insides. The interior floors, trunk area, and anywhere between the inner and outer sheet metal panels got wet and water laid in there. And there was no galvanized metal or extra primer painting in those days . In the areas of the country were roads got salted and cindered things were even worse.  The cars were rushed into production in the fall of 1956 (57 models) so engineering prep time was cut short.  Management wanted to get the styling jump on the competition and they sure did; compare a 57 MoPar to the competition, especially GM's boxy and bloated looking cars.  No wonder GM immediately went on a crash program to completely redo their cars for 1959.  Unfortunately for Chrysler the initial popularity of their new 57 cars worked against them.  Public demand was so high the production lines were pressured to work at top speed and build quality went down hill even more.  A lot of people bought Chryslers but had bad experiences and wouldn't buy another. It took years for the company to rebuild a reputation for building a decent car.   Finally for whatever reason the 57 Chevy has taken on such an iconic status  over the years that people have spent tons of money preserving and restoring those cars. Was the Chevy necessarily a better car?  Not as much as you would think.  Styling wise it looks dated compared to a Plymouth or a Ford.  By the way things look today, everyone had a Chevy in those days.  Ford actually outsold Chevy in 57 and Plymouth had its best sales year in its history up until that point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's that stuff they put on roads up North when it snows or ices-terribly corrosive to metal.  Unfortunately, they even using it in Sunny South Carolina now.  One name for it now is slurry.

Unfortunately this stuff is also hard on the roads and bridges.  They have  gotten better at developing materials that break up the snow and ice while not destroying the roads and our vehicles. But still if you want to aggressively combat the winter elements that's part of the price you pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue with the late 50's Chrysler cars was poor build quality. Water easily leaked past the glass areas  and got to the insides. The interior floors, trunk area, and anywhere between the inner and outer sheet metal panels got wet and water laid in there. And there was no galvanized metal or extra primer painting in those days . In the areas of the country were roads got salted and cindered things were even worse.  The cars were rushed into production in the fall of 1956 (57 models) so engineering prep time was cut short.  Management wanted to get the styling jump on the competition and they sure did; compare a 57 MoPar to the competition, especially GM's boxy and bloated looking cars.  No wonder GM immediately went on a crash program to completely redo their cars for 1959.  Unfortunately for Chrysler the initial popularity of their new 57 cars worked against them.  Public demand was so high the production lines were pressured to work at top speed and build quality went down hill even more.  A lot of people bought Chryslers but had bad experiences and wouldn't buy another. It took years for the company to rebuild a reputation for building a decent car.   Finally for whatever reason the 57 Chevy has taken on such an iconic status  over the years that people have spent tons of money preserving and restoring those cars. Was the Chevy necessarily a better car?  Not as much as you would think.  Styling wise it looks dated compared to a Plymouth or a Ford.  By the way things look today, everyone had a Chevy in those days.  Ford actually outsold Chevy in 57 and Plymouth had its best sales year in its history up until that point.

I learned to drive on our '57 Chevy.  It was OK, but not a great car.  Never have understood why it became so "iconic."  Fords looked better and performed as well if not better.  Chrysler looked better, but as you said, quality was terrible.  Always been a Chrysler problem - and reason I have not even looked at one since 1971.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree with this part of your post, Mr.R:

...compare a 57 MoPar to the competition, especially GM's boxy and bloated looking cars.  No wonder GM immediately went on a crash program to completely redo their cars for 1959.

 

As while I'll agree that the 1958 GM and Ford model lines were "bloated" and heavy looking and festooned with ungodly amounts of chrome in too many cases, I'd say both the GM and FoMoCo lineups presented to the public for the 1957 model year were for the most part tasteful in their appearance.

 

(...and btw, lets remember here that some of the '59 GM and Ford lineup, especially GM, would go WAY overboard and seemed way over-styled and "cluttered" when they hit the market...the '59 Caddies in particular, of course) 

Edited by Dargo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree with this part of your post, Mr.R:

 

As while I'll agree that the 1958 GM and Ford model lines were "bloated" and heavy looking and festooned with ungodly amounts of chrome in too many cases, I'd say both the GM and FoMoCo lineups presented to the public for the 1957 model year were for the most part tasteful in their appearance. 

Not GM's - Buick, Ponitiac, Oldsmobile, Cadillac were all bloated and ponderous looking.  Ford was a whole lot better.  Dodge was way too hevy and just strange looking in front, but other Chrylser products looked pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not GM's - Buick, Ponitiac, Oldsmobile, Cadillac were all bloated and ponderous looking.  Ford was a whole lot better.  Dodge was way too hevy and just strange looking in front, but other Chrylser products looked pretty good.

