Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Also enjoyed the show. Greenfield Village allows folks to see cars driving up and down the streets, like stepping back in time and getting a glimpse of what the public saw back in the day. Packard really nailed the '55-56 interiors, timeless and with high quality materials. That black/white Clipper sedan was a great example.
The Hudson sedan I saw cruise by looked a bit tall but I didn't see it next to a Packard. Your photo makes the Hudson look lower, which it was by 2 inches and could have been made to look even lower with lower hood and beltline. A late 50s Fury, white with gold fins, was very nice as was a '59 blue Caddy sedan with wrap-around backlight. My 10 yr old daughter's favorite was a '70 Subaru 360 because it was sized for her!
Posted on: 2015/6/21 15:16
|
|||
|
Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
I didn't take a pic of the Subie yesterday as it was raining. It didn't show today.
Here are the Plymouth and Caddie
Posted on: 2015/6/21 17:14
|
|||
|
Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thanks and just goes to prove that witnesses can be unreliable... the Fury is tan, not white!
Was very happy to see the '71-73 Mustang well represented, a series that has been derided by some for too long. I think it was a wonderful design and not oversized at all. The Mustang II that replaced it was an eenie weenie teenie tiny little pooh of a car and I remember riding in my friend's mom's when I was in 5th grade and even then thought the back seat was puny. But it was a good car for the post-OPEC times and the Ghia was nicely finished. Pinto also brought back memories, remember cruising the neighborhood with my friends who knew some "older guy" with a Bobcat (he was probably just 17 but to a 13 year old that's old). Again, sat in the back but at least the suffering was made less bearable by The Cars that had just come out on 8-track. Too bad the Pinto had safety issues, was a good design otherwise. Ford was really on the ball with small and even smaller cars beginning with the '60 Falcon. By 1970 they had a nice looking Maverick coupe and the Pinto, eventually in cool looking wagon form. Early Sixties Falcon deserved the 600K sales sold first year. Mid-Seventies Matador face deserved to be gored by a bull. The Deuce should have bought Packard in mid-'56, am more convinced than ever. 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? '68-69 Riviera rear... so sweet! '56-57 Continental Mk II... you're beautiful but shouldn't walk the town without skirts.
Posted on: 2015/6/22 16:56
|
|||
|
Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
I had a acquaintance in high school who got a '57 Fury for his senior year (his father had the Cessna franchise). Upon delivery had it painted many coats of black lacquer. That was an impressive car. I have a different opinion about the '56-57 Continentals - no skirts - PLEASE.
(o{}o)
Posted on: 2015/6/22 21:59
|
|||
We move toward
And make happen What occupies our mind... (W. Scherer) |
||||
|
Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
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.
Posted on: 2015/6/23 10:10
|
|||
|
Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
The Deuce should have bought Packard in mid-'56, am more convinced than ever.
Well, the Mark II's frame would allow the lower roofline that fashion required. Move Packard production into the Continental plant, drop the Clipper, use the MkII frame and powertrain. One problem is, they would be fighting years of Packard being downmarket. One look at the Caddies of the early 50s shows how far behind Packard was. The second problem is the Deuce lost his shirt on the Continental and probably would not have wanted a chance of a repeat.
Posted on: 2015/6/23 10:47
|
|||
|
Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
That wide sill on the Continental might have been the result of platform sharing with T-Bird. If Wiki is to be believed the T-Bird was 75.9 inches wide while Conti was 78.6 or 2.7 inches wider. If they both used the same front floorpan the Lincoln woudd have increased its width to luxury car standards by widening the sill. And/or the engineers wanted a wider sill for rigidity, including in the half B-pillar.
There's a pic of T-Bird sill in Hemmings, clearly shows a narrower sill than Conti. http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/ford/thunderbird/1727014.html
Posted on: 2015/6/23 15:56
|
|||
|
Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Have been thinking quite a bit about that Packard-Ford thing, was going to start a new thread but since we are on the subject, might as well kick it around here. Your two arguments against using Mk II platform are key.
I think the play they could have run would have satisfied a lot of what turned out to be unsatisfied folks at Ford. We know McNamara wanted a 4-seat T-Bird and McPherson a unibody in new plant, driving the need for an additional model - Lincoln as it turned out - to make the business case work. And yet, we also know that Harley Copp, Lincoln's Chief Engineer, argued against Lincoln's involvement because of insufficient time to do an all-new Lincoln for '58 especially on an all-new and untested platform, and the added expense of annual styling due to unibody. Add to that the fact that Lincoln planners wanted to carry the '57 Lincoln into '58 then presumably do a new design that was still BoF. My good friend Steve (not a be confused with you, Steve203... another fine gent!) has finally convinced me that Lincoln should have stayed BoF for all the reasons stated plus fact that unibody lost its weight advantage once vehicle size grew to luxury proportions. The late 50s/early 60s play for Lincoln seems easy enough to contemplate. When one looks at the C-pillar of the '57 Lincoln and compares to the '59-60 Mercury, they both appear to have come from the same designer's pen. I wonder if the Merc C-pillar was originally intended as a Lincoln before Lincoln was tasked with doing a '58 that was "way out there" i.e. the Square 'Bird. In fact, I wonder if the '60 Mercury Park Lane almost in its entirety was intended to be the '59 Lincoln! In its design one sees the type of Lincoln that Edsel preferred. Clean, delicate lines with minimal ornamentation and subtle curves. A car with dignity. Consider these images. First is '60 Merc (front not shown) and Square 'Bird. Which looks more like a classic Lincoln? In the second image I clean up the sides. Compare to third image of '57 Lincoln. Certainly the C-pillars are of same theme. More on the rest of the story soon and do pile on or dismantle as you see fit.
Posted on: 2015/6/23 16:22
|
|||
|
Re: Clippers at the Motor Muster.
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Home away from home
![]() ![]() ![]() |
That sill looks a lot more than 1 3/8" wider per side. I'm thinking it was needed for rigidity with the four door ragtops and hardtops. Maybe they should have taken a page from Colin Chapman and put a spine down the middle? Fewer people would have noticed.
Posted on: 2015/6/23 16:26
|
|||
|