Hood.

[scotrace]

Your comments were on the mark, Michaelson

You clearly are living proof that driving an older automobile on a daily basis is possible if one is able to incorporate the practice into daily life as you have done so well. Dismuke's earlier post (asking advice) indicated that such a scenario was possibly not achievable in his case: He has a long commute in hot weather. He doesn't care to learn auto mechanics. Going from new Honda to '50 Plymouth would be taking on a lifestyle-changing project, he rather enjoys plenty of cold AC, etc.
I think no one addressed your post point-for-point because it would have been a lot of nodding in agreement. Certainly from me. It can be done. But someone completely unfamiliar with the experience, especially one who is asking for information, needs to take on such a project with as much information in hand as possible.

With Highest Regard

 

[BellyTank]

Hey BT didn't you just remove a post I was replying to above?

What gives?!!

Yes, because, I was replying to your post and then I posted and then you said that Michaelson got one in before you....and I guessed your post was now superfluous...
Doesn't matter- not important.
As you were- carry on- berrrh!!! <Recognise that?

B
T

 

[Dismuke]

Dismuke's earlier post (asking advice) indicated that such a scenario was possibly not achievable in his case: He has a long commute in hot weather. He doesn't care to learn auto mechanics. Going from new Honda to '50 Plymouth would be taking on a lifestyle-changing project, he rather enjoys plenty of cold AC, etc.

In a certain sense, I kind of resent the fact that I am even considering the possibility of getting a 65 plus year old car over a brand new one.

What I love about old cars is strictly their aesthetics. They look so cool and neat. They have style. I will grant that modern cars have improved in appearance in recent years as compared to where things once were - but that's not saying very much. Once in awhile I will see a newer car that hints at being stylish in a very understated way. My reaction is: why be apologetic and merely hint at it?

I have never had the experience of "drooling" over a new model car thinking "gee - that's ME - and driving it would make the kind of statement about myself that I would like to convey to the world." The only cars that I have ever felt that way about have been antiques.

I have similar feelings about so many of my other vintage interests. I love collecting 78 rpm records. But at the same time, I kind of resent the fact that I have to constantly keep my eyes open for 75 plus year old records that are not always in the best condition so that I can have access to the kind of music that I enjoy. I resent the fact that can't just go down to the CD department of Wal-mart or Best Buy and find music that I enjoy or simply turn on an AM/FM radio and be able to hear what I consider to be decent music.

I don't consider myself into "old" as much as the fact that I have good taste and refuse to accept crap as an acceptable alternative - and since the 1960s, good taste has all too often been synonymous with "old fashioned."

I think it is pathetic that so many of us have to turn to the culture of our grandparents' and great grandparents' generations for inspiration and a sense of what a rational pop culture of good taste might be like. It wasn't like that in the Golden Era. People in the 1920s and 1930s didn't try to emulate the people in the 1880s - they regarded that earlier era as being backwards and primitive. It is pathetic that it is not possible for us to feel the same way about the 1920s and 1930s and that we, instead, actually look at those decades as examples worthy of emulation.

The 1960s destroyed so much in our popular culture that people once took for granted - such as style, grandeur and elegance. In music, something so basic and essential as MELODY has been all but done away with when it comes to popular music.

I think our popular culture has definitely improved since the 1970s - and it is very noticeable in areas such as architecture and clothing. Yes, clothing. As much as people here like to trash modern dress (with good reason), things are nowhere near as bad in that regard as they were in the 1970s. But notice that the improvements in that area since then have basically centered around a trend towards more traditional clothing styles - i.e. our pop culture is so aesthetically bankrupt that the only way it knows how to improve things is to borrow from our aesthetically better past. The same largely holds true in architecture - though on occasion I do see a new building that I enjoy that doesn't borrow from the past.

In terms of technology, we ARE living in the "Golden Era." I would never want to give up the Internet in exchange for being only able to listen to a handful of radio stations, no matter how beautiful vintage radios were back then. I would never want to give up mp3 files which enable me to carry with me at all times many HUNDREDS of hours of music in a small CD carrying case and go back to shellac 78 rpm records which weighed a half pound each, held about 3 minutes worth of music on each side and were quite expensive compared with the cost of music today. Who would want to give up air conditioning? Or the many, many areas in which technology has increased our standard of living since the 1930s?

