shot and posted at the Cohort by Constantine Hannaher
Cohort Wordless Outtake: Sacrilege
– Posted on September 8, 2018
shot and posted at the Cohort by Constantine Hannaher
-
-
-
American Brands: GM 
American Brands: Ford 
American Brands: Chrysler 
American Brands: AMC, Jeep and All Others 
Automotive Histories and Misc. 
Asian Brands 
UK Brands 
Australian Brands 
European Brands 
Cars Of A Lifetime & Auto-Biography 
Buses 
Trucks, Pickups and Vans 
Design 
Trains, Planes & Ships 
Motorcycles, Trikes, Bicycles 
Engines, Transmissions and other Tech 
Tractors, Lawn Mowers, Off-Road Equipment 
RVs, Motorhomes, Trailers, Campers
If I hadn’t been warned not to post it ever again; my pic of a man projectile hurling his lunch would be an apt and accurate comment to this abominable picture.
There’s a lot to like in this picture. Unfortunately that big blue thing is blocking the view.
That thing got a hemi?
There is a part of me that would actually like this for winter driving.
There is just enough 10 year old West Texan in me to like this. There was a ’74 Eldorado jacked up like this in my hometown, had Boss Hogg meets Bigfoot vibe.
I see that thing sitting there, and my brain refuses to accept that it could actually exist.
Is this a subtle hint on how to revive the Pontiac? 🙂
Although my inner hillbilly is drawn to this, Heavens, NO!
Ha ha, at least it would both stand out and blend in with all those lifted F350s and Power Wagons the rig rats drive 😎
Because every monster truck hybrid should be powered by a Blue Flame 6!
Not for me, but I’ve seen worse. A lot worse.
Just when you think that you have seen it all, someone posts a picture of something previously unseen. Actually, slapping some sort of car body onto a four wheel drive truck chassis is not uncommon in this part of the world. I’ve seen Cutlasses and Malibus with this treatment, as well as El Caminos, which makes them more truck-like, I suppose.
If it served a purpose it wouldn’t be so awful. Chrysler made some high-wheel Plymouths in the ’30s for farmers and rural mailmen. This has never been off clean pavement. The wheels and axles are pristine.
An already massive car made even MORE massive. This could be a “1-word” outtake: UNREAL.
Take away my CC membership card if you have to, but I’m not offended by this. It’s the builder’s car, their money, their vision.
I find it no more offensive than seeing virtually every Chevrolet sedan on the west coast turned in to a lowrider.
I admire people who are passionate about their vehicles, even if their visions don’t match mine.
Every car has a story.
Must have some nasty potholes in Minnesota. Extreme way to protect this collector plated Chrysler.
Oh yah sure do.
Heh, you just reminded me of a section of Howard Mohr’s masterpiece How to Talk Minnesotan. An out-of-stater tries to engage a Minnesotan in conversation by bringing up the weather, political issues, environmental issues, etc., all to no avail, then asks simply, “So what are you driving these days?” to which the Minnesotan embarks on a 3-page monologue about his misadventures driving a ’70 Newport through a feedlot.
It’s awful but is it as bad as this?
The hood scoop looks awful, but it’s otherwise Rockford Approved.
Cravat optional.
Note that this is a real steel 442, not the Banshee off road Cutlass funny car.
Click to embiggen.
http://99wspeedshop.com.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Popular%20Hot%20Rodding/phr-1970-03.JPG
A neighbor of mine many years ago mated a Corvair convertible body tods a Blazer chassis. It was an amateurish hack job, never ran well, and was likely quite unsafe, and spent much of its life as an anchor for their large and aggressive dog.
Someone in my current town has one with a Camaro body. I don’t know the source of the chassis. That one has been sitting next to the person’s garage, languishing in the same spot, for at least ten years.
While searching for parts for my old trucks I occasionally come across restomods made from old truck bodies mated to chassis of newer trucks, and, from what I can glean from the photos, some of them look pretty decent. Such a creation might make sense for someone who likes the look of an old vehicle but desires the safety, reliability, and convenience of a more modern one. The cost of building one that it is in fact reliable and safe must be considerable.
