Would you believe, Richard Petty actually raced one of these?
(first posted 6/29/2013)
My ‘57 Chevy had developed an inordinate thirst for oil to the point of appearing to be a mobile fumigation unit. Time to go, so when my parents returned to the US from France for home leave, it was like I had given my father a gift-we had to look for a “new” used car. Other than his love of ice cream and the Red Sox, there was nothing he liked better than shopping for and buying (or selling) used cars.
And here we had a challenge. Our budget was $300. Even in 1967 that was not going to get you a whole lot of car. We had our job cut out for us.
The Fury in this shot and two others was taken on the campus of Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT). The edifice in the background was the womens’ dorm.
Ahh! A pickle car!
We thought that we had identified a suitable candidate from the same source that the ‘57 Chevy had come from, my dad’s friend from Lowell, MA who owned Miller Mobil on Bridge St. But when we went to inspect this new find, I was horrified to see that it was a pickle green 1959 Chevy Impala 4 dr hardtop. All kinds of problems with this. I was in design school fer chrissakes, how could I drive a joke like this with a straight face? I couldn’t. Luckily there were more serious problems than the bat shiat styling and green paint. The 235 six in the thing burned nearly as much oil as my ‘57.
I went looking in Old Car Brochures.com, and guess what I found? The identical car my dad and I were presented with. Except without the orgasmic blond. Steven Lang was right about the green. No deal. Back to square one.
Grrrr!
We finally found our dream car, a 1960 Plymouth Fury 4 dr hardtop, 318 V8 with a TorqFlite and 65,000 miles. Power steering and AM radio. In 1967 this was a USED CAR! 1400 Motors in Lowell wanted $400. They gave us $100 for trade in on the ‘57 Chev, and even swapped the nearly new tires I had on the ‘57 onto the Plymouth. It blew a heater hose in Ontario on our way to Illinois. No problem. Route the hose back to the engine-who needs a heater in the summer?
Urban blight
I didn’t have any money for hot rodding the Fury, except for a screwdriver to remove the gold anodized emblem on the grille, and flat black paint for the grille and wheels. Even back then I was a NASCAR fan and the esthetics those racers espoused. The Fury only weighed 3300 pounds, and the 318 would light up the baloney skins when asked. It topped out (empirically tested) at about 104 mph.
Once we got the Plymouth to Aledo, IL and my uncle’s tire shop, we discovered that both rear springs needed rebuilding. Out to Henderson’s junkyard on the east side of town where we had our pick of Chrysler leaf springs for two or three bucks apiece. Boy, what a difference the beefed up springs made! I was really starting to like this ride. And look at this-no toilet seat! The rear end styling was rather clean.
A comely touche.
Yes, this thing was way too long for urban duty in Chicago, but those huge fins in the back made it incredibly easy to park (especially with Chrysler no effort/no feel power steering), and the Fury’s unit body remained tight and squeak-free to the end, which occurred at about 130,000 miles. By that time, in 1971, tin worms had done their job, and Connecticut said “no body penetrations”, of which I had numerous, so I couldn’t register it there without spending beaucoup bucks. So it was with some sadness, but not a lot, that I drove it to LaJoie’s junkyard in South Norwalk, CT. I got $5 for it.
During the time I had the Fury my parents had a 1965 Simca 1000, sort of the polar opposite of the Fury. The Simca was perfect for Paris and environs, but I couldn’t help but feel guilty while zipping about in the Simca that I really was an imposter-my real car was a 1960 Plymouth! The Fury would have looked ridiculous in France, and the Mille, judging by sales, wasn’t a huge hit in the US. A chaque a son gout.
Felicia Fury, as my friends had dubbed her, was a great car. $300 for four year’s use and it never let me down on the road. It made numerous trips from Chicago to the east coast and to Texas. When I drove a stake through her heart, the engine and drive line were in perfect shape despite numerous and repeated slam shifts with the push button auto. Nothing but good memories.
Wow,great story and $300 well spent!Thank you Kevin.
Amazing that something that long, low, and styled with a V8, made out of metal, only weighed 3300 pounds yet still made 130k and would have done more except for rust. And I bet the inflation adjusted original purchase price would also be shockingly low. America should never have let politicians and bureaucrats design cars. 50 years ago we were too smart for that.
The Standard Encyclopedia of American Cars gives a dry weight of 3528 lbs for a base 1960 Fury 4 dr hardtop (six cyl). Add the V8, Torqueflite, fluids and such, I would estimate the on-road actual weight of Mr. Martin’s Fury at 3800-3900 lbs, unless it was exceptionally rusty 😉
And its 1960 price of about $2900 (with options) adjusts to a bit over $22,000 today. You could pick up a new Accord for about that, which of course would run circles around the Fury, get up to 30 mpg, have air conditioning and a raft of safety features as well as quite a few other improvement. Maybe we should thank the bureaucrats for helping to make that possible?