But despite all this wonderful technology, today's pop culture is so cheap and tacky by comparison to what thing were like 65 plus years ago. Ultimately, I think it is the technology which will save us. Thanks to the Internet, there exist forums such as this one. Thanks to the Internet, it is possible for people to be able to experience the wonderful popular music of the 1920s and 1930s without having to spend lots of money on antique records and specialized playback equipment. Thanks to the Internet, it is possible to expose people to what once was.....and could be again.

My ideal of the future is a super high tech version of the early 1900s minus some of that era's baggage such as racism etc. When that happens, it will be possible to go out and buy a brand new Honda with all the latest gizmos that is just as stylish, attractive and exciting as that 1937 LaSalle.

 

[scotrace]

Very Well Said

I think many of the Forum members will enjoy this web site:
http://www.packardmotorcar.com/

I don't think the guy got it off the ground, but it was an interesting attempt.

 

[Wild Root]

Now, how fast does a vintage car go?

Vintage cars from the 20's -40's really only went around 50-65mph.
Also speed laws back then were way slower!

Well, I am well aware of the dangers of driving vintage metal compared to modern safety. I have seen plenty of photos of crashed cars from the 30's 40's and 50's. There is a book all about car wrecks from those years. My buddy I bought my car from showed me this book. He wanted to show me a photo of a 46-48 Plymouth that was cracked up and on fire. This was the night that I gave him $5,000. Cash for the car! And you know what? I still wanted a vintage car!

JP, those photos you shown really demonstrate the nature of a car crash. I have seen some real nasty crashes on these freeways here in CA. I believe that people drive way, way, WAY, to fast for their own good and for the good of others! I stay off of the free way when ever possible! I do drive down to my buddies place in Redlands some times. I drive my car only 50 -55 mph. I stay in the slow lane and I am very cautious of what’s around me and a head of me at all times.

I would like to share a story...

Back in 1994 I saw a beautiful 1938 Ford at an air show that was painted up as a WWII staff car.

Years latter, I became friends with the owner. Little did I know this till I saw a photo of him with the car? I asked him if that was his car. He told me that it was. I asked what happened to it, he told me that it wasn't around any more. I asked his girlfriend what happened to it and she told me that he crashed it!

He was driving home from a dance late one night. He was very sleepy and he drove off the road and the car flipped over twice! This car was damaged pretty good. He walked away from the crash! He got a few broken bones and some scratches but that was all. Lucky you ask? I would say so!

I remember seeing tests by Oldsmobile in the mid 30's demonstrating how you could roll one of their cars down a hill and then drive away! There was a driver in side that car as they rolled it! Then, when it got to the bottom, it landed on it's four wheels, then drove off! The body of cars from the 30's and 40's really were tough! Stronger then what's new today. I say, if we could build cars like we did in the 30's and 40's then add all the modern safety items I think it would be a very good thing.

Any way, the fact is, no matter what we drive, or how we drive it, I believe that if God wants us to live, he'll make it happen.

Root.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

It is indeed surprising what sort of accident you can survive. My mother related the story of one crash (this was in the 50's) where her mother, an apparently terrible driver, drove off the road during a family vacation and rolled the car down a hill. My uncle, a little kid at the time flew out the window (no seat belt) but everybody was unhurt, including him.

 

[BellyTank]

I think that if any veteran car with an un-restrained driver rolled twice - the driver would probably not be sitting in the driver's seat anymore- chances are he would have some kind of injuries- most likely of the head- maybe re-located in the back seat, maybe on the floor, maybe through the window maybe bleeding a lot...I think such a display was pure marketing-
to show the strength of the car.
Cars were indeed tough in those days but human flesh and bone remains very fragile indeed. A frog in a blender springs metaphorically to mind...

Here's a formula:
momentum+metal+flesh=disaster

Vladimir- your Uncle, with his gift of flight should be considered very lucky indeed. It's also amazing to see how easily a human body can be completely
destroyed in an accident.

Much of the beef of modern auto safety was in making the frontal area of cars less damaging to pedestrians- but with the contemporary suburban profusion of pointlessly unnecessary SUVs and 4X4s, we're actually moving backwards now.
Same goes for fuel economy- totally out the window-
If you think your average veteran car would come off with little harm against a modern car- then just think how a pedestrian would come off...