Though these Frankensteins are not things I am interested in having, I can find within my automotive heart some scintilla of appreciation for ones that are creative and done well. On the other hand, I ffshed a little tear inside when I consider that a decent old car may have been sacrificed in the process.
You have to remember there was a time when something like this New Yorker 4dr had the most value as a donor of a large displacement engine and associated transmission. So good chance it was sitting out in someone’s field, less power train for many years and the only other possible fates were rust into the ground where it sat or make one last trip….. through the shredder.
At least they didn’t do it to a rare one-in-2123 ‘61 DeSoto.
[Evil genius laugh] Well…. [Deranged monstrous laughing] Thank you!
Redneck version of a donk.
Or. Someone had this sitting in a field, rolled their 4×4 Add a case of beer and well, ya make the best of a bad situation
Kids, just say No
meh, it’s a 4 door so why the hell not?
i do like the way it looks but for the life of me cannot figure out how to get into it.
As I saw way too many times on lifted trucks in the south
There is probably a sticker on the back that says “ lift it fat chicks cant jump”.
Sexist and stupid but in some cases the mentality of someone who lifts a vehicle without adding an easier way in.
Just got back from a car show and there was an early-60s Dodge something-or-other wagon on a 4×4 chassis (CC Effect FTW!). Didn’t bother take a picture, but here’s a consolation prize from my early ’80s slide collection!
Interestingly back in the day I saw a number of Pinto 4x4s back in the day, usually sitting on a Early Bronco Chassis but I can’t say I remember any Vega 4x4s.
Not that long ago I used to see a 4×4 Dodge wagon of this era fairly frequently in my area.
There is a Geo Metro in my area that is done up like this.
Fairly straight looking 62 New Yorker Body. Being a unibody 4 dr hardtop. I wonder how badly the body flex is if it were to actually be taken off road. Being originally form Missouri (St, Louis area) and having spent more time than I can rightly remember in the Ozarks. Things like this are not all that uncommon. Hayell, Bigfoot was created not but a few miles north of where I grew up.
These early Chrysler unibodies were extremely rigid even as 4 door hardtops. If you had to pick a 4 door hardtop for a project like this I can’t imagine a better one.
Now how stiff would it be in actual off-roading? A good question.
This is a new one to see on a 4×4 chassis. Cadillac limos, Buick Estate wagons, GM Dustbuster minivans, Tri-Five Chevrolets, Lincoln Town Cars, and a late ’60 Mercedes S-Class? Seen them all.
Never a Chrysler. They did a good job. But it is sacrilege.
Back in the day I used to think a Buick was the perfect car to do a 4×4 conversion for a number of reasons. For one Buick is my favorite GM marque back when the divisions had more autonomy, and thus their own engines. Having that Buick 350 is a key part of my MM build because for a donor chassis I’d choose one of the Wagoneers that was powered by a Buick 350. I figure that way it is easy to package it all and keep the Buick a Buick with things like AC and cruise because you could bolt on the full accessory drive package ect or the entire engine out of the donor body. Rather than an Estate Wagon my first choice would be a 2dr Electra.
The Wagoneer wheelbase wouldn’t be a good match to a full size Buick. How about a J10? It was available with the Buick V8, tho the project probably would be easier to start with the best available J10 frame and install Buick mounts.
Constantine Hannaher takes excellent photographs. Nice work. I love those cars but not the stance. There’s one out here on top of a beauty salon that I’d love to drive if it weren’t on the roof.
Actually it’s more of a waste, one of the last DeSoto’s.
Wow, a 1960 DeSoto 2-door! Really diggin’ that!
Most LOLworthy thing here is that the modifications don’t even improve the ground clearance much.
And it’s no taller than that unmolested older flat deck beside it.
