Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Classic Cars I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!
18017 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 7:01 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: andys120 (Nov 23, 2008 7:45 am) Or maybe a 58 Lincoln or Olds 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Nov 23, 2008 7:45 am) I'm not a big fan of useless appendages on cars I guess. I like purposeful design, which is why 1958 is a particular problem for me. Air scoops should scoop air, landau bars should lower roofs, knock off hub cabs should knock-off, blah blah.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 23, 2008 9:53 am) Well, the fins on the Chryslers and DeSotos (not sure about the Dodges and Plymouths) did help give the cars stability at higher speeds. I heard you had to get up to about 80-90 mph to really see any benefit, though. Also, if you want a clean, simple, unadorned 1958 car, Chrysler would have been more than happy to sell you a monotone car with a minimum of chrome. Something like a single-tone '58 Firedome or Saratoga was very clean and unadorned...almost TOO clean for 1958! Chrysler really was the master of the tailfin back then, though. Especially with the DeSotos and Chryslers, they actually integrated them into the design, rather than just tack them on. Oh, and as for benefits, well they aided in parallel parking or backing into a tight spot, letting you see where the car ended! And some designers took advantage of the fins, and put the taillights higher up, for better visibility. And from a visual standpoint, when done right, they do give the car a more aggressive stance, making it appear low in the front, simply by adding more height to the back. It's not such a far fetch from modern cars, which have low front-ends, beltlines that kick up towards the rear, and tall rear decks.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 23, 2008 2:34 pm)  Probably the only stability fins provide is the extra weight on the rear wheels.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 23, 2008 2:45 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 26, 2008 4:27 pm) I saw one of these an hour ago (fakey-doo, Shelby, whatever - it was rumbling nicely). It's about 38°F out and I think the guy was having fun, but it was hard to see his face to tell. He was decked out in a wool cap and an Isadora Duncan scarf. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 23, 2008 2:52 pm) Some of the 30s cars had these "naive aerodynamics". They were styled to look like they could beat the wind, but in fact had all kinds of headlight pods and trumpet horns and front frame irons to slow the car way down.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 23, 2008 4:11 pm) I think a lot of that even holds true today...a lot of cars might look sleek, but then something minor like the shape of the side mirror ends up throwing it off. Anyway, some sleek looking shapes actually aren't, while some brick-like shapes are sleeker than you might think. These days though, I think most cars fall between 0.30 and 0.35, although some of them are down to 0.25. Wikiepedia mentions that the 1935 Tatra T77 is 0.212! I wonder what the Chrysler Airflow's CD was? The car actually was wind-tunnel tested, so it actually was aerodynamic for the time. Probably why it was so ugly, because it followed natural law moreso than a stylist's eye! I haven't been able to dig up any numbers for it though. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 23, 2008 5:08 pm)
|
|
| Today I spotted a 61 Buick fullsize convertible languishing in some shrubbery beside a house. It didn't appear to have a top, so I am pretty sure it was very far gone. | |
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