I wouldn't recommend having a serious car crash to anyone, it's most uncomfortable and traumatic. :cry:

Ouch-
B
T

 

[Michaelson]

At least with an old car made of steel, should you survive the crash, you'll have something sitting in the driveway to rebuild after you heal. ...unlike new cars that are delivered back to your house after a crash in a paperbag. Anyone who drives these monsters that doesn't install seat belts need to rethink the decision. Once you lose control, you're just rattling around inside the cabin (which on my Plymouth, comfortably houses a family of 6) , and there's a LOT of room in there to rattle around in.Regards! Michaelson

 

[BellyTank]

Eggs...

...ackly Michaelson!
My sentiments eggsackly :cheers1:

B
T

 

[Michaelson]

I installed aftermarket lapstraps in mine, and they're period correct, as lapstraps WERE available in the late 40's from dealerships. I remember quite well my Dad installing lapstraps in our 1956 Plymouth Savoy, and I can't even THINK of driving a car or truck without wearing one now, as I've been wearing them almost all my life now.

I did read a 'cute' one the other day about our old cars....a fellow wrote that our cars never leak oil....they're just so tough, they're marking their territory.

Regards! Michaelson

 

[BellyTank]

That's a good 'un.
Reminds me of classic British motorcycles and oil leaks.
The Royal Enfield is known as the Royal Oilfield in some circles.

Seat belts rule OK?

B
T

 

[Michaelson]

Seat belts rule OK?

B
T

Ok! :cheers1:

High regards! Michaelson

 

[Wild Root]

Well guys, this has been a very successful thread! I had no idea that it would have continued on this far.

I would like to say that any car new or old is dangerous to a degree. I have seen some very sad and scary crashes on the road and that helps me stay a very defensive driver.

I mostly drive on surface streets and there are lots of stop signs! So, when I'm just about to put it in third gear, it's time to brake.

These vintage cars are tough and they can take a licking and keep on ticking but they're not invincible. My dash is very pretty but, it wouldn't be so nice looking if I had a bad crash in it. I keep my foot right over the clutch at all times to get ready to brake if I need. I also tap the horn a little when I'm coming to a blind intersection to worn those who may not see me that I'm coming and I can't stop very easily!

Driving is a full time responsibility! I hate seeing people on the damn cell phone when driving because they're not really paying much attention to what they're doing. :rage: IDOITS!

Any way, no matter what you drive, it's very important to do your best on the road at all times!

Happy motoring!

Root.

This is a 46 to 48 P-15 Plymouth. Don't want my car to ever look like that!

 

[jamespowers]

Well, you have to ask yourself a question. Would you rather be in the car Root pictures above when you hit a cement wall at 25 mph or this car here that smashed head on into a wall at 25 mph:

I suppose the seatbelt made it easier to find the body.
Car manufacturers today are really not to blame for the flimsy construction of their vehicles. The government and indirectly the people are. They have to make the cars lighter to meet regulations such as the CAFE standards. Lighter weight means less gas consumption. Plastic panels replace steel panels, plastic grilles replace steel and chrome. There is also the cost factor. You can never produce a car like they made back int he 40s or 50s and sell it for what they sell cars for today. It is just impossible. The chrome plating alone costs 50 times more not to mention the steel, cloth, vinyl, mohair, wood and other materials. All cost more for a reason but I will leave that for other to figure out why.
It is not that I do not understand the benefits of seatbelts, it is that I resent the fact that I am REQUIRED to wear one in certain vehicles. This whole nannyism bothers me. Let the person choose. If they make the wrong choice there is no one to blame but themselves. Come to think of it, I have seen cases where people have sued car companies because the seatbelts did their job. So we have moved the responsiblity of the driver over to the company that made the car? Hmmmm....

Regards to all,

J

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I agree, I hate being forced to wear a seatbelt. In Texas, it is a state law and basically the entire purpose seems to be revenue generation. They periodically "crack down" on seatbelt offenders as if the police have nothing better to do.

There is also a psychological factor at work. There have been studies done which show that wearing seatbelts often leads people to drive faster and more dangerously than they normally do which to some extent offsets the benefit of the seatbelt. People end up feeling invincible which leads to accidents, just like driving SUVs often leads people to drive in weather or road conditions which they normally would not, again leading to accidents.

In regards to cars being flimsy, in all fairness that greenish car there looks like some sort of sub-subcompact, it is tiny. And it doesn't show the passenger compartment, which probably look relatively undamaged as the area behind the firewall seems pretty solid.

