What is this old car, with rounded shell, inch thick wood interior?

On 3/26/2017 3:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <jcmdnWMddKeAUErFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 3/26/2017 12:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> In article <XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
>>>>> 46.165.242.91>, [email protected] says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
>>>>>>> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
>>>>>>> change that. What changed was the law. The
>>>>>>> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
>>>>>>> the new laws produce as much power as one that
>>>>>>> was produced before the laws went into effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
>>>>>> has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
>>>>>> of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
>>>>>> 60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
>>>>>> to make up for it with vast displacements).
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
>>>>> physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
>>>>> having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
>>>>> producting 190 horsepower.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
>>>> the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.
>>>
>>> And this is related to "the laws of physics"
>>> because?
>>>
>>>> Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
>>>> smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
>>>> power all in the interest of controlling emissions.
>>>
>>> And this is related to "the laws of physics"
>>> because?
>>>
>>>> Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
>>>> design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
>>>> controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
>>>> picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
>>>> ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.
>>>
>>> And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
>>> required because of what "laws of physics"?
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be in over your head here.
>
> Rather than explaining why they are required by
> "the laws of physics" rather than the laws of
> Congress, you start with the insults. Very
> good.
>

No insults, you simply do not know what changes came about in the
automotive industry and the effects those changes made to emissions and
HP. There were NO laws governing HP. Pollution control robbed high HP
engines of their power.
And as I mentioned several posts back, electronics and the abandonment
of the carburetor brought back HP and lowered emissions.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:45:55 -0600, [email protected] (Neill
Massello) wrote:

>Casper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Alice Jones <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>>
>> >Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>> >http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>> >
>> >(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>> >(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>> >(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>> >(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>> >
>> >Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>> >And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
>>
>> For comparison...
>> http://car-from-uk.com/sale.php?id=39076
>
>So it was *not* a 1928 Durant D-60 4-door Sedan.
Take a look at ANY durant - the closest would be a 28 Star (or
"RUGBY" as it was exported as) but the Durany is a 3 piece tub, not a
stamped steel tub as shown - and the side panel is too long for a 4
door or touring.
I've been around a lot of old cars - and the first thing that came to
mind, with the way the gas tank is mounted, the double "bead" or
"feature line" around the top, the moderate curve to the obviously
stamped steel tub, and the lever shocks peaking through the floor on
the one picture is "32 Chebby". Looked like a Phaeton except the side
panel matches a 2 door body, not a 4.- and all "Chebbies" of that era
did not have a separate roof - so it looks like somebody took off the
roof to make a "topless" two door - not to use the roof elsewheere
because the "riser" which would be left after removing the roof
appears to have been metal-worked out (if indead it WAS a 2dr Chebby)

I'm still wracking my brain to find a better answer.

On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>>> .
>>>> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
>>>> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
>>>> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
>>>> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
>>>> strting from a reasonably good junker.
>>>
>>> One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.
>>>
>>> The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and that
> was that.
>>>
>>> He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.
>>>
>>> He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.
>>>
>>> We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.
>>>
>>> Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv
>>>
>>> Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He needed
> a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.
>>>
>>> He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>> WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
>> in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
>> They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
>> about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
>> painted wheels and hub caps.
>
> I think one thing that has changed is that
> American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
> their former selves. Now the performance is
> back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
> see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
> quarters and tops out at 200?
>

It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:22:43 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:29:31 +0000 (UTC), Alice Jones
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>>http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>>
>>(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>>(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>>(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>>(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>>
>>Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>>And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
>
>
> 1928 Durant
> white ash
> someone shot it

The body looks more like a two door from the sheet metal in front of
the rear fender, and the fender rolls over the tire too much for a 28
durant.

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
.
> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
> strting from a reasonably good junker.

One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He =
loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.

The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctl=
y was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. =
The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending =
on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave u=
p on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get i=
t restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife=
stepped in, and that was that.

He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restor=
e them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went th=
at route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.

He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/o=
r 2) a full time job.

We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what=
I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or=
less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn=
't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.

Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:

https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv

Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less =
than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No m=
uss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, =
new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. Th=
at did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was form=
ed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when h=
e sold it. He needed a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs=
and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figur=
ed another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have =
it finished if he had found the time.

He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with al=
l the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his pric=
e many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bough=
t it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.

Robert

Casper <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alice Jones <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>
> >Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
> >http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
> >
> >(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
> >(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
> >(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
> >(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
> >
> >Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
> >And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
>
> For comparison...
> http://car-from-uk.com/sale.php?id=39076

So it was *not* a 1928 Durant D-60 4-door Sedan.

<[email protected]> wrote:

> On closer inspection, it's not a touring or Phaeton because the door of a
> phaeton or fordoor would go back over the fender

For me, that was clue that it couldn't be the model Casper linked to in
his post.