I definitely concur.
“Maybe we should thank the bureaucrats for helping to make that possible?”
Wow. I don’t often see that sentiment in the automotive blogosphere. Thank you.
Or maybe we should thank those ’70s upstarts, OPEC & the semiconductor industry, instead.
But where are you going to get that styling? I agree, today’s car’s are much better on paper, but simply will not engender the emotional and visual appeal of something like this.
I suppose that is the trade off, we drive anonymous cocoons now, it probably would be practically impossible to design a car to have the same visual appeal and pass the snuff test.
But that seems to be the way of it these days, anonymous blob cars, tract homes with neutral eggshell walls, and sitting on preformed plastic chairs from Home Depot.
It’s not a direct answer to your question, but quirky French cars like the Avantime and Vel Satis have bombed in France too, because buyers want cookie-cutter BMWs and Audis. Those cars may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but I think the point is relevant.
Before we wax too eloquently on these old Mopar, let’s not forget that they weren’t exactly considered very successful design in their day, and within a few years were only appreciated by lovers of campy and quirky cars. I was around in 1960, and I would say folks bought these more because of other qualities rather than their brilliant styling.
“Maybe we should thank the bureaucrats for helping to make that possible?”
Uh…no. We should thank free-market competition for that; that and Honda’s company, which remained energetic and not ossified for the longest time.
Bureaucrats set the standards…for better or for worse. How they’re met can be with a 1974 Ford Pinto; a 1981 Plymouth Reliant; a 1980 Chevrolet Citation.
How to get a sales-leg up on THOSE pinnacles of American engineering and legal-compliance, was Honda’s challenge. They rose to it.
Bureaucrats give us, at best, the iQ; and at worst, the Yugo. Empowered and energized engineers give us the Accord; or the Chrysler LH cars.
IMHO, of course.
Agreed. People that defend the bureaucrats also overlook that the same advances have been made in almost every field of endeavor thanks to microprocessors.
I’m not going to get sucked into a dead end political debate, but please note that I said “helping”. As in one aspect (or partial credit) of the process that lead to where we are today. It’s precisely because many folks see things only in black and white that I steer away from political discussions. Black and white are not really relevant to the real world, other than feeding dead-end debates. The real world works in shades of gray, and often quite subtle ones at that.
It is a dead-end debate…but I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t rise (stoop?) to the bait. Now, I have no way of knowing what you might have been thinking…but the way it was worded was, the regulators/regulations have given us what we now have in the market.
I can only agree to that, if you mean “by forbidding other choices.” Because regulators, like the kings of yore, only COMMAND. It is ENGINEERS who are charged with compliance; and often-times the desired result is not something the consumer cares much about.
But how well the product performs, to compliance or to meeting consumer expectations, is a task accomplished by designers and engineers. And what separated AMC from American Honda, was how well they rose to the task.
Whether the end result is better or not for us as a whole, is better left to the Sunday B.S. thread. Asides which…it inches into the gaudy trespass of partisan screed; and the one area in which I’m in full agreement with the editorial staff here is…that that’s best left to other websites.
Peace.
Paul,
Your “maybe we should thank the bureaucrats” for today’s cars makes me suspicious that you have recently been bodily replaced by one of those pesky pod people duplicates, have you noticed any changes in your cognitive processes yourself?
I never thank bureaucrats for anything.
Fifty years ago, cars didn’t have disk brakes, ABS, seat belts, air bags, side impact beams or stability control. The air in much of the country was toxic and children were dying of lead poisoning.
Only the wealthy had cars with a/c when I was a kid, and power windows and locks were stuff for Cadillac buyers.
Adjusted for inflation, cars have never, ever been cheaper and even at their base prices, most cars come equipped on what would have been luxury car levels fifty years ago. Assuming this Fury cost $3000 when new, this translates to $23,800 today, or almost exactly what it would cost to get into a new family sedan today, one that would be better assembled, more reliable, safer, last longer and be more economical to operate. A new Camry, for example, could be expected to last ten years without doing anything to it. Try that on your 50 year old car.
Too smart to let governments regulate cars? Well, the fatality rate has plunged since that time, as government regulations have forced safer cars that are cleaner and more efficient.
But the modern car is much smaller, is less comfortable at cruise, and more and more can’t be fixed without a computer. Replacing parts is difficult due to the compactness and complexity. The main effect of the regulation of cars is the lack of diversity. As the bureaucratic era advances, cars are becoming more and more alike, especially cars that regular people can afford. I would prefer that the market decides, so if there is a demand both small front drive 4 cylinder and large rear drive v8 cars are available at reasonable prices. It was a good idea to get rid of leaded fuel, but that was just the cheapest method of antiknock. Bureaucrats are always seeking to increase control. That’s how they grow their business.
