|
|
Expert
Posts: 1218
 
Location: Warren, Michigan | Hmm viper powered forward look... does anyone know the whereabouts of that '58 Windsor? |
|
| |
|
| aqua belvedere - 2007-08-29 8:06 PM
the funny thing is my dad always said the generic motors guys copied the 57 plymouth when they designed the 57 Ch**y,i guess this proves him right.and dont give me this s**t that chevies are cheaper to build,ive said it before and ill say it again.you can tell as with most street rods that money and time was not an issue on any other part of this car. so why would you go Ch**y when a junk yard 440 whould blow the doors off that little boat anchor? because the guy is obviously a Ch**y loving dick head who thinks the only car worth looking at or worth racing is a pile of s**t, run of the mill Ch**y.
Hey hey hey man, for one thing 57 Chevies and 57 Plymouths have NOTHING in common, and are almost NOTHING alike, asthetically speaking, except for they both have fins. Both great cars, and I feel like I can say that from experience because I drove a 57 Ch**y in high school. I LOVE Chrysler, but I wouldn't bet any money a junkyard 440 would beat that car's engine.
If he's such a Ch**y guy, why'd he build a Plymouth? Sounds like you'd had some REAL BAD experience with a GM product...I have a problem with anyone who claims one brand is just 'better' than another, be it GM, Chrysler, Toyota, whatever. The reality is, EVERY make has produced good and bad vehicles. Can you honestly say Chrysler never made a poor engine or vehicle?? Can you say that the 440 was a better engine than say the 454, or the 460, and speak from experience? My attitude is to not speak poorly of a vehicle unless I've personally owned and driven it.
Would your attitude be the same if Mopar engines were as popular as GM? The small block Ch**y is a popular engine for good reason: it was and still is a masterpiece of engineering. How would you feel about them if you knew any design elements from them were used as inspiration for a Chrysler engine? Can anyone say that didn't happen? |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 104
Location: dunbar , wv | im not brand loyal to anything but cool.and these forward look cars look as cool as fonzie! but as to Ch**y being cheaperto build they are !!! $ per horsepower small block Ch**y wins everytime . the small block has had the same design sence 55 with the 283! you can find loads of parts because the volume of engines built. heres a example of the cost thing a new 502 big block with 500 hp is 6000 the 426 hemi cost 12000 how is that not cheaper ??? i like mopar but the design , interchangeabillity and price of a Ch**y are hard to beat!!! |
|
| |
|
Inactive by user's request
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada | First small block Ch*vy was the 265 in 1955. 283 came out in '57.
There was some changes to the basic design in the late '80s, early '90s, then again recently.
But from '55 to circa '88, yes, it is basically the same engine. And you can still buy the old design 350 over counter at any Ch*vy dealership.
K. |
|
| |
|
| dukeboy - 2007-08-28 6:48 PM
It was posted JUST to get a rise out of the purists......Simple....
Not exactly, Dukeboy. While I'll admit it's sometimes fun to get a rise out of the purists, that's not the reason I posted this car. It was posted here because I found it on the net and thought it was interesting. I can see now that I was more correct than I thought... This car has become quite the conversation piece since I posted this thread. I can only imagine that the reaction is pretty much the same at any car show this vehicle is taken to. A real head-turner, no doubt. Kinda like "Stubby", the little down-sized plymouth that was taken to Tulsa...
In my opinion, it's always fun to see ForwardLookers... regardless of condition or other details.
I just thought this one was an exceptionally wild custom.
At first glance, I thought "There's a '57 Chev..." Then, I started to realize that this car is actually COOLER than a '57 Chev... mainly because it isn't one.
When it comes to my personal opinion (again) the side trim on a '57 Chev was one of it's most outstanding features... aside from the big rubber boobs on the front. Some of the '56 Plymouth's best attributes were the fins, taillights, and front clip. With no regard to the running gear, etc... This car takes the BEST of BOTH cars. (Even though the Plymrolet doesn't have boobs on the front.)
Any ForwardLook car is cool in my book... This one just has interesting modifications. Modifications that I wouldn't have made... but I have a '57 Chev of my own... and my own ForwardLook fins, too.
