(first posted 6/5/2013) Do you like restored-to-original-spec cars? I do. And yes, I suppose I can appreciate some hot rods, but by and large, they strike me as lazy. An original Depression-era car is a beautiful thing, with all the chrome trim, moldings, and running boards intact. Some of the colors available were sharp too, with deep, beautiful greens, blues and maroons. And let’s face it, the paint-it-red-rip-off-the-running-boards-and-drop-in-a-350 are so played out. If you agree, you’ll love these beauties…
Yes indeed, here we have a lovely blue ’35 Roadster that has NOT been screwed with. It is as it must have looked as it came off the line back in late 1934 when the new, redesigned ’35s started appearing at your local Ford store.
I don’t think anyone will argue the fact that the 1933-34 Fords were also stunning, but the ’35 took the V8 into a more modern appearance. Fenders were fuller, there was more room inside and, of course, there was that great (albeit prone to overheating) flathead eight under the butterfly-hinged hood.
While my favorite is the convertible sedan, the roadster and cabriolet were equally stunning, especially in the right colors. But even the plain Standard four-door sedan was sharp. There just wasn’t a bad line on them.
But convertible sedans were falling out of favor. Sales dropped down to next-to-nothing. Indeed, less than 4,500 came off the line in 1935, and after 1939 the model would be no more. Of course, that makes them blue-chip collector cars today.
This blue roadster is a regular at the local shows; I have been enjoying its lines for over fifteen years. The convertible sedan I have only seen once; the photos were taken last year at the Geneseo show.
I have to tip my hat to these cars’ owners for keeping them intact, and not giving in to the “resale red-itis” that turns so many solid Thirties cars into a modern caricature of their original iterations. And before you hot-rod fanciers bring out your poison keyboards, I admit they have their place–when saving a basket-case jalopy from the metal-processing plant, for instance–and some can be pretty nice. But really, there’s no substitute for an original copy! They’re just classier.
The ’35 model may be my favorite 30s Ford. Everyone in the world seems to prefer the ’36, but I am ever the contrarian. There is a combination of brawny and sleek that speaks to me with these. As I have shared before, my mother grew up in a gunmetal gray ’35 Standard Fordor that was part of the family for years and years. I’ll bet she would have preferred one of these.
I also have a thing for 1930s convertible sedans. There is something about the lines on almost every one of them that is just so elegant. That bodystyle became sort of a fad early in the decade, but died out by the end of it. It is interesting that even a lowly Ford offered that style.
Funny, my particular love is for the ’37. And its Lincoln Zephyr big brother.
My car-mentor Howard owned a 37 Ford cabriolet (convertible). To my undying regret, he sold it before his son and I met in 7th grade. To this day, I have never ridden in an early Ford V8. I need to do something about that.
I guess we should shut up about all of the tri-5 Chevys at the car shows. After all, it was almost nothing but Model As and early Ford V8s through the 60s and 70s. 🙂
Actually if it wasnt pre 48 you couldnt show it here back in the day anything newer was considered crap, my how times have changed.
I bounce around as to which is my favorite, but the ’35 may well be it. It’s a perfect bridge between the older ones, and the ’36-37, with some of the best of both. Would love to have this Roadster.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
This is what made a car show back when I got started (1968), and is still what makes a car show for me today. Hot rodding a vintage car is taking the easy way out. There’s no right or wrong, it just what the owner wishes to ‘express’. Sort of like what passes for art nowadays.
This is where I save my respect: For someone who has taken the time and expense to put a car back to the way it was. Before we all forget what these cars actually looked like. And start believing that the small block Chevy made its first appearance somewhere around 1932.
Wow, so thats what the interior of one of these really looks like?
I almost thought they all came with a late model GM tilt column and power velour bucket seats from the factory
+1
As I really do not like wire wheels on anything all I would change on that roadster is the wires to artillary style wheels but I would keep them the same color. That thing is just right .