I understand your feelings, but realistically, you’d be surprised at how roomy Camcords are in comparison to these old cars. They are not small cars, in terms of interior accommodations. And if you think a Camry is less comfortable at cruise than a 1960 Plymouth; well, when was the last time you drove one of these hoary old monsters? Have you ever?
They were comfortable in their day, but that day was quite a while ago.No comparison.
but realistically, you’d be surprised at how roomy Camcords are in comparison to these old cars.”
I don’t know about in comparison to something from 1960, but the giant center consoles of new Lacrosse, Taurus, XTS, Avalon, and the like are a big interior room killjoy compared to the FWD stuff of the 80s & 90s.
I still say that my ’89 Electra holds pretty good against my former Lucerne.
Agreed. I do miss console-less cars and the attendant freedom of movement.
Odds are that the real reason why all cars have two front seats and a console now is some semi-secret bureaucratic requirement that all front seat passengers have airbags. I’ve heard the reason why the Vic was canceled was that for 2012 all cars must have stability control. Don’t remember that regulation ever coming up in a campaign discussion, much less getting to vote on it.
Well that doesn’t explain trucks that still offer 3-across seating.
Plus, you can do a console (even with a touchscreen!) without making it intrusive. Compare a ’90 Seville STS console to the monster in the XTS. It’s like the Monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Trucks have different rules, that’s why the modern ones have basically turned into full sized cars that ride too high…don’t worry, though, the next set of draconian EPA rules will go after trucks. It will be interesting to see if there is any public blowback once those are taken away too. I think the trucks served as a safety valve…
By this logic, the Crown Victoria—relatively cheap and economical for its size, but still a big, traditional RWD V8 sedan with modern amenities—should have been a hit with non-fleet buyers. It wasn’t.
Lol, I have a 2006 GTI, had a 99 & an 01 Miata. Also have a 12 Xbox for my wife. When I was a kid, I had a 79 Oldsmobile 88 coupe and a 64 Coupe de Ville. I read car sites (obviously. Lol) and read all about the big lumbering obsolete Crown Vics. Then I ran into the opportunity to buy one at a price where I couldn’t lose and could easily make a profit if I didn’t like it. It’s amazing. I prefer it to drive, and it’s easy and cheap to repair. Already sold the Miata and plan to sell the GTI to finance another Vic. Point being, my objection to the bureaucratic era is that they must standardize and control. Part of why there was no Vic update wss because it wouldn’t be profitable to build one to govt safety standards. So we get a Taurus. I prefer a world where I can get a Vic AND someone else can get an electric Smart Car if that’s what they want. In Bureaucratic America THEY decide
IMHO, the decline in Vic sales was due to misinformation and social propaganda. I corner maybe 5 MPH slower in mine than I do in the GTI. It gets 25 MPG highway, the GTI gets 28. The slow turning V8 will last 300k and repairs are easy and cheap. But the social engineering about big cars has been running for years and has soaked in. Many years ago, I worked at a WI newspaper when the local ex- AMC plant was building the M-body Chrysler Fifth Avenue, and the paper never missed an opportunity to refer to it as “boat-like”. It was a Volare, which was a Dart, which was a compact 8 years earlier, for chrissake. 🙂 I think the perception killed Vic sales.
It doesn’t help that Crown Vics have been associated with Police cars and Taxis to everyone in the US and beyond through an essentially unchanged production run of 14 years(really 20 if you include the mostly same 92-97 body). I’d personally be much more interested in a Crown Vic sized and laid out car than any of Ford’s recent “full” sized offerings. But the problem I always had with them is A. The name sucks, and B. they’re seemingly just rounded versions of their 1980s incarnations, outside and inside. Make them more like their 60s counterparts and I’d buy one in a heartbeat.
IMO every regulation starts as a good idea. Seat belts and tightening emissions standards for example. But the problem with Bureaucrats is that they multiply like rabbits and turn into insoluble agencies with regular agendas. Marker lights, seat belts and emissions didn’t effect the overall car like many standards to come would. Today if an automaker were to make a car just as equipped, safe and efficient as Camry but in the size and styling of a 1960 Plymouth, they’d be wrapped in so much red tape from commie pencil pushers that they’d go bankrupt from fines. God forbid Ralph Nader pokes his eye out on a tailfin!
So, the real irony here, Matt, is that you tell us how great old cars from the early 1960’s are, but you don’t actually drive one.
Seems a repeating pattern.