Still remembering in the ’70s
& 80s the Brit toys miniatur factory Matchbox® used to sell strange creatures of an extreme oddity , miniatur 1:43 scale vehicles that never were faithful replicas but silly modified sacrileges . Boys without criteria bought Matchboxes . Boys with certain closer look to the real life rathered the serious perfection of Japanese miniatures called Tomica . Hello from Argentina , nice to met Curbside Classic the best infotainment for adults with good criteria .
I like it, but I generally like oddball bodies on 4wd chassis. These aren’t actually used for trucking, so why use a truck body?
I actually like this
I don’t consider this sacrilege because it is a 1962 Chrysler New Yorker. 1962 New Yorker were not cars worth saving. They are ugly in 2018 and were considered ugly in 1962. Most car buyers avoided it and auto critics slammed its ugliness.
Heck the 1960-1964 New Yorker models really were not anything to write about. It is like these were created as a solution to a non existing problem.
So kudos to this person for their ingenuity in putting this together as it is unique and for saving a car body that would have most likely been scrapped and part of a building by now.
Agreed. I mean, c’mon, is a New Yorker of just about any vintage a collectible and/or worth restoring, particularly the ’60-’64 cars? I’m really not a fan of canted-headlight Chryslers, anyway, so this is okay, especially given what looks like a quality job which retains the original bodywork and trim..
Chrysler production steadily increased, and eventually doubled, from 1959 to 1964. Looks like they were generally becoming accepted with experience as buyers found out what good cars they were.
62 New Yorkers mostly aren’t valuable because they’re all four doors. No coupes or convertibles, but the Town and Country wagon is scarce and valuable. From a collector perspective, the 300 and 300H are the market leaders.
A 62 Chrysler coupe, convertible, or wagon is is more valuable than a comparable Buick, which was its competitor in the period. In addition to the sorts of people who like nice family cruisers and luxury cars, the Mopar muscle community likes these cars. Like most non muscle luxury cars of this period, the biggest obstacle to ownership is that restoration costs far exceed the value of most models. The big body means high costs for metal and paint, and the trim is scarce and expensive.
The Chrysler 300H is a much wanted car. A 300H convertible is more valuable than a 1962 Cadillac Eldorado convertible.
Hear, hear. The alternative was the crusher.
I like it, but then I like most cars that have been put on a 4×4 chassis, and even trucks as the vehicle that got me in to IH was the 50 F-1 sitting on a 72 Travelall 1210 chassis.
Our British readers are likely to chunder at this mystery Mini-based vehicle given a similar jacked-up treatment.
I spotted it in Brooklyn in February only a few blocks away from this original 1977 Chevrolet Impala wagon that I featured in an Outtake. Then I thought that I would spare everyone the sight of it, but Paul has opened the floodgates for these abominations.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/cc-outtake-caprice-classic-wagon-at-work/
Oh my, I really have begun to like these when the original body is unmolested and the whole thing is quality. This green British beauty looks like a LOT of fun.
This is my 2nd time today reading, gazing and absorbing the pics and comments…and I am thinking these look like a gas to play with
Needs more LOW, or does a set of steps fold out like a Freightliner to permit access, nice car other than the wheels and ride height
Eh, I like it. But I’m the same way with donks, lowriders, retromods, etc… it’s better than the crusher. If there’s someone who loves cars and wants to keep one on the road and has the money to do so, hells yeah.
Nope. No. Nyet.
I have to admit that I have a soft spot for 4×4 conversions. And I live in a country where people make 4×4 conversions to everything that moves. But in this case –
4×4 chassis with two live axles? Great.
’62 Chrysler 4-dr HT ? Not so great (canted quad headlights are really not my thing), but still not bad.
The two combined ? No. Just no.
There’s an idiom for cars that look like this in Russian; it roughly translates as “ballerina in valenki [felt boots]”. Google for “valenki” and you’ll get the meaning.
Now, if it was a wagon, the wheels were smaller and it wasn’t jacked up sky-high…
Words fail me, and that doesn’t happen often.
No. Just…no!