Not something I would've done to a car personally... but I can't fault the guy for being creative.
Even though I have called the builder "misguided", I'd never dream of calling him any worse name than that. I feel that the outspoken purists are just as misguided, too. To paraphrase what jsrail has noted above, a TRUE car guy can appreciate just about anything with wheels.
When it comes to cheaper, more available parts... Chev has DEFINITELY got the market cornered.
Here's a for-instance... I recently found one of the tail lenses had cracked on my '57... I knew that these lenses (like just about every other piece of that car) were being reproduced, but I had no idea how expensive / inexpensive they were. As a ForwardLook car owner, I've become accustomed to paying out the nose for replacement parts... so I braced my wallet for impact and made a phone call. To my astonishment, I could get a SET of tail lenses for a grand total of 12 bucks. In addition, my '57 is missing one of the gold-anodized fender "louver" pieces... A full set of those (6 pieces) costs only 50 bucks. When was the last time you found ForwardLook pieces/partz that cheap? I only wish us ForwardLookers had such resources available.
-NM
Edited by Nathan D. Manning 2007-08-29 6:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
| itattoou2002 - 2007-08-28 10:15 PM
...it would be so darn cool to bust some lil fast and furious cars ass with christine!!!
Talk to 58Donnie about it...
He's got a good story about doing exactly that.
-NM
Edited by Nathan D. Manning 2007-08-29 2:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Parts Unknown | circlerounder - 2007-08-29 7:06 AM
DoctorD, The tupperware look? Too funny! I love it.
From what I understand of the shaved and smoothed look, it is about flowing lines. From an artistic sense, rembrant and the other masters used this concept to draw you eyes around their painting with your eyes flowing from one line/curve purposly into the next image. Comics use the same techniques.
Applying this idea to cars, removing clutter that interupts your eyes movement actually accentuates the lines of the car.
********************************
Well, yeah ...... I understand the concept and history.
It just isn't my bag.
I have a few photos my Dad took of cars he and his friends built a la 1953-6. Mostly Model A's with fenders removed, baby moons and whitewalls, and some sort of Lincoln / flathead power. These, even with doo-dads removed, were a far cry from the slick coaches we see today under the "streetrod" heading. 50's hotrods were low budget customs that were entirely different than what would come to be a burgeoning movement of CUSTOMS where everything was fair game to change in an effort to really disguise what a car may have started out as. This evolved into what streetrods are today. They are super smooth, super slick, and every effort is made to remove the organic rough edges of a production vehicle.
I like headlight bars and those freestanding tail light stanchions of the 30's. I like the goofy air cleaners and horns. That is what attracts me to old cars. I find smoothed-out streetrods about as appealing as cars made after chrome bumpers were replaced with the "Tupperware" jobs we see today. Just not where my interest lies.
But since I don't really do car shows and I really don't do much car-wise besides hunt old barns and ravines or see them on the street, those guys do their thing on an entirely different planet than the one I live on. That's cool. To each their own. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 2721
Location: Minneapolis | Interesting. While attempting to marry two different worlds of the same era, they succeeded in alienating members of both families!
Not my cup of tea, but it's not my car either. Just be happy the donor wasn't a Fury! |
|
| |
|
Exner Expert 19,174 posts. Neil passed away 18 Sep 2015. You will be missed, Neil!
Posts: 19146
Location: bishop, ca | Yeah, Doug, but I wonder how well the car is (being) accepted, by Chebbie-clubs/sites?
I would guess: fairly well, as being a joke/put-down of a MoPar. There are so many different types of bowtie-derivatives in the
automotive world, that I'll bet that it gets an attaboy, or even a shrug, from the mouse-motor enthusiasts.
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 343
Location: Route 66, Sullivan MO | Alrighty then, am I going to have to act as "Mom" to all you guys too and tell you to all play nice?
I liked Nathan's name in one of the posts of "the Plymrolet" So now my question would be:
If you built a car that was part Chevrolet and part Toyota - would it be call the Toylet? |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1590
Location: Scottsdale, AZ | Fanbladeus - 2007-08-28 7:54 PM Hmm viper powered forward look... does anyone know the whereabouts of that '58 Windsor? A guy a few streets down from me has a Viper V10 in a '50 Merc Sled. They had to move the firewall back, but it looks real cool and sounds great! |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 2721
Location: Minneapolis | Neil, that's what I meant by "alienating members of both families"-- the Plymouth AND Ch3vy families. You can bet the bowties are looking at it as some sort abortion too!