Alice Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
> http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>
> (*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
> (*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
> (*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
> (*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>
> Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
> And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
>
69 Mustang, V8, with AC

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:38:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:28:28 -0400, Casper <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>>> On closer inspection, it's not a touring or Phaeton because the door of a
>>>> phaeton or fordoor would go back over the fender <claire@snyder>
>>
>>[email protected] (Neill Massello) was heard to mutter:
>>>For me, that was clue that it couldn't be the model Casper linked to in
>>>his post.
>>
>>I only posted the link for visual reference to a (any) Durant as
>>hubops mentioned it.
>>
>>FWIW, after looking at the back of a few Chevys (got a friend in a car
>>club with a few Chevys, Fords, etc), can't say I see a resemblance.
>>
>>I'm not as into cars as some and anyway I prefer British ones.
>>
>>Looks like Mother Earth is taking all those parts back in the photos.
> There is only ONE YEAR of Chevy yhat resembles that body - and it
>resembles it very closely. That year is 1932. NOT 1931, and NOT 1933.
>Totally different animals. 1932 was a 1 year only "baby Cadillac"
>
>see:
>http://cdn.barrett-jackson.com/staging/carlist/items/Fullsize/Cars/23514/23514_Side_Profile_Web.jpg

I'd say this matches it to a "T"

Looking at what you posted here I'd love to have the body, with a
chassis tag for registration and channel the body by setting it over a
frame and chop the top to about an 8" window, put a Tbird rear seat
(cocktail lounge style) from a late middle 60's in the rear, nice
buckets up front, a built 4 bolt main Chevy 350 with a Paxton blower
with side drafts on it, plus the usual goodies with laughing gas for
special occasions. Done up in chrome with a deep lacquer black cherry
paint job. Make a nice Sunday family drive car, ;) or Friday and
Saturday evening car for cruising and hanging out at a good burger
place.

Even a decent rat rod would be good when your too busy with other
stuff. :)

>and
>http://www.remarkablecars.com/main/chevrolet/1932-chevrolet-confederate-sedan-3.jpg
>That one is a deluxe, not a standard. Deluxe is a "6 wheeler" while
>the standard only has one spare, on the rear.
>It is also a 4 door - so you can see the one referenced by the OP
>definitely is NOT a 4 door anything.
>Here is another 2 door - not as rough as the one referenced --
>https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d8/6d/5d/d86d5d35e3bcf038136f80d1c053f025.jpg
>and another
>http://dansoldcars.net/100_4056.jpg
>http://dansoldcars.net/100_3335.jpg
>and another:
>http://davidsclassiccars.com/images/full/1932-chevrolet-confederate-2dr-sedan-5.jpg
>and another:
>http://www.cars-on-line.com/photo/50200/32chev50237-1.jpg
>and another:
>http://davidsclassiccars.com/images/full/1932-chevrolet-chevy-confederate-2-door-sedan-original-barn-find-excellent-orig-7.jpg
>and another:
>http://smclassiccars.com/uploads/postfotos/1932-chevy-sedan-street-rod-hot-rod-5.JPG
> Note the "feature lines" at the beltline. and around the bottom of
>the "tub" - and the gastank cover.
>In all my years working on and playing with old cars I have not seen
>ANY other vehicle that so closely matches the "tub" referenced by the
>OP. It IS rather unique, when you get right down to it.

On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:26:13 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Deb"

>=20
> >On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 1:29:35 PM UTC-5, Alice Jones wrote:
> >> Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
> >> http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
> >>=20
> >> (*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
> >> (*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
> >> (*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
> >> (*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
> >>=20
> >> Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
> >> And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
> >
> >Cars are not my thing, but I have a friend who could put it back in pris=
tine condition. What the man does is simply amazing. He just finished his=
last restoration (he is retiring), which was a 32 Ford Cabrolet. When he =
started all he had was a body, which was in much worse shape than what you =
are showing here (rusted up 4-6" all around the bottom, no floor pan, no to=
p mechanism, no rumble seat, no hood, no chassis) , and the cowl. He deliv=
ered it (drove it over to the owner's house) Sunday and you could comb your=
hair in the paint job.=20
> I've seen some real magic done too, but there is hardly enough left
> of that Chevy to make it worth while. Lots of more complete vehicles
> around that even if more expensive to buy, will cost MUCH less to
> complete.
> That "tub" might be a good repair part for a more badly rusted, more
> complete, vehicle.

Believe me, on the last car, and it was also the last car he is doing, he h=
ad much less to start with and rolled out his door looking like it just cam=
e out of the showroom.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:03:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 3/23/2017 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
>> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
>> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Pebble Beach
>> Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well considering
>> it's age. 1921 model.
>
>
>When you drive a new car off the lot you lose at least 10% so it has
>lost a lot of value. Even worse, it is a discontinued model. Not worth
>much more than scrap value, I'd guess.

A Stutz? I guess you haven't seen the auto auctions on the TeeVee.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:29:31 +0000 (UTC), Alice Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>
>(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>
>Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
Ash and Oak were commonly used for automotive body framing - Fischer
Body division of General Motors used wood framing up untill 1937.

On 3/23/2017 8:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 3/23/2017 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
>> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
>> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Pebble Beach
>> Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well considering
>> it's age. 1921 model.
>
>
> When you drive a new car off the lot you lose at least 10% so it has
> lost a lot of value. Even worse, it is a discontinued model. Not worth
> much more than scrap value, I'd guess.


Well actually it loses value because if you immediately trade it in it
has to be sold at a profit again, and no one is going to pay more than
retail.

