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 What is this thing worth?
458 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 1:18 PM
You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Oct 29, 2009 1:36 pm) I just drove it to Carlisle and back. I didn't try to re-enact "Bullit" with it.  Actually the handling is one reason I've tended to prefer Mopars, too. The setup of torsion bars up front, leaf springs in the back, usually lent itself pretty well too good handling, although it was harder to get a cushy, isolating ride than with coil springs. Mopars tended to be roomier inside...at least, to me, they always felt like they had more legroom. Heck, my '68 Dart feels like it has more legroom up front than my '67 Catalina convertible! Kind funny how there's often no correlation to car size and legroom. A midsize almost always had more shoulder room and trunk room than a compact, and a full-size, more shoulder room and trunk room still. But legroom was often a crap shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 29, 2009 2:39 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Oct 29, 2009 3:43 pm) I had to put up with my dad's complaints for years after putting on a set of 'heavy duty' shocks on my parents' '69 Cutlass. As a smart high school mechanic, I was SURE that the HD shocks were the key to great handling. 
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Oct 29, 2009 1:36 pm) If you have the guts, you can try and steer these things with the gas pedal, but you need a lot of power for that....otherwise you can only let off the gas to get the front tires to bite, and hope she don't swing around on ya'. Man! You drive these relics a lot harder than I would. Even if I now had a '67 Corvette (which would've been a spirited handler in its day) sitting in my garage (which I hope to some day!), I wouldn't even begin to attempt any kamakazie maneuvers with it. That wouldn't be the point. Not saying I wouldn't want to chirp the rear tires while running through the gears once in a while, but only when I had plenty of straight pavement ahead of me. That's why a well tuned 327 (albeit, one of the more potent variants) would do me just fine, thank you. Even when I see a stunning '69 Z28, I don't think of it as a canyon carver - unless, of course, it had been "pro toured". But, if slot car handling is the goal, you'd be money ahead to buy a late model Vette to get your "ya-ya's" out. Then, when it's time for a nice leisurely early-evening summer time cruise, that's when you back the '54 Roadmaster out of the garage. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: parm (Oct 29, 2009 4:55 pm) If you drove a stock 60s car off a freeway ramp in 2009 like you do a Japanese sedan, you'd still scare yourself. My motto these days driving 50s or 60s cars is "If you do anything sudden with either the brakes, steering wheel or gas pedal, be sure the tires are straight" |
|
|
Replying to: parm (Oct 29, 2009 4:55 pm) Well, just as a rough reference point, CR tested a 1955 DeSoto Fireflite with a 200 hp 291-4bbl Hemi, and I think 0-60 came up in around 13 seconds. They also tested a 1955 Olds 98 with (I think) a 324-4bbl putting out 202 hp, and got 0-60 in around 11.8 seconds. I think a '54 Roadmaster would have a 322-4bbl with 200 hp. I'd guess performance-wise, it would come in about on par with the DeSoto? Bigger engine, more torque, but also heavier. The DeSoto was probably handicapped by only having a 2-speed Powerflite, versus the 4-speed Hydramatic in the Olds, but I imagine the Dynaflow would be a hinderance, as well? Any of these cars would be slow in a drag race by today's standards, but should be fine for most driving. FWIW, 0-60 in my '76 LeMans, '79New Yorkers, and '85 Silverado comes up around 11-12 seconds, and I never have any problems with highway merging. Out on the highway, I imagine the biggest annoyance would be how those old bias-ply tires and the loose steering tend to let the car wander. Truck ruts and those metal joints on bridges that run with the road, rather than across it, will also make the car wander around if you hit them. And radial tires, unfortunately, aren't always the answer. Bias ply tires are softer than radial tires, so in those days they made the suspensions and such a bit stiffer to compensate. Once radials came out, they actually softened up the suspensions to counteract the stiffer radials. So, putting a stiff tire on a car with a stiffer suspension can cause all sorts of handling/ride "anomalies", as they say at NASA. As the 1960's progressed, I think the cars became more radial-friendly. I have radials on my '67 Catalina and it seems to do okay, although one of my old mechanics said that the radial tires were the reason it tended to chuck hubcaps. And then, when it comes to braking, well those old drum brakes, especially power-assisted, can be very touchy until you get used to them. While a new car can stop more quickly in an emergency...say a situation where you have to haul the car down from highway speeds to a dead stop, in other situations the car might actually stop quicker, like if you just need to slow down some and press on the brake pedal a bit, and they grab quicker than you thought. If someone's tailgating you, they might end up imbedded in your bumper!
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 30, 2009 6:24 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: parm (Oct 30, 2009 6:31 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 28, 2009 8:33 am) Question: were the headlamp doors on the 1942 DeSoto power operated or manual?
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 28, 2009 8:15 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Classic Cars What is this thing worth?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2005 Ford Thunderbird
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