Canuck, I don’t daily drive a early 60s car for the following reasons- I wouldn’t feel right exposing it to constant traffic risk and wearing it out. There will never be any more. I have a 90 mile a day round trip commute. People didn’t drive as much back then so cars weren’t designed to rack up tremendous mileage. In my mind, I come as close as I can by driving a Vic.. anyhow, what I object to is not that I can’t buy an exact replica of a 63 Chevy, and not to the mere existence of Camcords or Priuses, it is to the fact that unelected bureaucrats prohibit the manufacture of updated cars in the same spirit as the 63 Chevy or 60 Fury .
As someone who drives a ’67 Dodge Monaco pretty regularly, I can list the ways in which it’s better than a modern Camaccord:
-Better visibility
-Wider
-Cargo/towing capacity
The Monaco is a worse car in EVERY other objective measure of daily usage. (Still love it, though!)
Well said. A C-body also has eleven feet of hood in front of the windshield, so rock chips aren’t an issue.
My Chryslers also have more interior room than almost any modern vehicle I’ve been in smaller than a pickup truck, and seats that are at least as comfortable. They also have cowl vents and no-draft windows, to provide fresh air without having the blower motor running, and gutters above the doors to prevent the outer edge of your seat from getting wet when you open the door in the rain. The biggest thing I miss in those cars is power windows. (They were available, my cars just don’t have them.)
These are actually not all that hard to find. Seems a good one can be for $15,000 which is a good bit less than them thar fancy-schamancy ferrin’ cars. You’d save a lot of collector plates, too.
In fact, there are loads of really good 1960’s cars about for less than one of them thar faceless sedans them thar young whipper-snappers drive these days. Think of it, you can have a really cool 1964 Impala for only like $16k, and it even has the manual transmission that grearheads constantly scream for:
http://www.carsforsale.com/used_cars_for_sale/1964_Chevrolet_Impala_188275518_2
None of them fancy-dance padooters in this baby. But you know, given how superior 50 year old, government free cars are, I can’t for the life me understand why all them thar gearhead types all seem to drive Honda and Toyota sedans when they talk about owning real cars like this.
So misguided people are.
Obviously in 50 years there is going to be technological advancement, with or without government mandates. The problem with government designed cars is that one group of people are forcing their personal preferences on another group. I’m sure that those that prefer smaller greener cars would feel quite oppressed if Carmine and I got unelected control of the EPA and wrote regulations that effectively forced everyone to drive modernized 74 Cadillacs, even if they ran well and were comfortable. 🙂
A lot of the good 60s cars are probably riding on 60s dry rotted and worn out suspension, 3 layers of poorly executed paint jobs and God knows what else. That $15k figure may get you the car, but for it to drive and have it look like new it’ll probably head well into the twenties, and you won’t even have a warranty. I mean, what happens when something breaks or a fender bender occurs? Replacement parts are practically unobtainable, or their stratospherically expensive, or obtained in worse condition than the mangled parts. Something like this isn’t a Camaro where repopped panels are ubiquitous either, so that’s not an option.
I don’t drive crap from the 1960s simply because of that, not the supposed inferior driving experience or lack of safety features. If that junk really bothered me I could always restomod the thing and add FI, better brakes, ect. but daily driving a car that will either be totaled by insurance over the slightest ding or beaten to hell and back by all the other bad drivers around it makes it an unwanted experience. I’m already finding this the case with some 80s/90s cars.
Unpopular federal decisions about cars have been overturned, though, and very quickly – as exemplified by the 1974 seat belt interlock rule and its reversal.
Also, it doesn’t take a “commie pencil pusher” to see that pointy projections on cars are a bad idea! It’s amazing that no one who designed pointy fins in the late ’50s, for example, ever gave this a thought, nor the execs who approved the designs.
Was anyone ever impaled by a tailfin? what an awesome idea…sounds like great way to finish off a villain in a Quentin Tarantino remake of a 50s cheesy rock and roll movie…
I’d argue that there’s likely far more back-into deaths attributed to the tall tailgates of S/CUVs and/or the ludicrously high trunks/ beltlines of modern cars than back-into impalements attributed to tailfins.
Plus with all that glittering chrome it’s hard not to see a 50s car coming at you from a mile away. If I may be blunt, pedestrian safety is a poor substitute for smarter pedestrians.
FWIW, there were some children that sustained serious injuries from fins on parked cars, resulting in two major law suits: Hatch v. Ford (1958) and Kahn v. Chrysler (1963)
Hatch v. Ford wasn’t a tailfin, it was a hood ornament
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/163/393.html
I think side impact beams started in the 50s
Required by NHTSA as of 1/1/73. Some appeared a couple of years early.