On 3/23/2017 6:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:37:48 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/23/2017 3:45 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> John McCoy <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
>>>>> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
>>>>> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Bebble
>>>>> Beach Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well
>>>>> considering it's age. 1921 model.
>>>>
>>>> That seems to be a thing now. It's a bit like patina on
>>>> old tools - as long as the car is sound, the less you do
>>>> to it the more it's valued.
>>>
>>> I wonder if that's because most restorations seldom get back
>>> what was put into them?
>>>
>>
>> That would make perfect sense. I can not think of any other reason.
>>
>> OR to keep it authentic. Paint not so much but I would imagine it would
>> be very difficult to find parts for a very old vehicle.
> The big reason is "it's only original once"
> An "as found" that is not wearing it's original paint may as well be
> restored, as it is no longer "original"
> An "original" "survivor" car is a very rare thing - particularly
> something like a '21 Bearcat.
>

But most of the "original" unrestored vehicles have little to no paint,
mostly rust.

On 3/25/2017 9:52 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
>> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
>> change that. What changed was the law. The
>> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
>> the new laws produce as much power as one that
>> was produced before the laws went into effect.
>
> Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
> has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
> of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
> 60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
> to make up for it with vast displacements).
>
> Modern engines have overhead cams and much "cleaner"
> intake manifolds - result is much better airflow into
> the engine. Modern engines have fuel injection -
> which means the exact right amount of fuel for best
> combustion, 60's engines had carbs, which just gave
> a rough approximation of the right amount of fuel.
> Engines today have knock sensors and electronic
> ignitions, which means you can have higher compression
> (better thermodynamically) and the spark occurs at
> the optimum time for mechanical advantage (you want
> peak cylinder pressure with the piston about 1/4th
> down the cylinder, for best leverage on the crank).
>
> All these things (and that doesn't even touch on
> variable valve timing and turbos and other exotica)
> mean engines today produce twice as much power per
> cubic inch displacement as 60's engines did. They
> are far more powerful than those dinosaurs.
>
> John
>

+1 ;~)

On 3/24/2017 8:29 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
>>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>>> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
>>>>>> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
>>>>>> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
>>>>>> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
>>>>>> strting from a reasonably good junker.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.
>>>>>
>>>>> The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
> that
>>> was that.
>>>>>
>>>>> He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.
>>>>>
>>>>> He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.
>>>>>
>>>>> We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv
>>>>>
>>>>> Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
> needed
>>> a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.
>>>>>
>>>>> He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
>>>> in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
>>>> They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
>>>> about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
>>>> painted wheels and hub caps.
>>>
>>> I think one thing that has changed is that
>>> American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
>>> their former selves. Now the performance is
>>> back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
>>> see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
>>> quarters and tops out at 200?
>>>
>>
>> It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
>> Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.
>
> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
> change that. What changed was the law. The
> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
> the new laws produce as much power as one that
> was produced before the laws went into effect.
>

I am not arguing that, HP in the 60's, but they got terrible gas
mileage. That is why I said getting rid of carbs and adding electronics
is how the HP has returned and fuel economy.

In article <MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> > .
> >> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
> >> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
> >> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
> >> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
> >> strting from a reasonably good junker.
> >
> > One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.
> >
> > The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and that
was that.
> >
> > He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.
> >
> > He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.
> >
> > We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.
> >
> > Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:
> >
> > https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv
> >
> > Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He needed
a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.
> >
> > He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.
> >
> > Robert
> >
>
> WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
> in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
> They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
> about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
> painted wheels and hub caps.

I think one thing that has changed is that
American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
their former selves. Now the performance is
back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
quarters and tops out at 200?

In article <15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> .
> >>>> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
> >>>> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
> >>>> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
> >>>> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
> >>>> strting from a reasonably good junker.
> >>>
> >>> One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.
> >>>
> >>> The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
that
> > was that.
> >>>
> >>> He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.
> >>>
> >>> He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.
> >>>
> >>> We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.
> >>>
> >>> Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:
> >>>
> >>> https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv
> >>>
> >>> Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
needed
> > a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.
> >>>
> >>> He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.
> >>>
> >>> Robert
> >>>
> >>
> >> WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
> >> in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
> >> They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
> >> about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
> >> painted wheels and hub caps.
> >
> > I think one thing that has changed is that
> > American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
> > their former selves. Now the performance is
> > back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
> > see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
> > quarters and tops out at 200?
> >
>
> It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
> Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.

'60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
change that. What changed was the law. The
electronics let a car that is in compliance with
the new laws produce as much power as one that
was produced before the laws went into effect.

In article <XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
46.165.242.91>, [email protected] says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
> > and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
> > change that. What changed was the law. The
> > electronics let a car that is in compliance with
> > the new laws produce as much power as one that
> > was produced before the laws went into effect.
>
> Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
> has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
> of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
> 60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
> to make up for it with vast displacements).

OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
producting 190 horsepower.