Good one, Claudia! But the Ch3v doesnt need Toyota to be considered a toylet in MY eyes! 
Edited by forwardlookparts 2007-08-29 7:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Account Inactive by Request
Posts: 1601
| I've been considering taking a '58 Fury, '57 Adventurer, or '60 300F, and putting the body on a Ch**y 4-wheel drive truck chassis. Jack it way up in the air, put mud-digger tires on it, blown Ch**y power of course, and entering the monster truck circuit. Would everyone be OK with that? Of course, it would have bumper wings and a half masted trunk!!! |
|
| |
|
Location: Parts Unknown | carjock - 2007-08-30 4:42 PM
I've been considering taking a '58 Fury, '57 Adventurer, or '60 300F, and putting the body on a Ch**y 4-wheel drive truck chassis. Jack it way up in the air, put mud-digger tires on it, blown Ch**y power of course, and entering the monster truck circuit. Would everyone be OK with that? Of course, it would have bumper wings and a half masted trunk!!!
**************************
Jimbo ~
You think that is a joke ? There is a guy in Issaquah that took a wasted 57 NY'er 2HT and did exactly what you speak of. It sits on a 75 GMC chassis. Car is black and gold. One requires a change of skivvies when this thing appears in the rear view mirror. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1508
Location: new york | Sorry Im old school! A custom car should be cleaned up! Nosed Decked,Lowered,Not painted chrome,Cool Hup caps maybe craigers white wall tires,not air brushed side trim !add 53 Buick or 56-57 DeSoto trim,Ive owned 55,57,58,59 chebys I like them,I like most all old american cars ,rat rods are real cool they help bring a whole new generation in to the hobby,lets face it old cars are very pricey and not everyone has the money for a 55 caddy conv. I own a 32 ford chopped coupe with a 265 cheby V8 39 ford trans, brakes and rear its a real HOT ROD,runs and drives like it should,but if a guy paints 57 cheby trim on a 56 ply Im sorry if i think its UGLY but I cant help it I have a pair of 56 plymouths a belvedere conv and a savoycoupe i think there great cars and dont need any GM parts!!!! HAPPY MOTORING...
Edited by old mopar guy 2007-08-29 11:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert 5K+
Posts: 7431
Location: northern germany | jsrail - 2007-08-28 6:42 PM
I wonder how many of you with such inflamantory comments would say some of these things in front of the car owner in a public place. >
you can bet on it, i would! |
|
| |
|
Board Moderator
Posts: 3186
Location: The not-so-great, dirty-white North ( Michigan) | 1960fury - 2007-08-30 7:22 AM
jsrail - 2007-08-28 6:42 PM
I wonder how many of you with such inflamantory comments would say some of these things in front of the car owner in a public place. >
you can bet on it, i would!
Sid....Always the peacemaker and willing to put that Dale Carnegie course to work!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 398
Location: Watertown South Dakota | I actually like the 56 except for the engine choice. The "cheaper" ch--- engines are always the excuse for using them in everything. You see a lot of very unique built rods and customs with a lot of thought and engineering to make the cars unique and then under the hood....350. If I see a nice Mopar or Ford rod at a car show and notice the SBC, I won't even take the time to look at the rest of the car. We have a local dirt track here and the most popular class usually has over 30 cars. Unfortunately, there are no Mopars and only 2 Fords and the rest ----. A couple years ago, one of the Ford guys gave in because everyone convinced him Fords were too expensive to build. He blew up 3 Ch--engines the first year and the remaining Ford ran his same engine for a couple years before needing anything major. Still cheaper???? Years ago, there was one Mopar that ran here. He wasn't the best driver by far, but held his own because he could pull away on the straights, but get passed in the corners. You could definately see he had the most power and I never seen his engine go up in smoke as most of the others eventually did. My 2 cents worth,,,,, |
|
| |
What The H---???
