3/1/1988 Pontiac announces the end of the Fiero automobile – Was anyone sad about that?
Pontiac Fiero
3/1/1937 In New Jersey one of the largest dealerships of the era was opened. The Miro Brothers opened a state-of-the-art facility with “one of the largest and most modern showrooms in the country,” measuring 38′ x 40′ . The dealership was service station and dealt for Buick, Packard, Oldsmoble, and REO trucks. The east side of the building served as a Mobil gas station and service garage during the World War II.
As I get ready to start the new round of mods for my 1970 Mustang Coupe, I’m reminded of a couple of issues that came up when I was assisting a fellow Mustang owner doing a trans – transplant.
The first tip is partially dependent on what stage you are in of your restoration.
He has already finished most of the interior when the a transmission he wanted to add became affordable, it was a good deal…saving some $$$$.
He had decided to do the swap and add a short shifter. This of course requires the removal the bezel and the current 3 speed shift lever, which is easily done from inside the car.
Bezel and Boot
In the course of removing those two parts, he found that the opening cut in the new carpet was not going to allow the access necessary. An attempt to ‘widen’ it was successful but left a bit of a jagged slit. Additionally, while removing one of the screws it snagged the carpet and pulled a few loops out. Can you guess what the tip is? Yeah…remove the carpet and if possible make the swap before you put new carpet in.
One other quick tip is to apply a little silicone spray to the shifter to help slide the boot off..oh…yeah…removing the shift knob before the boot is a good idea…..DON”T ASK!!!!!
I love History, always have and I love engines. I find learning about an engine’s history, its development and how and where it was used over time a great past time. (In case you are unsure of my sincerity – check out my to engine series on Mopar’s 318 http://wp.me/pKHNM-gW and Chevy’s 283 http://wp.me/pKHNM-nu http://wp.me/pKHNM-nB http://wp.me/pKHNM
I also find fascinating, the involvement of U.S. car companies with the development of cars for overseas companies.
Ok..this is a larger introduction for a one of my “factoid” entries, but here they are:
– In the 1950’s and 1960’s the main player of Lotus was a guy named Colin Chapman (aka Anthony Colin Bruce Chapman – tossed that in there because in several of my reading variations of his name was used). Mr. Chapman was responsible for such cars as the Lotus 6, Lotus 23 and Elan. Having developed his own engines and now desiring to improve on their racing performance and btw he was also known to be a bit tight fisted with the cash. This all led him to use technology, as it was back then, that was already developed elsewhere. Give that propensity he used Ford engines for his cars and greatly (at least overseas) enhanced Ford’s racing repetition. The engines he used were Ford’s 105e and 109E engines the Cleveland and Windsor respectively.
Fords 105E used by Lotus.
– These two engines were sometimes referred to as the “Kent” engines.
– They were fitted with twin cams designed by Harry Mundy. These heads were aluminum with hemi combustion chambers sporting .375 lift, 264 degree duration shafts, 1.53/1.325 valve with 9.5:1 compression. All topped off with a Weber twin sided-draught carb.
– They were a starting point for Lotus and Ford racing development and were uses for experimental purpose as well as racing.
– Heavy duty use showed some flaws in the engines due to the 3 bearing mains, resulting in broken cam shafts.
– Was the impetus for Ford to developing the 116E engine with 5 bearing bottom ends, which was basis for the Lotus 1600 Twin Cam.
Ford’s 116E soon to be Lotus 1600 with Mundy’s Twin Cams
I love attending car shows. Either as just a spectator or participant, I have capital F, capital U, capital N.
Today (2/20/2011) I attend for the 3rd year Tucson’s Fords on 4th Ave. A very good size show for the area, considering it was limited to Fords. This year I was only a spectator the Mustang wasn’t ready for a show (needed a bunch of detailing).
There were a ton of newer Mustangs, nice machines, shinny inter-cooled turbos and all the tubing, all nice machines, no doubt. But there was a huge void of older Fords. I love seeing the 40’s and 50’s Fords and Mercurys.
The stars for me of this show were the Fairlanes and Galaxies. Yes there were 60 Mustangs, Shelby’s, Mach I’s and GT. But the lines of these longer 60’s cars are just some of the best designed, ever.
From square boxes to sloping roof lines to coke bottle shapes, car lines have evolved. Sometimes they just went way wrong.
I’ve had my fair share of cars and their shapes and lines were polar opposites. My 1966 Imapla (my first car) was long and sleek, my next car was a Dodge Dart boxy but with a good roof line. Oh but it got worse, my first nearly new car was ….wait for it…..a Ford Granada. Yes…boxy…maybe a little roof line, but it got me around.
After that a series of car including a ’70 Chevelle (you know those great lines), a European Ford Escort (while stationed overseas) and a 83 Camaro (that had great lines on that one). I owned one more Granada and a VW Rabbit (diesel) and two Toyota Celicas ( like the lies of those), a couple pickups and my two Vettes and my Mustang. They spanned decades and many different design lines.
Some of the worse, in my opinion, were some of the best-selling and some that go for huge money now that they are classic muscle cars.
The absolute worse were the pumpkin or watermelon seed cars (that’s my coinage).
Here’s an example: 1996 Chevy Impala
A far cry from my 1966 Impala’s lines
1966 Chevy Impala
Now, I was looking at the lines of my ’70 Mustang and I’d have to say compared to the ’70 Dodge Super Bee the lines (and include the graphics, moldings and even panel seams) the Mustangs lines are much cleaner.
