Featured Technical 1957 Ford Meteor Chop Information

From what I remember, there are 2 different height windshields.
Confirm that and you can probably get a mild chop there with a donor frame and glass.
I'd also try to find a different rear donor. If it can drop a couple inches in front and you are doing 4 doors and posts, and getting rid of the quarter windows, having a different glass that fits what's left is probably easier. What 57 to 62 glass and frame would work? I have no idea, but the hunt is the fun part, right?
I don't know your determination and resources, but agree that your best bet is to tackle the running/driving and body mods as two separate stages rather than tear it up and try to do it all at once.

 

for the 1.5" chop, its a whole lot of work instead just finding a club coupe 4 door or post, the chop would have to be more than that. Albeit the posts on the club coupe should be bolt on and easier to chop. But the Hardtop style cars have about 3-4" shorter wheelbase and the rear doors are different. rear glass too.

 

I just watched a TV show, full custom garage, on Roku where the guy did a similar windshield and back glass car, also a four door. It was a 1955 Oldsmobile. The way he goes at it you should be motivated to chop up your uncles car too. He did end up doing the two door conversion, but had done a four door previously which is shown early in the episode.


I’m with the crowd that says do the drivetrain or the chop first, then drive it around for a season. A high revving V12 somehow doesn’t seem right in this car, especially in its four door configuration. Now, maybe if you turn it into a two seat roadster???

 

Correct Abe, 2 different wheelbases in 57 for Ford cars however the Hardtop series is the 500 and it happens to be longer one at 118". That's for the 500 series no matter what body it is. The 300 series is only 116" and it also does not matter the Body style. There was no 300 series hardtops made. In Ford language Hardtop described the Body Style that had no B post between the door glass and quarter glass. To confuse maters, they actually made a 4 Door hardtop. No post between the front and back door glass. This is the 500 series hardtop long 118" wheelbase

 

Well i already have the 2 door roadster thunderbird, so probably not. I'm cannibalizing the fordomatic and Y block as spares for the bird anyhow.

I like a little touch of heresy, I think it'd be really funny to hear a ferrari like v12 coming out of lake pipes on a 50's sled. It's also a bit of revenge, inserting a Jaguar in a Ford, as Ford inserted itself into Jaguar in the 90's. Besides, the V12 was mostly fitted to the Jaguar XJ12, the very picture of a 4 door luxury barge. And is where this one came from.

It seems like the question revolves around if the back glass can be cut down. If not I think I'll leave it as is, maybe extend the fins a bit, few little touches like that. But otherwise just do up the paint, get it as low as i can etc. If the back glass is cracked like the front i'll probably have to replace it with the newer laminate stuff anyway. We'll see i guess.

Are drop spindles available for these cars? I've heard people mention them but can't find a source.

 

Yes and No. Fatman made some. 2 different styles. Neither were perfect. They are now out of business I've heard. Probably should verify that. I did a lot of re-work to the ones I have. Good thing I had a machine shop at hand. Ackerman was way out of line on both styles he made, and I relocated both the ball joint bosses so I could get an alignment. Could have scratch built a set easier but hay.

 

I have Versailles spindles on my 57 Hardtop, they gave somewhat of drop about 1-2, then use the Aerostar coils. There will be debate on the coils, but it rides nice.

 

Like the Lincoln Versailles? What year spindles drop in?

I was kind of hoping the heavier v12 will just sit lower on 70 year old springs without losing dropout/travel. We'll see.

Website is up with 2025 copyrights on it at least. Ackerman is a weird thing to get wrong if you have the originals to copy. Camber I can see but ackerman is strange.

 

Do a search here on the HAMB for Fatman discussion. It's gone.

 

Here's what his product looks like installed after several hours of "modifying". Yes, you can install them as produced but they weren't even the same side to side. The welded-on ball joint bosses were different spacing apart left to right and much closer together than stock. This caused the stock springs, or any that you might choose to use to be compressed more than they would be in a stock spindle application as well as creating a stance different from side to side. The other issue I delt with was that the bolt on caliper mount was not matched to have the brake pads make full contact to the Rotor pad surface. They were noticeably different again from side to side and what I believed would have a result of Brake application pull. Causing brake steer. W.T.F? What I have now is all 3 mount points matching the stock factory spindles. The Granada brake pads making full contact in the same location on both rotors as if on a stock factory Granada car. I will add that I bought them right here on the H.A.M.B. second hand after prior owner changing his mind and going with his stock spindles, Airostar springs and a Disc Brake adapter kit. Probably a smart move on his part.

 

So they weren't made in a jig and just welded together, 'close enough' style?

Yeah stock spindles it is then, that's nasty.

 

It's the later 70's Lincoln, I think it's true same and Granada spindles. You have to taper rear the lower ball joint mount to have the ball joint seat well.

 

I'm curious to know why you keep saying that if the back window can't be cut down you won't be able to chop the car, why don't you consider sinking it in?