My ’70 El Camino had them, GM must’ve done it early.
GM full-size cars got door beams starting with the 1969 model year.
could have sworn I saw them in a 1950s cutaway. cant find it now of course
Avantime; 1960 Plymouth….am I seeing a pattern here today?
Exaggerated tails? The “F” sticker on the trunk?
Yes, and wrap-around rear windows.
I have a 1993 camry with 439k miles&still in daily use.still stock engine,two clutches,afew timing belts&water pumps,one starter&two alternators&just regular maintenance.no cars from 60s&70s can match that.(maybe a dart with slant six)
Must not be from the Rust Belt. That Toy would be rotted to the windowsills here in Ohio by now.
Bought a 1971 chevelle, 350 4bbl, all original, matching numbers, all parts underhood from factory. This was in 1988. It had a bit over 100,000 miles. Over the next 16 years it was used as an everyday car, rain, snow, ice storms, driven all over New York City, etc. Had one transmission rebuild. One new carburetor. Two alternators. Two water pumps. Two fuel pumps. Complete suspension rebuild, updated with polyurethane bushings. One radiator replacement. Axle seals. One set of new u-joints. One new distributor. One exhaust system, updated to stainless steel, never needed replacement again. Sold with over 300,000 miles, only because the once perfect body rusted so badly it became a safety hazard. Engine ran perfectly, would have gone on for many more years. Never broke down and needed to be towed. So more parts did break than on new cars, but it was always easy to get them, cheap, and did most of it myself, except for suspension and trans. Oil changed every 4,000 miles, trans fluid every 2 years, coolant every 2 years, tune up twice a year. Original interior completely worn out and falling apart. The new stuff need far less attention.
The Chevy 350, especially the four bolt ones, are practically indestructible if half-way decently maintained. The record I ever saw was a car my late father bought new in 1979 and later made into a taxi. It went 1,600,000 km, or just under a million miles. All but 100,000 km was on LPG. Never had a valve job, just seals a few times, one timing chain and that was it. It was properly serviced the whole time and the entire car collapsed around the motor, which still ran fine.
This car makes ugly look good.
I would drive it.
I applaud you on your choice of cars! What a bat-winged beast. Speaking of, there was a black two-door ’60 Savoy with a bright yellow Batman logo on the side that was a regular fixture on our streets here until a few years back. I finally found it in a driveway, obviously having been T-boned. But there’s another ’60 sitting next to it. Batman returns?
Kevin thank you for posting pictures .
I too spent part of my youth in the back of a 60 Plymouth
Though coming from a family of eight, it wasn’t a Fury but a Suburban wagon.
I never thought posting photos of a ’60 Plymouth, that was bought and driven in the ’60s, would be so polarizing.
But let me add a few comments-
My dad and I knew this was an outrageous car. But what are you going to do when you’ve got a budget of $300 and need to transport a family of five and their luggage on vacation? You suck it up and learn to love the fin.
The Plymouth had the worst brakes of any car I have ever owned. Coming off an Interstate from 75 mph took long range planning.
I installed front seat belts in it shortly after we bought it.
As Janis Joplin pleaded, “Oh Lord won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz? My friends all have Porsches…” Well, my friend did have a Speedster and an Alfa, and I really did feel inadequate. But the Fury always started in Chicago’s brutally cold winters, something that the Porsche and Alfa couldn’t always be counted on to do.
Was it comfortable? Less and less so as the front seat degraded. But the Lord may not have found a way to give me a Mercedes Benz, but providentially I did find an abandoned ’65 Corvair in downtown Chicago with a pair of perfect buckets. They looked good in the Fury and felt better.
Are cars today less comfortable than the cars of the ’50s and ’60? I don’t think so. I’ve made three trips to Utah from the east and midwest since December 2012 and one from Utah to Washington/Oregon. I strive to put on 900 miles (1500 km) each day on these trips. I couldn’t do this if my relatively tiny Impreza were not comfortable.
Nostalgia isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be. Even when I was heading west of Laramie in the Fury, I knew that there were better cars for the journey. But damn, the Lord just wouldn’t buy me that Mercedes Benz.
Also, when in France my father owned a two-year old Citroen DS 19. Fantastic driving dynamics and riding comfort. Engineering that literally said to other car makers, “I fart in your general direction!” But that car found ways to break down that would never have of occurred to the Fury. The Fury was what it was-just early ’60s basic American iron. The fact that I was able to get 65,000 miles out of it with nothing more than points, plugs, and tires, was amazing. Do I miss it? I miss the memory, but trying to get my Subaru away from me would be ill advised.
Polarizing, pfft. Thanks for sharing a good story. Which girl in that dorm had the newish Coronet hardtop?