 

Sorry Cid, but I still say the '57 GM lineup was fairly nice looking, and especially compared to the '58 models.

 

However, I HOPE we can agree upon the thought that by the early-1960s, MOPAR made some of the UGLIEST and over-styled cars EVER!

 

Take for instance THIS "baby" here...a 1961 fullsize Dodge...

 

dodge61polara7.jpg

 

This thing always reminded me of a freakin' MOOSE!!! And I think we all know what a funny lookin' creature a moose is, don't we? ;)

 

(..."Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a Lancer out of my hat!") LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask and ye shall receive, slayton. Take a gander at this great webpage I found to answer this question of yours....

 

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicles.php?resultsStyle=asImages&sortBy=4&make=desoto&model=

 

Grrrr. . ...:

 

t140204.jpg (That's a Firedome, btw, according to Dargo's site)

 

Here's Jimmy Stewart's car:

 

103149-tn.jpg

 

I always liked Kim Novak's car:

 

4951424.jpg

 

Um, what was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww.  Ain't it cute?

 

It was heaven to a very frazzled college student!

 

I wished a 965 which was easy to handle but I did very much love my little blue 407!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I always liked Kim Novak's car:

 

4951424.jpg

 

Um, what was it?

 

That would be a 1957 (or there abouts) Jaguar Mark VII Sedan there, slayton ol' boy.

 

(...btw, there's a guy in the Sedona Car Club here that's had a '52 model of this for sell for quite a while now, if you might be interested...my advice: don't be interested unless you happen to be a wizard with the dreaded Lucas electrical systems in British cars)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, Jag-u-ar.

 

 

But on to other movies.  Just watched Modesty Blaise, a trashy, but fun 60's action/spy spoof (not faithful to the comic).  We have the 1958 Ferrari 250 GT Cabriolet Pininfarina:

 

i225963.jpg

 

And this, which I don't know what it is, or even like it, but somebody might (know what it is, or like it, that is) (and I apologize for the quality):

 

post-33843-0-87784000-1415851288_thumb.png

post-33843-0-87784000-1415851288_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say I'm surprised you don't recognize it's a '59 Cadillac in your thumbnail picture, slayton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say I'm surprised you don't recognize it's a '59 Cadillac in your thumbnail picture, slayton.

 

It's not a surprise to me.  My knowledge of cars is limited.  When I call out the name of one here, it's because I get it from the source of the photo I post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Cid, but I still say the '57 GM lineup was fairly nice looking, and especially compared to the '58 models.

 

However, I HOPE we can agree upon the thought that by the early-1960s, MOPAR made some of the UGLIEST and over-styled cars EVER!

 

Take for instance THIS "baby" here...a 1961 fullsize Dodge...

 

dodge61polara7.jpg

 

This thing always reminded me of a freakin' MOOSE!!! And I think we all know what a funny lookin' creature a moose is, don't we? ;)

 

(..."Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a Lancer out of my hat!") LOL

1961 certainly was the high (low) point of Chrysler's fling with love it or hate it styling.  Most people of the time didn't go for it and sales suffered.  Back in the late fifties when these cars were being conceived there was a reason to believe that public tastes were going in that direction, but that proved very wrong. Interestingly some of these cars are highly sought today by  collectors looking for "distinctive" looking cars.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mystery Date (1991) prominently features a 1958 De Soto convertible.  Movie is on this TV, right now.

TerI Polo definitiely good looking, but I would prefer the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Cid, but I still say the '57 GM lineup was fairly nice looking, and especially compared to the '58 models.

 

However, I HOPE we can agree upon the thought that by the early-1960s, MOPAR made some of the UGLIEST and over-styled cars EVER!

 

Take for instance THIS "baby" here...a 1961 fullsize Dodge...

 

dodge61polara7.jpg

 

This thing always reminded me of a freakin' MOOSE!!! And I think we all know what a funny lookin' creature a moose is, don't we? ;)

 

(..."Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a Lancer out of my hat!") LOL

Hah!  Except for the SIZE, and the symbol on the front grille, it bears a resemblance to my first car, a 1960 Ford Falcon.  Dig an image up and see what you think!

 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah!  Except for the SIZE, and the symbol on the front grille, it bears a resemblance to my first car, a 1960 Ford Falcon.  Dig an image up and see what you think!

 

Sepiatone

 

I'll grant you the front end of this Dodge looks somewhat similar to the 1960 Ford Falcon, Sepia, what with the those foreword "folds" around the headlight/grill unit and the downward slope towards them, BUT other than that, sorry, but not all THAT much, as the Falcon didn't sport those large "humps" over the front wheel-wells like the Dodge, and NOT to mention the Falcon also did not sport those funny lookin' circuitous "moose antler" lookin' tail fins at the rear EITHER! 