Here is an outlined image of the Dodge:
Dodge
I tried to be fair with my hand drawn lines. The flow of the graphic and their awkward end as they go to the relatively square door make it almost look like the designers said..”OH Crap!!! We forgot the door!!” The fenders have nice lines, as do the quarter panels, but in total it isn’t smooth. HOLD ON, before any of you Mopar folks get all worked up, I’d own a Dodge Super Bee, in a heart beat, especially if someone parked it out side my house and tossed me the keys…and I drive that 383 like I stole it!!!
Now look at the lines of my ’70 Mustang…(are you sick of seeing it yet?)
70 Mustang lines
Just the forward edge (hinged) of the door being shaped it a big plus in my opinion. The sloping of the roof-line into the trunk is another smooth difference, and keep in mind this is just the coupe, not the fast back for the sports back, relatively speaking my Mustang is rather square compared to it siblings, the Mach I and Boss models. Compare the side window openings. The Dodge is very angular, the Mustang’s has a smoother flow.
I could go on and on, we could talk about the 70’s Volares or the even move into the 80’s and talk about the Ford Fairmonts or Chryslers K-Car (I can hear Bill now!!!) but let me hear from you. What do you have to say about car lines, past or present?
Tokyo 17 Car Design Forum opens for registration. Our Tokyo 2017 Car Design Forum has launched, and the website is open for registrations now. More News …
Hyundai-Kia design chief outlines car design philosophy – Interview. by: Roger Stansfield. Materials at the heart of the Paris Motor Show. 20 Oct 2016 …
I was reading an article recently in one of my favorite periodical…you know…from the best auto magazine publishing company, IMHO, Hemmings, specifically Muscle Machines. The article was entitled Lessons of Originality and written by Terry McGean. I enjoy his pieces in HMM.
This article pointed out the importance of all original muscle car specimens, used as models for restoration and an understanding of how they were built, meaning exactly, how and why they were put together in the manner they were. This is a very valid point.
Terry goes on to say that today’s restorations are often taken too far and lose some of their original character. Again, another valid fact one can’t argue, but…..
For example, my 1970 Mustang coupe’s shock towers were stamped out and the car assembled without access to grease fittings. The towers had to be altered, in most cases just cut with a torch, so that the fittings could be reached. That is a known engineering/factory flaw and is a cool ( I think) characteristic that makes it unique. ‘Fixing’ that by replacing with re-manufactured parts with the cut out already there (I don’t believe these exist..but humor me here..ok..I know you usually do..and thanks for that!!) would be disappointing . It’s not like a safety hazard or something serious.
1970 Mustang Shock tower with cut out for grease fitting.
But there is just too much emphasis placed on some ‘original’ characteristics, like the correct paint mark or undercoating on parts. Irregular panel alignment or even one of the bigger deals, paint, specifically what is known as orange peel or that somewhat dimpled look to some factory paint jobs, are considered the epitome of originality and should re-create. To me that is just nonsense.
If you were to look at the side of my 07 Corvette you’ll notice the orange peel effect which looks like the surface of …. yes…an orange. This is said to be very important when judging a car in some levels of the business. But back in the days when I worked in my father’s body shop businesses, orange peel was a product of sloppy work. That is Terry’s point as well, that the cars were assembled with much less care, a lot less care than, of course we take with restoration. (More on that in a bit.)
Here is where I personally begin to draw the line about ‘caring’ whether a car is “restored” to original. First, if it’s restored, it’s not original or re-phrased – “It’s only original once!” (Don’t worry I’m going to drag you down that discussion path too far.) Second, small things like the realignment of the doors or hood or other panels doesn’t make it any more unoriginal if it’s restored nor does it distract from the car at all. The art of the restoration is what is really important and minor improvements are nearly unavoidable.
Let me use the restoration (we’ll call it “Part I”) of my 1970 Mustang coupe. I intended to restore it to what was possible back in 1969-1970 then the cars were built. Everything is period, not original to the car (swapped a 1970 302 for the original 250) but available as a possible option. I love the feel of this car, it still performs as it did back then, even with the aligned hood. At this point in its life span the car is as close to original as it’s going to get (it still has drum brakes). I’ve realigned the panels, I’ve replaced the motor mounts with polyurethane. In the next round of restoration the car will enter its “restro-mod” phase. It will take the Mustang way past the line I drew the first time around.
And why not? Hey…come…on, we project so much emotion in on our cars…’She’s just not running right’ or ‘That car just doesn’t like the cold’. Why not project that they all wish to grow and to change to become more than they were?!??! (Too much of a stretch…let me re-read it…..hang on…mmm….umm…………yeah too much…since I already typed it…I’ll leave it…no sense wasting bytes…pls tell me you got that?????)
Terry mentions that the folks building cars back in the 1960’s often cared little about what they were actually doing and of course none of them were as concerned as we are when we restore them. Now I wasn’t at the factories back then, but I bet in general they took a lot of pride in their work. Of course there were those that didn’t and those that did Monday – Thursday, but on Fridays, not so much. This happens in every business. However, back then many things were done by hand and during long shifts, back-breaking work to be sure. Not to mention that the engineering tolerances weren’t nearly as tight as they are today, it just wasn’t a concern. My only experience with the manufacturing side was my visit to the Corvette assembly plant (I’m going back this year) and it’s hard to tell what everyone everyone was feeling that Tuesday, but you could see the dedication to the overall process. Union’s have made a huge impact and as has technology, they both have had negative and positive effects on the business – but that’s another article.
I worry (but not too much) that the purists will ruin the art of restoration. Terry’s article reminds us that preserving original muscles car are important, as reminder of how it use to be done. But I say they shouldn’t be the only measure of a restored car. Restore it to enjoy it.