Don’t know who drove the Coronet. But one of the residents of that dorm was the lovely Natalie which can be seen in the “Comely touche” photo.
It must be argument day, lol….what I always think when the “superiority of the Mercedes and Porsche” is brought up is “gee, if I spent 80k on a Vic it would be a luxury car I could win NASCAR races with.” 🙂
Why no love for the ’59 Chevy? Even in green, I’d take one in a heartbeat.
I’d take the 59 Chevy in a hart beat compared to this for certain, though it sounds like the one in question was in sad shape.
I’d be psyched to have either of them, though I’m looking at it from the perspective of someone born 20-someodd years after these cars were. If I were alive back then, I probably would’ve felt the same as Mr. Martin and considered the Plymouth’s fins the lesser of two evils. Plus, it had a V8… and though I love the ’59 Chevy “Flying Wing” roof, it probably just would’ve reminded me of how much I’d rather be driving a Corvair.
A 59 chev the rust has got hold of you dont want they rust like nothing else youve ever seen those things disolve and rapidly here,
The great thing about this site, that is also somewhat depressing at least to me, is that it features everyday cars. Most auto lit focuses on the rare, special cars of which few were made. That sort of car still exists today and is probably better, at least functions better. What we’ve lost are special cars for regular people, one of which would be a 18 foot long Fury with foot high tailfins
No special cars for regular people? I don’t know about that–I think it’s just a matter of perspective. If you grew up in the “good old days” then those cars are endearing and “special” to you. We just drove my wife’s ’09 Malibu from Sarasota, Florida to NW Ohio and back. It was comfortable and effortless. The stereo sounded great and the AC kept us comfortable the entire trip. And I was at ease knowing that my daughter was surrounded by all the latest safety equipment. Did I mention that it handled quite well in the mountains? I would not have enjoyed the trip so much in my old ’72 Skylark or ’79 Grand Prix, both of which handled like RVs next to our Malibu. And that trip would have cost us twice as much in gas alone. As far as “cookie cutter cars” are concerned, I really don’t see that much of a difference between a late 60’s Rambler, Dart, or Fairlane. They were the “cookie cutters” of their day. I am glad that cars have evolved as they have. A car used to be junk once it hit 100k miles, a head-on collision meant you were dead, and sub 6 second 0-60 times was Ferrari territory. Thank you, bureaucrats. And for those reminiscent of the “good old days”, there are plenty of classic cars with tail fins and fleet auction Crown Vics to keep them happy for years to come. I do like the old panthers btw, but in the words of Jeff Goldblum, those “dinosaurs had their chance and nature selected them for extinction.”
Well said… I love these cars too, but in reality the only thing that makes them special today is the amount of time that has passed since they were common sights.
You are right, back in the day there were plenty of Ramblers, Darts and Fairlanes, and now there are Malibus, Camrys, Accords, and of course they will last longer and work better as transportation, just as the 60s cars had the same advantages over 30s cars. But if you wanted something more fun, or larger then, you didn’t HAVE to spring for the Shelby, Fleetwood Brougham, or the Hemi Charger. And there weren’t a lot of faceless, unelected bureaucrats forcing you into the Rambler if you couldn’t afford the Hemi Charger. We’ve lost our choices. Yes, personally I will be fine. I’m not 20, and I live in the land of no rust, AZ. I can drive Vics for as long as I last. I feel sorry for kids these days.
I think the kids these days are equally happy with their selection of Mini Coopers, Subaru WRXs, and Challengers–all of which cost about the same as an Accord and would smoke anything built 40 years ago. There’s no one in Washington “forcing” them to drive a Camcord. The Toyota Camry is currently the best-selling car in the country for something like the 25th straight year, because that’s what the market wants. That’s also why there are so many imitators in the mid-size sedan segment. Personally, I’m glad that I’m not being “forced” by the auto industry to drive something that gets 12 mpg and could explode if it gets rear-ended. And if someone still chooses to throw caution to the wind, there aren’t any laws stopping them from buying a gas-guzzling Hemi-powered Ram or a cheap, plastic motorcycle that’ll hit 170 mph before killing themselves in a fiery crash.
The laws banning the Hemi Ram are coming soon. Trucks will change drastically in the next few years. Already we are down to one choice (Chevy/GMC Express) in real, full size vans.
“Suddenly It’s 1960.”
I am starting a new comment thread because the above threads are a mess and I can no longer follow them without getting a headache. (That has nothing to do with anyone in particular, just a quirk of WordPress…)
Someone mentioned the fact that while today’s car’s might, in terms of EPA measurement classification, be considered roomy, that the center consoles and design of dash and other features makes one feel cramped. That is a concept called “space completeness” which is more of a psychological term which basically means a perception that one’s ability to utilize a particular space effectively. A square cardboard box may be considered a near perfect example of this as we can easily interpret our usage and it’s limitations. A round box or a triangular one might be at the other end while the calculated volume might be equivalent, the perceived usage of space is much less.