In article <L7-dnfIq04WrCEvFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 3/24/2017 8:29 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <15idneweQbZzO0jFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 3/24/2017 5:55 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <MomdnWLWe_muA0jFnZ2dnUU7-
> >>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
> >>>>>> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
> >>>>>> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
> >>>>>> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
> >>>>>> strting from a reasonably good junker.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and
> > that
> >>> was that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He
> > needed
> >>> a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Robert
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
> >>>> in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
> >>>> They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
> >>>> about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
> >>>> painted wheels and hub caps.
> >>>
> >>> I think one thing that has changed is that
> >>> American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
> >>> their former selves. Now the performance is
> >>> back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
> >>> see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
> >>> quarters and tops out at 200?
> >>>
> >>
> >> It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
> >> Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.
> >
> > '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
> > and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
> > change that. What changed was the law. The
> > electronics let a car that is in compliance with
> > the new laws produce as much power as one that
> > was produced before the laws went into effect.
> >
>
> I am not arguing that, HP in the 60's, but they got terrible gas
> mileage. That is why I said getting rid of carbs and adding electronics
> is how the HP has returned and fuel economy.

Yes, the electronics and so on allow emission
controlled engines to work well. But that does
not alter the fact that the emission controls
pulled performance way way down for a long time.

And a car in the '60s could get good mileage,
it's just that that cost more than the typical
American was going to spend--Ferraris got quite
remarkable mileage considering the performance.

In article <mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
> > 46.165.242.91>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >>> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
> >>> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
> >>> change that. What changed was the law. The
> >>> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
> >>> the new laws produce as much power as one that
> >>> was produced before the laws went into effect.
> >>
> >> Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
> >> has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
> >> of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
> >> 60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
> >> to make up for it with vast displacements).
> >
> > OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
> > physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
> > having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
> > producting 190 horsepower.
> >
>
>
> First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
> the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

> Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
> smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
> power all in the interest of controlling emissions.

And this is related to "the laws of physics"
because?

> Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
> design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
> controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
> picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
> ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.

And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
required because of what "laws of physics"?

In article <jcmdnWMddKeAUErFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 3/26/2017 12:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
> >>> 46.165.242.91>, [email protected] says...
> >>>>
> >>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>>
> >>>>> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
> >>>>> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
> >>>>> change that. What changed was the law. The
> >>>>> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
> >>>>> the new laws produce as much power as one that
> >>>>> was produced before the laws went into effect.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
> >>>> has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
> >>>> of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
> >>>> 60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
> >>>> to make up for it with vast displacements).
> >>>
> >>> OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
> >>> physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
> >>> having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
> >>> producting 190 horsepower.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
> >> the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.
> >
> > And this is related to "the laws of physics"
> > because?
> >
> >> Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
> >> smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
> >> power all in the interest of controlling emissions.
> >
> > And this is related to "the laws of physics"
> > because?
> >
> >> Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
> >> design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
> >> controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
> >> picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
> >> ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.
> >
> > And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
> > required because of what "laws of physics"?
> >
>
>
> You seem to be in over your head here.

Rather than explaining why they are required by
"the laws of physics" rather than the laws of
Congress, you start with the insults. Very
good.

In article <-OadnSEerI1Kr0XFnZ2dnUU7-
[email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...
>
> On 3/26/2017 3:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <jcmdnWMddKeAUErFnZ2dnUU7-
> > [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 3/26/2017 12:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> In article <mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
> >>> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> In article <XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
> >>>>> 46.165.242.91>, [email protected] says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>>>>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
> >>>>>>> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
> >>>>>>> change that. What changed was the law. The
> >>>>>>> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
> >>>>>>> the new laws produce as much power as one that
> >>>>>>> was produced before the laws went into effect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
> >>>>>> has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
> >>>>>> of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
> >>>>>> 60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
> >>>>>> to make up for it with vast displacements).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
> >>>>> physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
> >>>>> having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
> >>>>> producting 190 horsepower.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
> >>>> the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.
> >>>
> >>> And this is related to "the laws of physics"
> >>> because?
> >>>
> >>>> Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
> >>>> smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
> >>>> power all in the interest of controlling emissions.
> >>>
> >>> And this is related to "the laws of physics"
> >>> because?
> >>>
> >>>> Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
> >>>> design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
> >>>> controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
> >>>> picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
> >>>> ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.
> >>>
> >>> And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
> >>> required because of what "laws of physics"?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> You seem to be in over your head here.
> >
> > Rather than explaining why they are required by
> > "the laws of physics" rather than the laws of
> > Congress, you start with the insults. Very
> > good.
> >
>
> No insults, you simply do not know what changes came about in the
> automotive industry and the effects those changes made to emissions and
> HP. There were NO laws governing HP.

And now you start with the straw men. Nobody
asserted that there were laws governing
horsepower. That's something that you're making
up in an effort to derail the conversation.

> Pollution control robbed high HP
> engines of their power.

And why did engines have pollution control?

> And as I mentioned several posts back, electronics and the abandonment
> of the carburetor brought back HP and lowered emissions.

Which nobody is disputing.

Why can't you just admit that the emission
control systems came about because men passed
laws and not because of any requirement of
physics and quit wasting everybody's time?

On 3/26/2017 5:21 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

>>> good.
>>>
>>
>> No insults, you simply do not know what changes came about in the
>> automotive industry and the effects those changes made to emissions and
>> HP. There were NO laws governing HP.


You said,

> I think one thing that has changed is that
> American cars 15-20 years ago were a shadow of
> their former selves. Now the performance is
> back with a vengeance--who'd a thunk we'd ever
> see a _stock_ Caddy that does sub-12-second
> quarters and tops out at 200?
>

I said


It was all about getting rid of carburetors and adding electronics.
Those two things added HP "and" fuel economy.