All Fords were wires from the Model A up through 1935. The steel artillery wheels did not come about until 1936, as I recall. These 1935 wheels were favored by Model A owners who liked to drive their cars more. The bigger balloon tires softened the ride quite a bit.
Yep JP my mate and I did that to a 28 ute coz you couldnt buy 21 inch tyres several decades ago at reasonable prices
I did not know the artillary wheels didnt apear until 36, thanks for the knowledge. I think I would still do them with the balloon whitwalls and THAT color. Do you think artillary wheels would upset purists? I think it would but not as much a hot rod wheel.
I’m not sure of that. One of the things I inherited from my father was a set of postcards from the 1933-4 Chicago exposition. A card showed a display of a “chandelier” of 3 Ford V8s suspended from a steel wheel. Quoting from the card:
“Hanging Cars
Three Ford V-8 cars suspended from a single Ford V-8 wheel is one of the spectacular features of the great Ford Exposition at the 1934 A Century of Progress at Chicago. The wheel used is of standard one piece, welded steel construction such as found on any new Ford car. Test show that the wheel has strength sufficient to support the weight of fourteen Ford V-8’s.”
For what it’s worth…
I guessing the wheels had to be strong to put up with road conditions of the time. A strong wheel was probably more of a selling point to rural customers than to city dwellers.
Isn’t that nice? My pre-war favourite is probably the 38 Deluxe, but I recall that somebody campaigned a stock 35 Ford sedan in the Baja 1000 during the late 60s and early 70s. I remember reading about it in Rod & Custom.
I have contrary feelings about hot rods, I certainly appreciate a well done rod, particularly when it’s made from otherwise unsalvagable parts. However, I saw a TV program a few years ago where the guy bought a restored 32 Ford Phaeton, drove it around the block once then made it into a 350 powered, billeted me too rod. Just about made me ill.
There is an in between look that I like best where it’s stock jumbo headlights and full fenders but with upgraded wheels and tall blackwall tires. Lowered a bit and Jag rear end is fine but then it needs the SBC. No chop job on the roof.
My favorite bodystyle is the ’34 3-window coupe but I also love the Model A Victoria.
Can we stop with “ladies and germs”? I swear I only read that silly phrase on this site…. once was more than enough. I can’t be the only one.
Otherwise love everything.
Yes, we can. I didn’t even notice it. Where does that come from, anyway?
Supposedly it was used by Milton Berle.
Henny Youngman.
So much for my failing memory and some of what’s on the internet.
A classic case of “it was funny the first (10,000) time(s)”.
Looking at the blue roadster, I’m reminded of the car that Lumpy Rutherford of “Leave it to Beaver” drove. In the show, the car was supposed to be a junker, always breaking down, or Lumpy doing something stupid with it. In the show, the car was over 20 years old, and was regarded as a joke. Even back then, when the show was current, I (as a boy) loved “Lumpy’s car.
Wasnt the 4door ragtop called a phaeton or some similar name? I quite like 30s Fords and not for the anchor under the hood. I retrieved my Citroen from the panel beaters last saturday and next to it was a 39 4door deluxe in for a minor ding on a fender it was beautiful. At the same place is as 34 Ambulance body Ford undergoing major restoration, Do you fellas see why I picked that place to fix a dent in my cars door. Pics of the 34 ambo should be on the cohort.
A “phaeton” was the same thing that a “touring car” had been up into the 20s – a car with no roll-up side windows that needed side curtains for bad weather. The “convertible sedan” featured roll-up windows and often employed a removable “B” pillar in order for the windows to seal when rolled up. Often in the 30s, makers would offer both styles, with the convertible sedan usually costing quite a bit more. A ’35 Ford Phaeton is below to compare with the convertible sedan in Tom’s piece.
Another differentiation is that phaetons and roadsters had chrome windshield frames that were separate from the body and fastened to the cowl; convertible sedans and convertible coupes had the windshield frame as an integral part of the body.