From my automotive background, there is no real engineering advantage to a console in a car and floor shift compared to column shift. Nor is there any particular cost advantage from doing so. I tend to think it has more to do with the influx of European and Asian designs versus traditional American designs. Americans developed and accepted automatic transmissions early on, within only a few short years, only a rather small percentage of car’s had manuals. Also, during the time of the introduction of the automatic, cars were column shifted manually as well. With European and Asian markets retaining a preference for manuals that remains to this day, floor control was a basic design theme of virtually all vehicles. So as car designs began to merge with the move towards FWD, it became one of those things that was adapted. At least at GM, with the corporate push to FWD, European design themes became prominent in car development.
A couple of Koreans (southern ones) did a study on this that I have linked below.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KyPqw1Y5vAYC&pg=PA387&lpg=PA387&dq=factors+for+representing+in-vehicle+roominess&source=bl&ots=bNw21FByJB&sig=jri6kTzpRPwx53qSbnT2fUGWpzk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tnbPUYGKBa7pywGq4YGgBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=factors%20for%20representing%20in-vehicle%20roominess&f=false
It is true, though, that today the majority of a car’s design is eaten up by compliance and content rather than visual aspects. People demand more out of their car’s today than ever before. That coupled with the general escalation of production costs, makes it difficult to allocate significant time and resources to visual clues. But I think we are getting better. If you had asked me 10 years ago what I thought of car design, I would have said it was going into the toilet. Now I think it has leveled off and even shown signs of risk taking, at least themes such as Cadillac’s Arts & Science theme is a turning point for that marque. I like my CTS-V, it’s sassy and brassy in it’s Red Crystal Coat, very much a presence on the road and a head turner visually, not withstanding it’s performance characteristics.
I think we equate car’s like this 60 Fury with a lot of other things that are a basic wholesomeness that was a defining part of Americana for so long, sort of like the apple on the teacher’s desk at school. Cars are now more anonymous because our lives are more anonymous for the most part. Are you on a first name basis with the gas station you frequent now? Likely not, but it is very likely the original owner of the Fury was. Maybe that is something to consider, if you feel like your life, and the things that are in it, have become vacant, engage someone with it, you might be surprised at the result.
While there may be a component of perception to it, even by the straight EPA numbers, full-size cars aren’t any bigger on the inside than in the past.
Per the EPA: an ’89 Olds Ninety-Eight was 111 cu ft, a ’14 Impala is 105. The Impala is larger in every exterior dimension. The new car does have a larger trunk though.
It’s not just the Americans, the ’13 Avalon loses 2 cubic feet to a ’96 version despite being larger on the outside.
Thev Toyota Avalon is an American car, it was designed for the American market and thats the only market where it sells, it was tried down here nobody wanted it
I believe ajla was referring to American manufacturers, not American market.
…I think we are getting better. If you had asked me 10 years ago what I thought of car design, I would have said it was going into the toilet. Now I think it has leveled off and even shown signs of risk taking, at least themes such as Cadillac’s Arts & Science theme is a turning point for that marque. I like my CTS-V, it’s sassy and brassy in it’s Red Crystal Coat, very much a presence on the road and a head turner visually, not withstanding it’s performance characteristics.
Agreed, I think cars hit a low point of anonymity and blandness in the late 90s (with many exceptions) and have been improving ever since. I’m continually impressed by how interesting and stylish a lot of new vehicles are considering the basic dimensions that crash test guidelines dictate. Cadillac, in particular, has really impressed me ever since the original CTS.
Every time I read that “cars all look the same nowadays” I have to smfh, as the kids would say. Cars “look the same” right now as much as they did in the 30s or 70s. Those cars look unique today because of how different they are from their surroundings. If we took some kid off the street who has little interest in cars and showed him a 1978 Lincoln Town Car and 1978 Chrysler New Yorker, he wouldn’t have any idea they were different vehicles. If we could somehow transport all of ourselves back to 1935, most of us wouldn’t be able to identify one American car from another at a glance. Japanese and European cars were different back then (well, from the 50s-onward with the Japanese). I doubt anyone would mistake a Datsun F10 for a Cadillac Eldorado, or an Austin 7 for a Duesenberg… but over the years, there has become much less difference between the automotive output of different continents – all manufacturers generally make cars in different sizes now, which was not the case back then. Those cars are as different from each other as a scion iQ is from a Lexus GX460 today.