My comments above is how HP was returned to more than previous levels
and pleasing the EPA.

On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
> .
>> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
>> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
>> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
>> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
>> strting from a reasonably good junker.
>
> One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.
>
> The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and that was that.
>
> He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.
>
> He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.
>
> We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.
>
> Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:
>
> https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv
>
> Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He needed a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.
>
> He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.
>
> Robert
>

WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
painted wheels and hub caps.

What were 'Woodies' made from - station wagons were in the 50's.

We had Wood carrier top that had to have Spar put on it now and then.
I want to say the tailgate also, but not the sides.

Martin

On 3/18/2017 4:12 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:29:31 +0000 (UTC), Alice Jones
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>> http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>>
>> (*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>> (*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>> (*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>> (*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>>
>> Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>> And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
> Ash and Oak were commonly used for automotive body framing - Fischer
> Body division of General Motors used wood framing up untill 1937.
>

On 3/23/2017 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:

> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Pebble Beach
> Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well considering
> it's age. 1921 model.


When you drive a new car off the lot you lose at least 10% so it has
lost a lot of value. Even worse, it is a discontinued model. Not worth
much more than scrap value, I'd guess.

OFWW <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Looking at what you posted here I'd love to have the body, with a
> chassis tag for registration and channel the body by setting it over a
> frame and chop the top to about an 8" window, put a Tbird rear seat
> (cocktail lounge style) from a late middle 60's in the rear, nice
> buckets up front, a built 4 bolt main Chevy 350 with a Paxton blower
> with side drafts on it, plus the usual goodies with laughing gas for
> special occasions. Done up in chrome with a deep lacquer black cherry
> paint job. Make a nice Sunday family drive car, ;) or Friday and
> Saturday evening car for cruising and hanging out at a good burger
> place.

A Paxton supercharger? Not a 6-71? Granted, the Paxton
will probably work a lot better (and be a lot cheaper), but
the 6-71 has that classic blown hot-rod appearance.

John

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Bebble
> Beach Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well
> considering it's age. 1921 model.

That seems to be a thing now. It's a bit like patina on
old tools - as long as the car is sound, the less you do
to it the more it's valued.

John

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
> change that. What changed was the law. The
> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
> the new laws produce as much power as one that
> was produced before the laws went into effect.

Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
to make up for it with vast displacements).

Modern engines have overhead cams and much "cleaner"
intake manifolds - result is much better airflow into
the engine. Modern engines have fuel injection -
which means the exact right amount of fuel for best
combustion, 60's engines had carbs, which just gave
a rough approximation of the right amount of fuel.
Engines today have knock sensors and electronic
ignitions, which means you can have higher compression
(better thermodynamically) and the spark occurs at
the optimum time for mechanical advantage (you want
peak cylinder pressure with the piston about 1/4th
down the cylinder, for best leverage on the crank).

All these things (and that doesn't even touch on
variable valve timing and turbos and other exotica)
mean engines today produce twice as much power per
cubic inch displacement as 60's engines did. They
are far more powerful than those dinosaurs.

John

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
> physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
> having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
> producting 190 horsepower.

Apples and oranges comparison there. You're looking
at the gross horsepower rating of an engine designed
with no consideration for emissions or fuel economy,
to the net rating of an engine designed (poorly) to
have reduced emissions and better fuel economy. To
call them the "same engine" shows a misunderstanding
of what those two engines are.

Specific to those two engines, about 120hp of the
difference came from the change to net horsepower
ratings. Most of the remainder came from the 1970
engine being 11:1 compression ratio, and the 1981
version being 8:1 compression to run on regular gas
instead of premium.

John

On 3/23/2017 8:45 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 05:05:52 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Deb"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Believe me, on the last car, and it was also the last car he is doing, he had much less to start with and rolled out his door looking like it just came out of the showroom.
>> Like I said - anything is possible - including building an accurate
>> reproduction from scratch - but that only really makes sense for very
>> rare cars - not a '32 Chevy. with totally roached fenders, no doors or
>> front sheet metal and no roof.
>> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
>> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
>> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
>> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
>> strting from a reasonably good junker.
>
> It seldom makes financial sense to restore an old car. That's not
> why it's done, generally.
>

I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Bebble Beach
Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well considering
it's age. 1921 model.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:18:25 -0400, Casper <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Alice Jones <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>
>>Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>>http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>>
>>(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>>(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>>(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>>(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>>
>>Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>>And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
>
>For comparison...
>http://car-from-uk.com/sale.php?id=39076
As I said - no double bead at the top, and it's a 3 piece body
instead of a preswsed steal tub. Defineitely NOT a Durant of any
stripe.
Almost CERTAINLY a 32 Chevy from all the clues.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:29:31 +0000 (UTC), Alice Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>
>(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>
>Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
Looks to me a lot like a 31/32 Chevy Baby Grand, going by the shape,
the between-the rails rear mounted fuel tank, and the double bead at
the top of the body. Being an open body, not a sedan, I'd definitely
say there is a VERY good chance.

On 2017-03-25, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:

> OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
> physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
> having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
> producting 190 horsepower.

Emission controls?

ALSO! ppl's laziness!