 

My original intent was to make it look almost factory, or at least close enough you'd have to properly look at it to notice the changes. Closer to what the original concept drawing of the car would be before all those annoying real world practicalities got in the way. Which is why i don't want to re-radius any of the main curves on the roof or noticeably alter the interior, for example. Sinking the glass into the body is a very noticeable non factory style change and would probably interfere with all the interior parts around the rear parcel tray.

Though I am kind of on the fence about it, I was toying with the idea of chrysler-like fins etc, but that is the intent going in, at least.

 

Enlarge the photos of Kotton Kandy built by Jeff Myers and study the rear window. It was sunken down into body . It looks stock , the shortened trim covers the gap . The package tray hides the work done inside.

 

Quick chop idea. Leant the windshield back, to avoid cutting glass, and the rear screen leant forwards a little. Also pushed the rear window forwards a few inches to get the proportions back in balance. Reshaped the rear side windows.

 

Yeah that looks really good.

I was afraid of tilting the front windshield as that would put the side corners outside of their pocket which would need radical adjustments to the sill to work.

I think a lot of really good ideas have been thrown around, and at this point I just gotta get the car and start taking templates, measuring and investigating problem areas to see which approach works best or if my dream of a factory concept drawing style build can be done without extreme changes. Maybe it'll just end up as a nice paint job and a v12, who knows.



Gotta wrap up some mopar basket cases first. Hopefully i can start cutting up the ford this fall.

 

I'd be more concerned about what happens to the bottom center and top of the windshield when laid back, especially on a panoramic windshield.

Edit: Wrap around windshield, panoramic is what it's named in French.

 

That is a major deal for sure. Bottom center must make contact when finished. To do that means whatever amount comes off at the rear most corner then becomes a Wedge cut (or sanded) off all the way back to zero on dead center. Makes for a lot of hand work!

 

That's not actually true. Of the roughly 309,000 Series 1 though 3 XJ Coupe/Sedans built, less than 10% (about 28,000) were sold with the V12. And that represented a mere 17% of total V12 production of 158,000 across all models. The XKE used only the V12 after '71, the same with the XJS although Jag did build 50 six-powered XJSs in the mid '80 as a marketing test (no sale), and re-offered the six at the near-end of XJS production in the '90s for better fuel milage if desired. Jag continued building the V12 in a modified version for a few years however, selling them to Aston-Martin, along with the XJS suspension.

The Jag V12 was an interesting motor. Originally developed for the XKE which was starting to be down on power with the six, its design was dictated by the space constraints of the XKE chassis as Jag didn't have money to update both the chassis and the motor at the same time. So rather than a 'normal' 90 degree V, Jag went with 60 degrees to reduce its width. And despite being all-aluminum construction, it came in at a hefty 800 lbs. Overall it was a pretty good design but had two major flaws IMO. The first was cooling; Jag had issues with that, they always ran hot. If you overheated one badly, they would drop valve seat inserts, trashing the motor. A lot of Chevy V8 swaps were generated by that. I'll note here that replacing one with an all-iron BB Chevy would drop 200 lbs off the front of the car, the SBC even more. The other flaw was the difficulty in working on one. The only motor I've ever worked on that required a special 'fixture' to remove a head, caused by its 'wet deck' design.

 

Eh, I count the XJS and the XJ as the same car, because they are. Mechanically they're the same. The entire subframe assemblies/suspension are the same and major parts of the monocoque are the same etc. They're sibling 4,000 pound luxury barges, one's just pretending to be a sports car.

Also no, the V12 was designed in the 50's for LeMans, ending up as the quad cam version in the almost but never was XJ13, including prototype motors trailed in Mark 10's on public roads. Though the XJ13 block was cast iron, it was basically the same as the final production aluminum block. It was the top end they developed around the E type, thus the very flat and long 90 degree intake manifolds.

The Aston V12 was derrived from the Jag motor but I think it differs enough to be considered it's own motor. The intake manifolds interchange but i don't think much else does. The DB7 an XK8 were also weridly related to each other. The DB7 came first and was derrived from a cancelled sucessor to the XJS, thus the basic platform being the same. And the XK8 was then later designed as a mass produced rebody of the DB7. Most people think it's the other way around. How related the DB9 and updated XK8/XK150 is, I don't know.

You can open up more of the coolant ports on the head to the coolant rail if you want. I think the major bottleneck on cooling it was the small return hoses and tiny radiators in the E type, XJ and XJS. Open that up and I think they run cool easily enough. I have the XK6 in my XJ, and it runs incredibly cool until you reach the capacity of the radiator and then it immediately shoots straight up to the peg at which point the EFI system starts running richer to try and cool it down and it just stays there at the top.

And yeah, don't pull a 12 head without the pulling fixture. Bad idea.

 

This thread makes me pine for the good ol' days of the HAMB where people were less soft. 15 years ago you'd be flamed into oblivion for making this post.

