Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
Posted by Steve203 On 2015/6/23 10:10:59
The tan Fury's front and rear footwells were very high while the late-50s Ford/Mercs had low footwells nestled between the frames. Why did one company twiddle dee while the other twiddle dum'd?
My guess is that Plymouth didn't bother engineering a new frame because they were only a few years away from the switch to unibody contruction, which occured in 60. The illustration of a 57 frame shows the frame rails well inboard of the rocker panels, so no room for footwells. In comparison, the late 50s Ford frame widens between the wheels to make room for footwells.
Studebaker never engineered an entirely new frame, resulting in very low seats and lack of legroom when they lowered the roof to early 60s height, while still using the 1953 frame.
Speaking of footwells, I took a couple pix of the interiors of those unibody 62 Continentals next to the Edison powerhouse. Look at how wide the door sills are. Imagine a woman trying to step across that in a tight early 60s skirt.
Attach file:
(32.44 KB)
(32.66 KB)
(96.54 KB)
My guess is that Plymouth didn't bother engineering a new frame because they were only a few years away from the switch to unibody contruction, which occured in 60. The illustration of a 57 frame shows the frame rails well inboard of the rocker panels, so no room for footwells. In comparison, the late 50s Ford frame widens between the wheels to make room for footwells.
Studebaker never engineered an entirely new frame, resulting in very low seats and lack of legroom when they lowered the roof to early 60s height, while still using the 1953 frame.
Speaking of footwells, I took a couple pix of the interiors of those unibody 62 Continentals next to the Edison powerhouse. Look at how wide the door sills are. Imagine a woman trying to step across that in a tight early 60s skirt.
Attach file:
(32.44 KB)
(32.66 KB)
(96.54 KB)
This Post was from: https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=163381