 

(...nope sorry ol' buddy, but the Ford in question could NEVER do a respectable Bullwinkle impression as well as that Dodge did!!!) LOL 

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but that 61 Dodge has those imitation louvers stamped on the back of the hood. Customizers of the day  had to add that feature to their cars, on this car its standard equipment. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but that 61 Dodge has those imitation louvers stamped on the back of the hood. Customizers of the day  had to add that feature to their cars, on this car its standard equipment. :rolleyes:

 

LOL

 

OH, well, now THAT makes ALL the difference in the world here then, Mr.R!

 

(...uh-huh...it's a "moose of a different color", now!) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we have beaten up on the style of some of my MoPar vehicles (I acknowledge a few deserve it) I would like to know why some think that the grotesque 59 Cadillac is such an iconic car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we have beaten up on the style of some of my MoPar vehicles (I acknowledge a few deserve it) I would like to know why some think that the grotesque 59 Cadillac is such an iconic car?

 

My guess here Mr.R, is that it's SO over-the-top and personified the era of post-WWII "American excess", that it's become an "iconic symbol" of such.

 

I mean, why do you think so many people TODAY prefer to own and operate those large and lumbering and quite often needlessly excessively loud Harley-Davidson motorcycles, HUH?! 'Cause they're "iconic AMERICAN", and NOT because of they handle at all well...and which most don't...and JUST like a freakin' '59 Caddie!!!

 

(...c'mon, you HAD to know this Triumph Motorcycle rider here would EVENTUALLY slip into this thread a shot at those people who ride that brand of bike, now DIDN'T YA???!!!) LOL

 

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess here Mr.R, is that it's SO over-the-top and personified the era of post-WWII "American excess", that it's become an "iconic symbol" of such.

 

I mean, why do you think so many people TODAY prefer to own and operate those large and lumbering and quite often needlessly excessively loud Harley-Davidson motorcycles, HUH?! 'Cause they're "iconic AMERICAN", and NOT because of they handle at all well...and which most don't...and JUST like a freakin' '59 Caddie!!!

 

(...c'mon, you HAD to know this Triumph Motorcycle rider here would EVENTUALLY slip into this thread a shot at those people who ride that brand of bike, now DIDN'T YA???!!!) LOL

 

;)

My 2 wheeling experiences have mostly been associated with the Schwinn brand. ;)    Interesting little side story, some years ago I took a couple of cross country vacations ( a month of driving across America with a few side trips north of the border) . Before I left home several of my friends at work asked me to stop at a few Harley Davidson stores to pick up some t-shirts for them (each store selling shirts with their local name, place, special art work).  So in my travels when passing near a Harley place I would stop and buy a shirt or two. Always a friendly experience, chatting with  the locals, telling them were I came from (Pa) etc.  Of course I am driving my trusty 4 cyl economical Plymouth .  When I get home I pass out these shirts from all across the country to my buddies ( I did get reimbursed of course). Now these guys, who rarely venture more than 50 miles from home, are riding around wearing  Harley shirts from the Grand Canyon, Hollywood, Cheyenne Wyoming ,  Missouri, Winnipeg, Duluth, Ontario, Quebec,   you name it.   But I was the guy who was there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 wheeling experiences have mostly been associated with the Schwinn brand. ;)    Interesting little side story, some years ago I took a couple of cross country vacations ( a month of driving across America with a few side trips north of the border) . Before I left home several of my friends at work asked me to stop at a few Harley Davidson stores to pick up some t-shirts for them (each store selling shirts with their local name, place, special art work).  So in my travels when passing near a Harley place I would stop and buy a shirt or two. Always a friendly experience, chatting with  the locals, telling them were I came from (Pa) etc.  Of course I am driving my trusty 4 cyl economical Plymouth .  When I get home I pass out these shirts from all across the country to my buddies ( I did get reimbursed of course). Now these guys, who rarely venture more than 50 miles from home, are riding around wearing  Harley shirts from the Grand Canyon, Hollywood, Cheyenne Wyoming ,  Missouri, Winnipeg, Duluth, Ontario, Quebec,   you name it.   But I was the guy who was there!

 

LOL

 

Great story.

 

Yep, that's sort of the same phenomenon as how a large number of Harley riders now days will trailer their bike to that big Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By sheer coincidence I was traveling through Denver about a week or so  before the big Sturgis show   (in 2003 I believe) and since I wanted to see Mount Rushmore I quick made a run up there and then started heading  back east across South Dakota. When in Denver I stopped at Mile High Harley early in the morning. A couple of hundred bikers were there , I might have been the only guy in a car.  A bunch of cops were there as well but everything was peaceful, orderly. I think the cops were interested in the cycles so everyone got along swell.

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
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us