I usta have an '87 Honda Civi Hatchback (SI). No power anything! Not
seats, not windows, not mirrors. The car weighed in at under 1500 lbs
and was considered pretty hot on the stock race circuit. By '93, the same
model had electric everything. Weighed almost twice as much. Sure,
engine performance had improved. Unfortunately, so has ppl's sloth!

Also, '70 Vettes were pigs! I read, somewhere, an early Stingray had
a chassis that weighed more than a Cadillac's. True? I have no idea,
but know from first-hand-experience, both my step-father's Stingray's
('63, '65) were lead-balloon pigs! ;)

nb

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:31:05 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 3/24/2017 12:58 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 7:25:48 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> .
>>> Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
>>> I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
>>> Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
>>> excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
>>> strting from a reasonably good junker.
>>
>> One of my long time friends would certainly give you an "AMEN" on that. He loved early Mustangs and the old 240Z from Datsun.
>>
>> The amount of knowledge needed to "authentically restore" the cars correctly was staggering. The money needed to find original parts, just as much. The time to learn what to do, which parts went on which variant (depending on manufacturing dates, etc.) and on and on was a full time job. He gave up on the last Mustang and sold it dismantled for parts as he couldn't get it restored to his standards. After about 5-6 years in the garage, his wife stepped in, and that was that.
>>
>> He got two 240s up and running and couldn't find the parts needed to restore them. He found that certain pieces from 260s fit the 240s, so he went that route. Now all he had when finished was a running sports car.
>>
>> He lost money on all of his efforts. Restoring is 1) a labor of love and/or 2) a full time job.
>>
>> We went to a local car show after that, and he was crushed as he found what I had told him all along, you can buy a finished product for about 1/2 (or less) of what it costs to restore one in your garage by yourself. He hasn't turned a wrench to restore a vehicle since.
>>
>> Check out the prices on some of these mid 60s Mustangs:
>>
>> https://goo.gl/d0Hsfv
>>
>> Check out the '69 Ford Fastback Mustang with the 351 Cleveland V8 and less than 19,000 miles. Great paint, Cragar mags, new shoes, and $28,500. No muss, no fuss. My boy had 25K in the engine rebuild, transmission rebuild, new drive shaft and rebuilt rear end of the '67 he was last working on. That did include the J.C. Whitney (remember them?) interior kit that was formed carpet, door panels, and seat covers that were sitting in the car when he sold it. He needed a new steering wheel, appropriate AM radio, all knobs and handles, badges, body work, paint, and the correct age rims. He figured another 10K and a couple of years of his elbow grease and he would have it finished if he had found the time.
>>
>> He sold the car (not running) with the papers on the rebuilds along with all the parts and pieces he collected for $5500 after coming down on his price many times. The guy that bought it was a lucky break for him as he bought it as a project for him and his son that was a 16 year old motor head.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
>WOW! Things have changed. My son and I used to visit "Street of Dreams"
>in Sugar Land about 10~15 years ago. Old Mustangs were going for $40K+
>They only had American that was 30+ years old and the average price was
>about 10 times original. I remember $65K for an old Road Runner with
>painted wheels and hub caps.
And to get that roadrunner into that shape takes $75K. Takinf a
rusted out '64 "Stang and replacing all the panels, rebuilding the
engine, trans, and suspension, and putting in a new interior goes well
over $50K - and the selling price has dropped a lot since 2008.

Model A and T Fords have lost almost half their "real dollar value"
over the last 20 years.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:18:25 -0400, Casper <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Alice Jones <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>
>>Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>>http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>>
>>(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>>(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>>(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>>(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>>
>>Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>>And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
>
>For comparison...
>http://car-from-uk.com/sale.php?id=39076
Note the Durant doesn't have the "double bead" across the back of the
body. That is pretty common on the GM cars of the period - and the
rounded, curved in at the bottom profile was pretty well exclusive to
1932 - '28-30 were a lot straighter, for sure.

It's NOT a Durant - only a 28 Star would be close, and it does not
have a one piece pressed steel bustle - the sides and rear quarters
are separate and have a "bead" vertically on both sides to join them.
This is a pressed steel "bucket" - That, with the double bead around
the top of the beltline, rules our any Durant - and if it's a Chevy
pretty well narrows it down ro a '32 . On closer inspection, it's not
a touring or Phaeton because the door of a phaeton or fordoor would
go back over the fender

So whatever it is, it started life as a 2 door, it's a stamped steel
tub, I'd say LIKELY a 32 Chevy 2 door with the roof cut off.
(Assuming it is a North American built vehicle)

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 1:29:35 PM UTC-5, Alice Jones wrote:
> Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
> http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>=20
> (*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
> (*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
> (*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
> (*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>=20
> Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
> And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?

Cars are not my thing, but I have a friend who could put it back in pristin=
e condition. What the man does is simply amazing. He just finished his la=
st restoration (he is retiring), which was a 32 Ford Cabrolet. When he sta=
rted all he had was a body, which was in much worse shape than what you are=
showing here (rusted up 4-6" all around the bottom, no floor pan, no top m=
echanism, no rumble seat, no hood, no chassis) , and the cowl. He delivere=
d it (drove it over to the owner's house) Sunday and you could comb your ha=
ir in the paint job.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:29:31 +0000 (UTC), Alice Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>
>(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>
>Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?


