I always liked this picture of my fathers 36 Ford roadster taken before it was finished or had a top on it. When we started this car, it was only a rough cowl and a pair of doors and the first few inches of the back starting at the door jambs. We used a five window rear clip and made all of the floors.
I didn't see an E type, or even a D type. The new one only says that beautiful parents can have plain children.
In light of subsequent developments (i.e. the recent auction sale of the Batmobile), George may not have been so foolish after all. In terms of ROI, that is.
Great to see this ancient thread revived again! Great looking roadster, in this view at least. Are there other pictures of it to be seen? You just didn't do your homework. The E-type is referenced 10 times in this thread, the D-type 5 times, and the XK-SS (street D-type) twice. You guys are harsh! The F-type doesn't have me wetting myself, but I think it's a handsome car, and I think they'll do well with it. Sounds healthy, too!
More testudinary than swoopy, as the voice-over suggests; but I'm always up for random automotive weirdness.
since this came back up. 50fraud, I never understood your thoughts on the late 40's GM fast backs needing a be "done with a more athletic looking stance"?... are you mean??
Mean, no. Most people seem to think I'm reasonably considerate. I don't recall precisely what I meant about the GM fastbacks, but when I wrote the original thread I was talking about cars that looked both sleek/fast and also sporty/athletic. In the spirit of the HAMB, I thought a focus on period American vehicles was appropriate. The GM vehicles in question seem to be treated as customs or restorations most frequently, and not very often as hot rods or pro touring-style vehicles (the occasional '49-50 Olds notwithstanding). I can _imagine_ something like a '48 Chevy on a low rake with wide steelies and fat tires could look pretty tough, but I've never seen one done that way. edit: I just re-read my first post from 2 1/2 years ago, and I said some stuff about a '48 Olds 98 fastback that used mostly the same words as the above. Did I say something else about "athletic stance"? I didn't re-read the entire thread looking for that, but I'd be happy to clarify if I knew which post you were referring to.
I was just trying to understand your thoughts about the GM big cars so I could picture in my head what your were thinking (reference your comments under the pic of Lee's buick)
This is kinda what I was thinking of, although these wouldn't be the wheels I'd choose: Gotta run, but I'll be back this evening.
Boones, I hadn't seen your last post when I wrote the one above. Now I looked back at the first post with the comments on Lee's Buick, and it reinforces what I wrote in my two most recent posts. I'll try to be a little clearer in what I was trying to say. People have admired the various GM fastbacks in the '41-'52 era for many years. When they are customized, the most popular treatment seems to be to lower them severely and add skirts, like Lee's Buick (and, of course, the postwar Chevy models have been a mainstay of the Lowrider style forever). I think they look great that way, but I was thinking about the possibility of doing one in a more aggressive, athletic style. My favorites in this category are probably the '41 Buick, the '48 big Olds (I have been incorrect in calling it a 98; they didn't use that model number until the put the V8 in it in '49), and the '50 Chevy. If I had any one of those models, I would try it with wide steelies and fat, aggressive looking tires, and I would lower the shit out of it -- but with a subtle rake. Pretty much the Pro Touring look. Torq-Thrusts or Halibrands might work, too. I'd even narrow the rear end to get enough tire and wheel underneath the lowered body. In my opinion, when these body styles have been done as hot rods during the last 50 years, the rear end has typically been left too high. The fastback body, when dumped in the front but left near stock in the rear, looks like a stink bug rather than a sleek racer. I'm imagining that with the low rake I'm describing, one of these fastbacks would look really sinister AND muscular. The grey Chevy in the picture above started to have this feeling, but overall the car is too bland and I can't stand the wheels. I'd like to put my money where my mouth is and build something like I'm describing, but I don't think there's gonna be a car left in me when I finally get the '40 done. Thassall I meant. Hope that's a little clearer.
My dad has always wanted a '46-'48 Chevy Fleetline, yellow on Torq Thrusts, with that sort of stance. Here's my latest Morris Minor manipulation: For some strange reason the rear suicide doors don't work without the aggressive/athletic stance. It needs the implicit forward shift. Surprisingly, the rake works with the Alvis TA-like skirts. I plonked in some Jaguar D-type wheels to get a feel for the look. In real life they'd be 15" steelies, perhaps the same Renault wheels I've got on my DD Golf Mk1, but with some creativity around the centre to achieve the knock-off hub look. Getting the Morris to sit like this would require some emphatically OT rubber, though.
I have to go with liking the one in post #10.... Dennis Gage featured it on his tv show. It's Ford Flathead powered. 4TTRUK
That car -- the Timbs Buick special -- was in the magazines when I was a kid (circa 1952). It amazes me that it fell into complete disrepair, and had to be completely (and expensively) restored when it was found a few years ago. It's not flathead powered, by the way; it's a straight-8 Buick. I always imagine that something that special, involving so much effort on the part of the original builder, would be taken care of forever. Guess not.
Much nicer on wires. Not sure what to think about thais car. It has a lot of nice touches, but it still looks like a modern build.
I was thinking just the same, my guess is its because of the short wheelbase maybe? as in, too many details stuffed on a canvas too small Either way, love this thread, really inspiring.
Yes, it bothers me too. It looks like a drawing, a modern drawing (my old theory that design idioms have derived from techniques of rendering since c.1965). Hence the '70s wedge-line, which I believe derives from ease of sketching in a left-side elevation. Is the glass compound-curved? One gets the impression that the shape of the roof was designed by sketching, and the materials then made to conform to the sketch. Finally the riveted detail was added as adornment. It is, in other words, a post-modern design in that it is more about what the various elements say than what they are. This is not how a period design would have happened. With an old build the shape of the roof would have been determined by the available curvature of the glass and the means of attaching it to the body, which might have resulted in various quirks, the success of the design depending on how those are handled.
I'm relieved to hear some skepticism about the design of this car, as it's seemed a little like the Emperor's New Clothes to me from its introduction. I applaud the re-proportioning of the '36 cab-to-wheelbase, and many of the details are nice individually, but the whole leaves me pretty cold. The contrast between painted and polished surfaces is distracting; those trinkets on the hood sides add nothing, and I don't think the top is particularly handsome. I think Dawie's de-wedging works well, although the original wedge shape didn't particularly bother me. About the several Moal/Zausner collaborations that there have been to date: I think Moal's craftsmanship is great, but I don't think he's an outstanding designer. Every one of those cars has had some "if Only..." features about it.
I tried taking the doo-dads off the hood side, making the roof a little taller, flat glass windshield, changed the door windows.
The influence of the Dubonnet Hispano-Suiza Xenia, mentioned in post 279 of this thread, is palpable: The headlight treatment is evocative. But note how the Xenia's geometries are a bit difficult, as if the designer struggled quite heroically with them but subdued them in the end. The Moal car's roof is a clear nod to the Xenia. In light of that the rivets are a bit gratuitous. (But I still prefer the four-door body which preceded the Xenia's coachwork )
Good eye; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Moal had been looking at the Xenia. I don't think I'm familiar with the earlier four-door. Is a picture available?
Beautiful craftsmanship and awesome attention to detail, with a knowledgeable nod to the past. But the car as a unit looks contrived and awkward as hell. Just like any other Moal car I've ever seen...
That body is extremely poorly documented. Only a few photos exist, none of which show the rear of the car.
The Jalopy Journal