The Phaeton traces all they way back to when all cars were open cars.
I was told it went back to the horse drawn era they were rare here but popular in OZ where they made them though I dont think they match the US models as the Aussie ones had locally made bodies NZ got its US cars direct from Canada but I get confused with the Aussie versions.
Nice to see a stock one for a change.I see a family resemblance to English Fords of the same period..
Those both look great. I wish there were more around in stock form instead of “rodded”. I can understand wanting modern mechanicals (engine, transmission, brakes) if you’re going to drive the car frequently but leave the exterior/interior stock. Is it possible to drop a more modern engine/trans/brakes into a 30’s car and keep it looking stock, until the hood is opened? If I had the money I would restore one of these to stock appearance with a 347/AOD/disc brakes so I could drive it and keep up with traffic. The exterior and interior would look totally stock because nothing is wrong with the lines of these cars at all. They don’t need gaudy paint and wheels to look good, they looked great from the factory.
Tom, I couldn’t agree with you more nor say it better.
“Yes indeed, here we have a lovely blue ’35 Roadster that has NOT been screwed with.”
You write like I do. Never fully explaining yourself. First you rant on about hot rodding something to death than you write this. Let me explain. There is original,which these cars are not. There is restored, which these cars are. There is modified, which these cars might be. There is over-restored, which is a combination of all of the above, which these cars difinetly are. While it is refreshing to see cars like these outside a musuem I much prefer an original or something correctly restored. Kind of like a Jay Leno Duesenberg. Original type of paint and materials used in the interior for example. Are those radial tires? I’m no expert on pre-war Fords but to my untrained eyes I can see somebody maxed out a credit card loading up these cars with reproduction parts. Now to me that is another crime almost as worse as hot rodding. “Screwed with”. Oh yes these cars were screwed with. Just another POV, I guess.
Early in my life, maybe after I turned 16 or got a my first job in the automotive industry I came up with a list of rules that kind of defined what “I” thought was important in my life. One was “never drive a car older than you are”. I was born in 1960 so that gave me a little leeway in what cars “I” thought “I” should own. Hey I’m not hating the owners of these Fords, or anybody else for that matter. I just find it a little disturbing when history gets distorted when ever somebody says, for example that nothing was screwed with when they don’t have any idea what an original model really was like to begin with. Kind of the same beef I have when you editors post a pic of some POS in your stupid GM DS stories instead of a pic of those models from some car show you saw over the weekend. How about some “equal time” for all cars, even the Deadly Sins from now on?
I think it’s pretty clear I meant that these cars have not been hot-rodded. But, feel free to cancel your CC subscription…
Or write a CC with your POV and send it in. You know we accept submissions. We’re an equal opportunity site.
I’m amazed at your level of self-control/restraint. I simply don’t have that in me. Keep it up man.
“Hey I’m not hating the owners of these Fords, or anybody else for that matter….”
Well I’d hate to see what hating on people for what they do with their own money/time/website REALLY looks like.
Kind of the same beef I have when you editors post a pic of some POS in your stupid GM DS stories instead of a pic of those models from some car show you saw over the weekend. How about some “equal time” for all cars, even the Deadly Sins from now on?
That kind of talk will get you banished by the anointed infallable ones of CC 😉
Here I was thinking I was the only one on that side of the room
You mean like the Seville?
Pro: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1978-cadillac-seville-nope-nothing-wrong-here/
Con: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1979-cadillac-seville-gms-deadly-sin-11/
I was just agreeing with Lt. Bruno.
Tom, I think you always do a nice job of giving a unbiased look from an enthusiast’s eyes. No complaints from me!
People tend to trash things on here when they don’t like them, kinda takes the fun out of it.
Paul has more than once offered for anyone to write about whatever they want. I can’t imagine doing that. It wouldn’t be any fun to write about something you love and have the Debby-Downers and “sophisticated tastes” people dump all over it.