1928 Durant
white ash
someone shot it

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:37:48 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 3/23/2017 3:45 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
>>>> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
>>>> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Bebble
>>>> Beach Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well
>>>> considering it's age. 1921 model.
>>>
>>> That seems to be a thing now. It's a bit like patina on
>>> old tools - as long as the car is sound, the less you do
>>> to it the more it's valued.
>>
>> I wonder if that's because most restorations seldom get back
>> what was put into them?
>>
>
>That would make perfect sense. I can not think of any other reason.
>
>OR to keep it authentic. Paint not so much but I would imagine it would
>be very difficult to find parts for a very old vehicle.
The big reason is "it's only original once"
An "as found" that is not wearing it's original paint may as well be
restored, as it is no longer "original"
An "original" "survivor" car is a very rare thing - particularly
something like a '21 Bearcat.

On 3/23/2017 9:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:03:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 3/23/2017 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
>>> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
>>> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Pebble Beach
>>> Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well considering
>>> it's age. 1921 model.
>>
>>
>> When you drive a new car off the lot you lose at least 10% so it has
>> lost a lot of value. Even worse, it is a discontinued model. Not worth
>> much more than scrap value, I'd guess.
>
> A Stutz? I guess you haven't seen the auto auctions on the TeeVee.
>

I have and this one sold for $594,000
http://blog.caranddriver.com/youd-be-nutz-not-to-love-a-stutz-a-freshly-purchased-unrestored-1921-bearcat/

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:24:34 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:45:55 -0600, [email protected] (Neill
>Massello) wrote:
>
>>Casper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Alice Jones <[email protected]> was heard to mutter:
>>>
>>> >Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>>> >http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>>> >
>>> >(*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>>> >(*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>>> >(*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>>> >(*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>>> >
>>> >Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>>> >And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
>>>
>>> For comparison...
>>> http://car-from-uk.com/sale.php?id=39076
>>
>>So it was *not* a 1928 Durant D-60 4-door Sedan.
> Take a look at ANY durant - the closest would be a 28 Star (or
>"RUGBY" as it was exported as) but the Durany is a 3 piece tub, not a
>stamped steel tub as shown - and the side panel is too long for a 4
>door or touring.
> I've been around a lot of old cars - and the first thing that came to
>mind, with the way the gas tank is mounted, the double "bead" or
>"feature line" around the top, the moderate curve to the obviously
>stamped steel tub, and the lever shocks peaking through the floor on
>the one picture is "32 Chebby". Looked like a Phaeton except the side
>panel matches a 2 door body, not a 4.- and all "Chebbies" of that era
>did not have a separate roof - so it looks like somebody took off the
>roof to make a "topless" two door - not to use the roof elsewheere
>because the "riser" which would be left after removing the roof
>appears to have been metal-worked out (if indead it WAS a 2dr Chebby)
>
>I'm still wracking my brain to find a better answer.

H'mmm, you just answered a question I had in my head, I saw a 2dr
Chevy sedan and the tub near as I could see, seemed to fit, and I saw
a sedan where the top was off, but there was a wooden post left
attached to the hub.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:42:44 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OFWW <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Looking at what you posted here I'd love to have the body, with a
>> chassis tag for registration and channel the body by setting it over a
>> frame and chop the top to about an 8" window, put a Tbird rear seat
>> (cocktail lounge style) from a late middle 60's in the rear, nice
>> buckets up front, a built 4 bolt main Chevy 350 with a Paxton blower
>> with side drafts on it, plus the usual goodies with laughing gas for
>> special occasions. Done up in chrome with a deep lacquer black cherry
>> paint job. Make a nice Sunday family drive car, ;) or Friday and
>> Saturday evening car for cruising and hanging out at a good burger
>> place.
>
>A Paxton supercharger? Not a 6-71? Granted, the Paxton
>will probably work a lot better (and be a lot cheaper), but
>the 6-71 has that classic blown hot-rod appearance.
>
>John

Very true, to some extent, but it was a pain trying to see "through"
one of those, so I was going for the cool factor, a lower profile with
all chromed with carbs or injectors.

Listening to the whine of a 6-71 with injection running flat out on
the freeway is unmistakable, and looked every bit the part of what it
was doing. Ahhh, those were the days. Tales galore, you didn't get
shot at when outrunning the cops.

When Woodies were real surfin' wagons and not some porn statement. ;)

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:36:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 3/23/2017 9:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:03:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/23/2017 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
>>>> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
>>>> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Pebble Beach
>>>> Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well considering
>>>> it's age. 1921 model.
>>>
>>>
>>> When you drive a new car off the lot you lose at least 10% so it has
>>> lost a lot of value. Even worse, it is a discontinued model. Not worth
>>> much more than scrap value, I'd guess.
>>
>> A Stutz? I guess you haven't seen the auto auctions on the TeeVee.
>>
>
>I have and this one sold for $594,000
>http://blog.caranddriver.com/youd-be-nutz-not-to-love-a-stutz-a-freshly-purchased-unrestored-1921-bearcat/

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying.