In any accident the energy of the collision has to be spent somewhere. I would much rather have it spent on my car than on me or some other driver. Crumple zones may mean the car itself suffers higher damage, but it ends up protecting the occupants much more than a car which is built so rock-solid that it doesn't absorb any of the energy of the impact. If my car is totaled, I can easily buy another car. I can't buy another life.

 

[jamespowers]

In regards to cars being flimsy, in all fairness that greenish car there looks like some sort of sub-subcompact, it is tiny. And it doesn't show the passenger compartment, which probably look relatively undamaged as the area behind the firewall seems pretty solid.

In any accident the energy of the collision has to be spent somewhere. I would much rather have it spent on my car than on me or some other driver. Crumple zones may mean the car itself suffers higher damage, but it ends up protecting the occupants much more than a car which is built so rock-solid that it doesn't absorb any of the energy of the impact. If my car is totaled, I can easily buy another car. I can't buy another life.

I should have been more specific. That car was a 2002 Kia. It also may look like the guy survived but he didn't and was in the back seat---which is what you see fromt he side. The front seats were ejected from the car. I have no idea how he ended up in the back seat though. :cry:
Actually that car is a perfect example of what your average teenage dolt would buy here. It is cheap, economical and a death trap at even 25 mph. Crumple zones are fine as long as they do not end up in the passenger compartment with me. I find it an excuse for the use of flimsy material to gain gas milage economy. I am sure the car companies love it because it takes little for your insurance to call it a total loss. Then you just have to go buy another tin can---losing value and falling further behind if you have to make payments on the dang thing.
Crumple zones go awry far worse than solid metal will protect you. Take this rearender for example:

This is a 2001 Nissan Maxima.

This is a 1999 Honda Accord. Both were rear ended at freeway speed. The drivers recieved a few broken bones but both passengers in the rear seats (one a child in a car seat) were brain damaged due to the crumple zones coming into the car. I think I would have preferred a solid steel bumper and solid steel rear panels. It probably would not have folded up like a cardboard box either. A passenger with a seat belt would have been fine. Gas mileage is fine but I don't want to save a lot of gas and not get far.


Regards to all,

J

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I would never feel very safe driving a small car in America. In Europe, where almost all cars are tiny it is a different matter. But when you share the road with Ford Excursions and Hummer H2's, driving a Geo Metro is really a bad idea. I have always like larger sedans like the E and S class Mercedes, not just for the added safety though. The most dangerous idea I actually see is the gas milage issue, I agree. Especially with the new hybrid cars which usually try to use ultralight components where possible. Part of the problem for this lies with Federal gas milage requirements.

 

[jamespowers]

The hybrids are a nighmare wating to happen. Fortunately no one has ever got into a bad enough accident to rupture all those damned batteries.
The other thing is the price. They are over $4,000 more than the non-hybrid models. Experts tell us that these vehicles would have to last you over ten years to make back the $4,000 in gas savings. By then you will have to replace the batteries at $4,000 as well. Hybrid technology and economy will have to advance quite a bit before I get involved---particularly the battery danger. :kick:
The federal cafe standards are just nuts. They just keep upping them and forcing car manufacturers to resort to flimsy materials. Have you ever seen a Saturn door? The dang things are fiberglass/plastic. So are the fenders! One scrape on a pole and my friend totalled his Saturn. It wasn't that bad but all the fiberglass or plastic fell off the fender and doors. We literally swept the car up! I feel we are doing the driving public a great disservice by promoting those things. When one thinks about what they want their child to drive safety sure is a factor---especially for a teenager just starting to drive. They hit small things like garbage cans and the like but they could hit larger things. Do they still sell Sherman tanks?

Regards to all,

J

 

[BellyTank]

If the benefits of being restrained aren't obvious to you guys, then there's just no convincing you. It's a public safety issue- 'public safety' that's why the authorities enforce the use of belts - for the public-

B
T

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I always wear my seatbelt, and if someone else gets in my car and doesn't buckle up I ask them to as well. It is just common sense.

But I don't like being told by the government that I must wear a seatbelt or else I will be fined. If I chose not to wear a seatbelt, the only person it endangers is myself. I am old enough to make such decisions myself, just like how I can decide whether or not to smoke, drink, do drugs, or eat millions of Big-Macs. The government has a duty to prevent citizens from harming each other, but it has no duty to prevent individual citizens from harming themselves.