Philhawk, I was more than a little apprehensive about writing for CC for the same reason, but I find that the commenters here are fairly level-headed in general. Unlike some websites, I find that people actually read the article, and they usually read comments from others, before commenting themselves.
I was quite satisfied with the reactions to my Olds Diesel article, and that’s the poster child for GM foisting under-engineered crap on the buying public.
Ultimately, CC is Paul’s soapbox. If you strongly disagree with something that is presented here, he has made an open invitation to anyone to voice their rebuttal, either through the comments or by writing your own piece. What more can you ask for?
Perhaps I can help. THIS is screwed with. “This is your ’35 Ford on drugs.” 🙂
Stock isnt as flash as its cracked up to be I tried with my 63 EH Special but in the end the Hydramatic had to go, even overhauled it could not cope with circular intersections roundabouts interupted the oilflow somehow and it would hunt gears The RH side of the trans would be uphill unlike in LHD NA I simply fitted a Trimatic from a Torana just bought a kit from a wrecker 1 foot inch square tubing a few zaps some thought and even the shift linkage worked I rigged a HQ inhibitor switch on a 3 inch jubillee clip and it was away. My Hillman pulls 5 year newer and motorway cruise capable gearing with the inadequate original engine. The wheels are Michelin Steelies from a 406 Peugeot with modern tyres because the tyres are cheap and it corners great on the 60 series tyres. Next is a disc brake conversion I tow a small trailer with it Ive had just over a Tonne behind it and you cannot stop and I bought from my friend a 1600 powertrain and front axle in a 66 SuperMinx it bolts in master cylinder and all a Rootes group nutter would be able to tell, you probably couldnt, Hey but my car is a curbside classic not a show car. Paul invented a category I like.
Dude, chill out and cut these guys some slack. Your criticism is not constructive, it is off base.
The CC writers are all volunteers… they all have day jobs and family responsibilities, and do this “after hours” out of a love of all things cars for no compensation. Nobody’s forcing anybody to read CC and nobody has to pay to read it either… it’s free last time I checked.
If you think you can do better, start your own blog and put in your own time. Then the blog trolls can bitch and moan at you.
Keep in mind that ANY antique car that has been restored in the past twenty years is probably over-restored if compared to how they were originally built. First off, all those replacement parts are probably made out of better materials than the original. Then, the paints, even if the stock shade, are better than the original. Then the assembly is lovingly done over months (possibly years) part by part, one not being left until its mounted perfectly to the adjoining parts; instead of slapping the parts on a moving chassis on the assembly line. Finally, there’s the generational ‘bracket creep’ in the standards of what is a 100 point restoration, constantly advanced by those to whom winning a trophy at the show is important.
I got this driven home during the years my late wife and I owned her father’s restored 1930 Indian 101 Scout, a restoration that was done back in the late 1960’s (and I’m almost certain that the bike was at some of the same shows where I was showing my 1937 Buick Special). It was well done by the standards of the late 1960’s, and the paint gloss matched the finish of a well-kept original Indian of the same vintage.
Yet, I’m certain that the person who bought it at the Deland auction in 2007 did so with the intention of tearing it back down and completely re-restoring the bike. It didn’t look like a show antique, rather it looked like a well-cared-for five year old used bike. And that standard just doesn’t cut it anymore.
As we love to say in the vintage British motorcycle hobby, “If they had actually built them to the standard you see out on the field, they wouldn’t have gone bankrupt in the first place.” I’ve long gotten to the point where I don’t notice the perfection. All I’m looking for is a car reassembled to match what came off the production line that day.
+1
It’s not often that we agree Syke, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this one. If someone’s going to the trouble of restoring a vehicle, they’re not going to slap it together but take their time, and their judgement of what looks acceptable is likely to be pretty high. It’s called pride of ownership and craftsmanship. If what you get is considered “over-restored” by others then so be it.