On 3/26/2017 12:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <mpOdnaWoI5LWpkrFnZ2dnUU7-
> [email protected]>, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
> says...
>>
>> On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
>>> 46.165.242.91>, [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
>>>>> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
>>>>> change that. What changed was the law. The
>>>>> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
>>>>> the new laws produce as much power as one that
>>>>> was produced before the laws went into effect.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
>>>> has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
>>>> of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
>>>> 60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
>>>> to make up for it with vast displacements).
>>>
>>> OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
>>> physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
>>> having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
>>> producting 190 horsepower.
>>>
>>
>>
>> First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
>> the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.
>
> And this is related to "the laws of physics"
> because?
>
>> Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
>> smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
>> power all in the interest of controlling emissions.
>
> And this is related to "the laws of physics"
> because?
>
>> Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
>> design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
>> controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
>> picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
>> ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.
>
> And catalytic converters, smog pumps, etc were
> required because of what "laws of physics"?
>


You seem to be in over your head here.

>> On closer inspection, it's not a touring or Phaeton because the door of a
>> phaeton or fordoor would go back over the fender <claire@snyder>

[email protected] (Neill Massello) was heard to mutter:
>For me, that was clue that it couldn't be the model Casper linked to in
>his post.

I only posted the link for visual reference to a (any) Durant as
hubops mentioned it.

FWIW, after looking at the back of a few Chevys (got a friend in a car
club with a few Chevys, Fords, etc), can't say I see a resemblance.

I'm not as into cars as some and anyway I prefer British ones.

Looks like Mother Earth is taking all those parts back in the photos.

On 3/25/2017 1:36 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <XnsA7436EBB240CEpogosupernews@
> 46.165.242.91>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> '60s American cars had no shortage of horsepower
>>> and nothing changed in the laws of physics to
>>> change that. What changed was the law. The
>>> electronics let a car that is in compliance with
>>> the new laws produce as much power as one that
>>> was produced before the laws went into effect.
>>
>> Sorry ol' buddy, but krw and clare are right, the law
>> has nothing to do with it. It is all about the laws
>> of physics, specifically those relating to thermodynamics.
>> 60's era engines were lousy at thermodynamics (and tried
>> to make up for it with vast displacements).
>
> OK, so tell us what changed in the laws of
> physics that resulted in the 1970 350 Corvette
> having 370 horsepower the same engine in 1981
> producting 190 horsepower.
>


First off old hp ratings methods change IIRC in 1972. From that point
the ratings were SAE, which significantly lowered the published ratings.

Later models had the inefficient catalytic converters, smog pumps,
smaller carburetors, etc. All of those items robbed the engines of
power all in the interest of controlling emissions.

Once the multi port fuel injection, mass air flow sensors, better intake
design, better cataleptic converters, no more smog pumps, computer
controlled monitored sensors, and ignition timing entered into the
picture emissions were not as big of an obstacle to over come and we
ended up with cleaner burning higher HP rated engines.

John McCoy <[email protected]> writes:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I was watching Velocity. A restorer found a Stutz Bearcat unmodified
>> and pretty much in running condition hidden away in a garage. They
>> bought it and just cleaned it up and then entered it in the Bebble
>> Beach Show and won first prize for not restoring. It ran well
>> considering it's age. 1921 model.
>
>That seems to be a thing now. It's a bit like patina on
>old tools - as long as the car is sound, the less you do
>to it the more it's valued.

I wonder if that's because most restorations seldom get back
what was put into them?

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 05:05:52 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Deb"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 3:47:22 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:26:13 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Deb"
>
>>
>> >On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 1:29:35 PM UTC-5, Alice Jones wrote:
>> >> Can you tell anything about this old auto from the photos?
>> >> http://i.cubeupload.com/rHHKQq.jpg
>> >>
>> >> (*) round back http://i.cubeupload.com/RjfyRW.jpg
>> >> (*) wood interior http://i.cubeupload.com/JtyYNW.jpg
>> >> (*) external fenders http://i.cubeupload.com/9UecSp.jpg
>> >> (*) mounted on a frame http://i.cubeupload.com/gWrN0H.jpg
>> >>
>> >> Is there a good way to tell what kind of solid wood was used?
>> >> And why would it have what looks like bullet holes in the back?
>> >
>> >Cars are not my thing, but I have a friend who could put it back in pristine condition. What the man does is simply amazing. He just finished his last restoration (he is retiring), which was a 32 Ford Cabrolet. When he started all he had was a body, which was in much worse shape than what you are showing here (rusted up 4-6" all around the bottom, no floor pan, no top mechanism, no rumble seat, no hood, no chassis) , and the cowl. He delivered it (drove it over to the owner's house) Sunday and you could comb your hair in the paint job.
>> I've seen some real magic done too, but there is hardly enough left
>> of that Chevy to make it worth while. Lots of more complete vehicles
>> around that even if more expensive to buy, will cost MUCH less to
>> complete.
>> That "tub" might be a good repair part for a more badly rusted, more
>> complete, vehicle.
>
>Believe me, on the last car, and it was also the last car he is doing, he had much less to start with and rolled out his door looking like it just came out of the showroom.
Like I said - anything is possible - including building an accurate
reproduction from scratch - but that only really makes sense for very
rare cars - not a '32 Chevy. with totally roached fenders, no doors or
front sheet metal and no roof.
Except for rare vehicles, it NEVER makes any financial sense (and yes,
I HAVE restored some old vehicles, including a few "basket cases"
Even at Barrett Jackson auctions, you can usually buy very good to
excellent cars for significantly less than the cost to build - even
strting from a reasonably good junker.