405 messages,
Last post on Apr 05, 2010 at 1:57 PM
You are in the
Classic Cars Forum.
What is this discussion about?
Automotive News, Classic Cars, Coupe, Convertible, Truck, Sedan, Wagon
#376 of 405 Re: not bad at all.... [Mr_Shiftright] The worst... [euphonium] [fintail] [lemko] [fintail] [au1994] [fintail] [Mr_Shiftright] [lemko] [uplanderguy] [andre1969] [fezo] [Mr_Shiftright] [andre1969] [ghulet] [uplanderguy] [ghulet] [euphonium]
by fezo
Apr 02, 2010 (5:10 pm)
Back to the Custom Suburban, this has me wondering. Andre mentioned this as the top of the line for Suburbans. What the heck made it so? I don't remember a lot of optional stuff on it (though I do remember it having the V8). No third seat either which I thought odd because there were five kids in the family!
#377 of 405 Re: not bad at all.... [Mr_Shiftright] The worst... [euphonium] [fintail] [lemko] [fintail] [au1994] [fintail] [Mr_Shiftright] [lemko] [uplanderguy] [andre1969] [fezo] [Mr_Shiftright] [andre1969] [ghulet] [uplanderguy] [ghulet] [euphonium] [fezo]
by fezo
Apr 02, 2010 (5:13 pm)
On GMs of earlier era the one thing that didn't do anything for me was the 58 Chevy. While it's almost cheating to pick on a 58 anything because it was a really bad year for design I think the Chevies were the biggest disappointment.
#378 of 405 Re: not bad at all.... [Mr_Shiftright] The worst... [euphonium] [fintail] [lemko] [fintail] [au1994] [fintail] [Mr_Shiftright] [lemko] [uplanderguy] [andre1969] [fezo] [Mr_Shiftright] [andre1969] [ghulet] [uplanderguy] [ghulet] [euphonium] [fezo] [fezo]
by ghulet
Apr 02, 2010 (6:08 pm)
I think the oddest thing about the '58 GMs (in general) were that, while totally different from the '57s they replaced, also looked NOTHING like the '59s that replaced them. Can't imagine the costs involved.....other than engines and trans, ZERO interchangable parts, for a one-year design. I actually kinda like the '58 Chevies (the Cadillacs and Buicks were particularly garish, IMO, but maybe that's cuz of the amount of chrome over-used, but to each his own!!
#379 of 405 Re: Cheap to Fix [Mr_Shiftright]
by hpmctorque
Apr 02, 2010 (10:02 pm)
"Cheap to fix" can be a compliment, or not, depending on how one interprets it.
#380 of 405 Re: not bad at all.... [Mr_Shiftright] The worst... [euphonium] [fintail] [lemko] [fintail] [au1994] [fintail] [Mr_Shiftright] [lemko] [uplanderguy] [andre1969] [fezo] [Mr_Shiftright]
by uplanderguy
Apr 03, 2010 (3:07 am)
You know, let's just SAY IT---nothing looked as good as a GM car back then. Best colors, best engines, best interiors, best options---everybody else looked kinda.....dorky....
You know, I definitely have to agree with you on this. GM's styling always led the way when I was growing up (born '58). GM's styling VP, Bill Mitchell, grew up in my little hometown of Greenville, PA.
I think the '65 full-size Chevrolets and Pontiacs were just out-of-this-world, styling-wise.
I always thought that in the first-impression things, too, GM outshined the competition...the way the doors closed, the look of the instruments and door armrests and door lock buttons...the way the vent windows operated by crank on the full-size cars...all these things spoke 'quality' to me, even if only in impression.
Bill
Apr 03, 2010 (7:58 am)
I know I didn't start being "car aware" until the late '60s. That was the heyday of muscle and design. My late Father was mostly a MOPAR guy. His vehicle of choice was a Chrysler New Yorker with a 440 Magnum. Big beast that hauled. Personally, I didn't have a license then, but following in his footsteps, seeing the Charger fastbacks with big blocks rumbling down the street would always catch my eye.