I love seeing both (or all three?). No car was truly perfect when new, restored, or whatever. Every car is it’s own personal piece of art and should be looked at and appreciated in that perspective. End of comment.
I certainly don’t agree with Lt.Bruno’s tone. However I do understand his point. These depression era cars are wonderfull examples of an earlier time. But are they really true to the original?
Myself, I’m becoming increasingly attracted to “Survivors”… a little pantina? I think thats the right word.
Anyway, to each his own. I believe that why we call ourselves enthusiast’s.
One of the things I wonder about, which might be silly, is how the restoration is going to look several years, or decades later. Modern paint won’t age the same way the original paint would. The paint itself, the primer and especially the clearcoat many restorations take the liberty of using, aren’t going to leave the kind of patina the original finish did if/when it starts showing it’s age, weather it be chips, scuffs, or worst case scenario, fading. It pretty much just forces yet another restoration. Otherwise the numbers matching frame-off car you bought at Barret-Jackson for $xxxxxx.xx, because it looked like it just rolled out of the factory in 1966, now has the patina of a 300k mile mid-90s Ford, right down to the peeling clearcoat and exposed primer. Conversely with original paint, or original paint materials and process, you can induce and easily live with an accurate “survivor” patina.
That’s my car ocd ravaged mentality anyway 🙂
This is one of the stranger comments I’ve read on here, I’d take fading paint and exposed primer over exposed metal and rust anyday. I wish the owner of that 80’s Camaro would properly take care of his.
One tends to view cars as either “historical” or “used car” depending on how old you are…hot rodding is now mostly a hobby for older guys, cause they have the money and interest…they want to build the hot rods of their youth, which were made out of 30s cars because that was what was cheap at the time. Although by this point, especially considering that there are a lot of repro bodies available, I have to say that I personally don’t think anyone should cut up any more originals of these type of cars. It may even be getting to the point where one shouldn’t cut up a basket case, unless there is absolutely no hope of restoring it (like some of the rusted up tubs I have seen turned into “rat rods”.BTW, did you know that you can now buy a repro 55 Chevy frame and body, along with complete interiors and trim? For about $60k in parts you could have a brand new one. Wild. Wonder if you could do the same with a 32 Ford?
Where it gets excruciating is when you see a candy purple 1934 Hupp Aerodynamic (how many of those are left?) with a Chrysler 440 under the (missing) hood and a jacked-up rear end.
There gets to be a point where a model of a car is so rare that even if its a basket case, the parts should be cleaned, finished to prevent further deterioration, and just saved until someone else comes up with more like parts. Eventually enough comes together so that one more rare (though not necessarily valuable) car is on the road.
It’s the same as my dislike for fullsize Chryslers in good condition being pillaged for their drivetrains, which happens all the time. The most important point of your comment is the “not necessarily valuable” part. Even in automotive circles, I suspect there aren’t many idealists that would go to the level that you are proposing to horde old car parts AND try to find the “right person” that needs them for their factory-correct restoration.
I know someone that is a REAL old car and parts hoarder, but he’s been a grass-roots rat-rodder since before rat-rodding even had a name. He said to me recently, “It doesn’t even have to be pretty; just build something and get an old car back on the road.” If you came to his house with a big wad of cash he would shoo you away, but if you’re a sincere person with a vision, he would sense your enthusiasm and help you any way he can. To me, that shows a lot of principle and class, and I would posit that his POV is just as worthy as yours.
We have the same problem in the vintage bicycle hobby. Of course, there’s all sorts is interest in saving the restoring high end Colnago’s, Schwinn Paramount’s (talk about a rabid sub-class!) and the like – but very little interest in saving a Raleigh Grand Prix, Peugeot UO-8 or Schwinn Varsity.
And yes, I’m the guy with the shop who saves the frames, cleans them up, and attempts to find someone who isn’t a college hipster trying to build a fixie for the next owner.