First things first. Before any discussion of how the chop occurs, the first question needs to be, "Does the OP have the requisite skill, tooling, and resources to actually see this job through to completion?" If yes, then we can proceed to the "how". If no, or if this is going to be some Bad Chad abomination, then perhaps we temper the OP's gusto and instead encourage him to start with the basics, like nosing, decking, and shaving handles and emblems.

That said, chopping a curved glass car is among the most difficult modification that can be done in customizing. I'm not inherently against chopping cars, and I love the look of a nice chopped custom. But the realty is that poor planning, poor styling, or poor workmanship can all torpedo the ultimate objective, which is to make the car look better. Starting with a 4 door sedan of a Custom series body is the ultimate handicap.

In terms of chopped 57 Fords, there are two main examples I can think of. The first is the late Jeff Myer's "Cotton Candy" that has been previously posted here.


It may be an unpopular opinion, but I was never particularly fond of the styling on this car. The exaggerated headlight brows aside, I just don't think the chop lines work well. It's cut too steep in the front and because of it, has a crown at the back of the roof. The roof line is more of an arch, as opposed to a gentle sweep.

On the other hand, Richard Zocchi is one of the very few who got the lines right with this stunner.


Here it either looks like the front is not cut quite as much, or the rear glass is laid down further. But either way, the chop flows from front to back and looks absolutely dynamite.

Of course, in both cases, the substrate for the build is a 2 door hardtop, Fairlane body with the long wheelbase. In terms of building a custom, that's the name of the game. Long, and low.

This was always my complaint with my old 57 Ford. Don't forget, that for all 57 Ford cars, the front sheetmetal is the same forward of the firewall. So the long wheelbase Fairlane 500 has the exact same fenders, hood, etc., as the short wheelbase Custom and Custom 300. Where the difference especially is is in the length of the decklid. The SWB cars look kind of stubby in the back with the short trunk.



Again, the OP has the least desirable of all body styles, the 4 door sedan. Chopping a sedan comes with a whole host of other issues aside from the curved glass. The roof has to drop vertically to keep the B pillar straight, then the roof has to drop abruptly. A hardtop doesn't have to come down vertically, because there is no B pillar to concern yourself with. The roof can angle back and flow better. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the OP's sedan, that has technically 4 pillars, not just 2. The result will end up looking squashed, as opposed to looking fast and sleek.

In sum, my suggestion is to forego this foolhardy venture. Get the car on the road, make it run and drive, maybe have some fun doing mild custom modifications and cool custom paint. But I would strongly discourage any chopping of the car. It's a fast track to it becoming a parts car.

 

Pretty sure the advice above from @57JoeFoMoPar is solid. I have seen lots of chop attempts end up as parts cars in the end. Or, even if finished, they may not look any better than stock after a ton of work.

 

I just talked with a guy who chopped a 1960 Pontiac. he had a guy cut the original windshield but it took him 3 windshields to do it. he just laid the rear window down

 

Well if you want to talk hard projects, I just finished rescuing my '66 Polara wagon. And if you've ever restored a mopar, it don't get much bigger than that job outside of "take the vin tag off and order the entire AMD catologue" type jobs.

And AMD don't make nothing for C-Bodies.







The C-Body people told me the same thing about the wagon, that you can't restore a car in the shape this thing was. Gutted it and fabbed the back half of the car, basically. Plus the cowl, most of the floor etc. Sending it to the bodyshop on the 10th.

When it comes to the artistry, I'm a professional 3D vehicle artist working in AAA games. It is my job to make tasteful cars. Like I said, my goal was something that would look more like the original concept drawing would've looked.

Don't tell me I lack the talent or taste. I've done big stuff before, the only real uncertainty is the back glass.

Part of the motivation for chopping the top was the shorter wheelbase. Try to bias the proportions towards the length of the car. Which is why i actually like the lines on Candy more than the blue one. The strong paralell line at the top of the window frame works well. And it might be the perspective, but the roof on the blue car seems to slant downwards towards the back, which fights the parallel line of the doors.


At this point I think there's two options. Either A) sink the back glass into the trunk or B) Order the 1.5" shorter glass from the Fairlane (which i need to replace anyway) and chop it just as much as that buys me.

I'm gonna collect the car and do some mockups in 3d to see what I like more. If i want a more radical chop, I'll sink it, if it looks good just slightly shorter, the fairlane glass might be the kind of subtle change the concept art look might call for.

Avanti.

 

well--by now gene winfield would be measuring the glass-he'd have it done!

 

Yeah well even Gene had to do his first sometime. We'll get there.

 

good on you!

 

All I'm thinking is that there are so many different levels of building today that I seldom discourage anyone. I will say that if Mig Welding on a Patch panel and hand making some Band-aid rust patches then calling in a Body Shop to salvage the project makes you ready to dive in the deep end, so be it. Why not? Be sure to do a build post here so we can cheer you on with the new approach.