Granted, GM had the lions share of design and build quality sewn up. But, even the Fords of the day, fastback Torinos, Mustangs, even Cougars (which always looked European to me) in the '60s caught my eye all the time.
I can still remember my Father taking us on road trips in that big New Yorker, flooring it on the highway. That big hulk would kick down, squat, and then fly. My Mother would chastise him for those antics. He'd reply..."just gotta kick the soot out of it, clean the carb."
I never knew what he meant by that until much later on. He was attempting to keep the carb clean of carbon by opening the latter two barrels of the 4 barrel carburator. There'd be a a big "whomp" sound coming from under the hood and we went from docile speeds to very illegal speeds (even as the speed limit was 70 MPH, then) in what seemed like a flash. He'd hit 100 MPH on the speedo, hold it for about a mile or two, and then back off, satisfied that the carbon build up was gone.
Sitting in the back seat (which was like a big couch) with my two sisters, I took great delight in watching the speedo hit 100. Amazing, even today. A car that weighed well in excess of 4,000 lbs, with bias ply tires, cruising at 100 MPH....in as much comfort as you could possibly want.
#382 of 405 Re: '60s [graphicguy]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Apr 03, 2010 (9:29 am)
In Alfa Romeo circles, that tactic is called "An Italian Tuneup" and, in fact, it often helped. There was also "Italian Rust Proofing" which is used in Italy, not here---you mix oil and some clean dirt or sand and brush it on the floor pans.
"CHEAP TO FIX" -- I meant that as a two-way compliment: they are cheap to fix and you often have to. Which is the next best thing to "expensive to fix and you never have to". The best one of course, is "cheap to fix and you never have to".
#383 of 405 Re: not bad at all.... [Mr_Shiftright] The worst... [euphonium] [fintail] [lemko] [fintail] [au1994] [fintail] [Mr_Shiftright] [lemko] [uplanderguy] [andre1969] [fezo] [Mr_Shiftright] [andre1969] [ghulet] [uplanderguy] [ghulet] [euphonium] [fezo] [fezo] [ghulet]
by berri
Apr 03, 2010 (2:37 pm)
I actually liked the 58 Bonneville better than the Impala. Bill Mitchell was taking over from Harley Earl after the less than stellar 57 and 58 year models. They spotted some soon to be released 57 forward look Mopars parked in a factory lot which lead to the total revision of the 59 models. I liked the 59 GM models, but a lot of people didn't and they did some major mods for 1960.
Apr 03, 2010 (3:33 pm)
...but all '60full-sized GMs were just toned-down '59s. Less crazy fins, a little less chrome, more conservative inside and out; they weren't restyled (not that you said that, berri, so no argument). The 1960 models (at least the big GMs, were in general) a helluva lot better looking (or at least less garish?) than the '59s.
#385 of 405 Re: well.... [ghulet]
by berri
Apr 03, 2010 (6:31 pm)
Yeah, I agree that "toned down" is a better description for the 1960 models. As far as preference, there is something about the 59's that just screams about the space age and optimism of the late fifties, kind of like the 57 Mopars, but more radical and in your face a bit.These are my personal preferences style wise:
Chevy - 59 (can't help myself baby!)
Pontiac - 59
Olds - 59
Buick - 60
Caddy - 59 (it's so over the top!)
Favorite models - convertibles and the flat top (wrap around glass) 4 dr HT's, except preferred the 6 window 4 dr Buick and Caddy. I don't think the longer wheelbase carries the flat top off as well.
I know I'm probably a minority here. Might be from seeing them as a little kid when they were first introduced! (or maybe I'm just getting old and wacky?)
But I'll also admit the Bill Mitchell 61/62's were more classic in styling. I'd take a 61 Pontiac over any of them.