If you want to be picky about it these 35 Fords stopped being original when they stopped putting 35 air in the tyres!Let’s be realistic they’re great looking cars beautifully restored and give the owners credit please.
haha, good point, and I agree. These owners (or maybe past owners) put a lot of time and money into bringing the car to this shape and maintaining it, so why argue about the trivial things? Besides, we should all be happy that there’s at least a few out there who see the beauty in a stock 30s car.
I don’t really want to revive six year old arguments, but I thought I’d share this picture I took last year in Arizona, here at the end rather than as a reply to one of Syke’s comments just a short distance up, where it might get lost. Not a candy purple ‘34 Huppmobile, but pretty close, a circa 1934 Pierce Arrow. And though this picture was snapped at a show, I saw the car driving around town quite capably. As to these mid-thirties Ford’s, I always liked the ‘34 and then ‘39-40 … I personally find the ‘35 and ‘36-37 to be a tad “lumpy”. But still nice.
Pierce-Arrow’s are among the the best of the best. At this LATE stage in the game, I can’t fault anyone for putting one back on the road that doesn’t meet MY criteria of what a proper Pierce-Arrow should be. Hats off to them for keeping one on the road. News Flash, not many are interested, or even care anymore, or even understand what a Pierce-Arrow is, or was.
Nicely done post on a spectacular old roadster. Always nice to see an un-hotrodded example. Any ’30s Ford roadster or cabriolet looks great to my eye. And such a gorgeous shade of blue. Like it. Like it a lot!
I attend car shows whenever I happen to see one. There is a show every month near the Whataburger I used to work at. I can see these things from both sides, or at least I can try.
It could just be me, but I find both types of cars (those being restored and hot rodded) to be equally exasperating when they are overly represented. Every type of car has its stereotypes, and for good reason. A late model Honda Civic with bright Plasti-dipped wheels and a fart can? That might be a called a “Ricer”. A thirties Ford with a chopper stance, big V8, and lake pipes? “Hot Rod”.
It can be hard to separate the individual from the group when that thing is so indicative of the group it represents. However, especially when it comes to cars, one ought to consider what that car means to the person that owns it.
For example, I just don’t get on with lowriders, donks, and SLAB’s. To me, it’s gaudy, overblown, and a darn shame to do that to the often Malaise era American cars that I love. Yet, for every Panther platform car I see riding on massive chrome wheels with loud candy paint, I also know that there is another one somewhere that still wears it’s OEM wheels and factory paint color. For every LS swap on earth, there is that same car with its original engine. To me, that’s what I love about cars in general. You, as an owner of one, can do whatever you want, beholden to no one. If someone doesn’t like it, that’s okay. We can all proudly wear the label “enthusiast” no matter what we drive.
These ARE hot rods…1935 style!
I also object to the over-restored, only seen at “Do-Not-Touch” car show trailer queens or in roped off museum displays.
And don’t restore it at all if it doesn’t need to be restored. Change the fluids, check the brakes and put on new tires and enjoy it. It’s original only once.
Always a pleasure to see ’30’s Fords restored to factory original condition, so many local shows have nothing but the rodded versions which are now depressingly monotonous in their uniformity. Its as if every one of those owners said: ” I want a cool, unique rod, just like the ones owned by” then names a list of buddies who all have essentially the same narrow version except different colors. Such creativity.
To see how much these rods mean to their owners, check out Copart auctions for all the crashed rods that end up in the junk because an accident with a modern vehicle has rendered them into scrap metal. Oh well, there’s plenty more where those came from….
Both of these cars are so BEAUTIFUL! I’ve had enough hot-rodded Fords from this era come across my line of sight to last me 2 lifetimes. Refreshing to see these cars as the factory presented them. Automotive writer Pat Foster has a particular disdain for hot-rods and refers to them as “ego-mobiles.” He wrote a particularly colorful article about some clown who heavily modified and rodded-out a super-rare 1939 Graham! I mean, seriously, could you imagine such a travesty? I’d love to see more posts like this.