This is true…line up a bunch of 1980 B and C Bodies and Panthers and they all look pretty durn similar, as would many 1959 models with fins.
I would say that the INSIDE of cars now ARE what “all look the same”. Everything had fins in 1959, vinyl roof padding in 1974, and square edges in 1982, but the dashboards, upholstery, and trim were all widely variable.
I really CAN’T tell the inside of a Camry from anything else now.
Agreed on interiors! I can’t tell any of them apart now a days 🙁
There was one period of time where interior design, amongst American manufacturers specifically, was really pushing the boundaries and resulted in fascinating and far-out style. That period was roughly 1955-1965. There were some beautiful and amazing dashboard layouts from the 30s-50s as well, but even the high-end ones looked like fancier versions of what you could get in a Plymouth. After ’65, injection molded plastics started to come into the picture and for the entire 1970s everything was drab and blocky, although you could sometimes get neat fabrics or colors. European style designs started catching on in the mid-70s and it became the standard for most of the world through the 80s (America was slow to catch on here). Lots of those interiors look great as well – and are highly functional, but they’re all fairly similar.
I honestly haven’t been in enough brand new cars to say that everything looks the same nowadays, but in the ones I have been in, that hasn’t been the case at all. I was in a rental Chevrolet Sonic last year and thought it had the coolest instrument panel I had seen in forever… which is very impressive considering how cheap that car is. It reminded me of something that you’d see on a Japanese crotch rocket bike (and was obviously influenced by that). This is the whole thing:
…and here’s something crazy from the glory days (1957 Lincoln):
…plus something I’d consider a low point (’72 Nova):
That Nova interior wasn’t a low point for me. Love the steering wheel which I think came with the ’75 freshening, I certainly remember it on Camaros. Its small diameter, thick rim and four spokes said good handling.
The worst interiors for me were on the 90s cars with those huge first generation airbag covers on the steering wheels.
I do like that steering wheel, and I think you’re right that it’s from a later Nova, or different car – I know I’ve seen it on a bunch of different Chevies. I hated those 90s blob dashboards and pregnant steering wheels too. I’m glad they finally found a way to tone those monstrosities down.
The pregnant steering wheel/airbag had to due with technology of the time. Like a lot of technology, they appeared crude initially until the design was better understood and the airbag makers could design something more compact yet effective. Also, many early bags were large because they were intentionally designed for overkill to ensure their effectiveness. Eventually as data was accumulated, designers were able to find the happy medium between size and effectiveness.
As for the steering wheels below, that 4 spoke steering wheel from Chevy debuted on the 70.5 Camaro and found it’s way into a lot of Chevrolets from Vegas to Camaros to Cavaliers through 1987. We had an 86 Cavalier wagon for a while and it had that steering wheel.
I had the pleasure of working on a 42 Cadillac Series 75 for many years, with no power steering, brakes, three on tree, and 6,000 lbs you come to appreciate a large steering wheel and good biceps.
Yes I remember that steering wheel now on the Vega GT. It’s such a classic GM shared part. Can you say that about anything that has come from them in the last few years?
On the early airbags everyone struggled with the technology available at the time. All were pretty bulky but somehow Mercedes figured out how to emboss the cover to take away some of the flatness. It just took a little extra effort. At GM it was straight from supplier to the production line, or so it seemed.
In all fairness to GM the U.S. airbag requirement was to protect an unbelted driver from serious injury up to X MPH. Yup the airbag needed to be big enough to blast a flying body back into the seat before it could hit the wheel.
This is a good example of an over-reaching Federal safety reg. In Europe and Japan, where the government doesn’t worry so much about protecting the idiots, the airbag requirement is to protect the belted driver from serious injury.
It’s hard to say who was the worst at the bulky airbags. On the GM models they looked especially bad because of all the Playskool knobs and switches that were popular with the designers at that time.
> In all fairness to GM the U.S. airbag requirement was to protect an unbelted driver from serious injury up to X MPH. Yup the airbag needed to be big enough to blast a flying body back into the seat before it could hit the wheel.
That requirement sounds suspect to me. Got a source, Calibrick? It was well known that airbags and unbelted occupants can be a hazard, well before airbags were legislated into cars in the US.
I’ve seen crash test footage of airbag development. In one high-speed crash, the unbelted driver flew forward before the airbag could fully deploy. The inflating airbag pushed the driver up, put their head through the windshield, then decapitated them at the neck on the top of the windshield frame.
I’m not sure I agree that cars are better styled now than they were ten years ago. Look at the current Lexus lineup, I can’t tell an ES from a GS to an IS to an LS. They all look exactly the same. Same with Acura, same with Infinity, same with Lincoln. I think all their lineups 10 years ago were more diverse and attractive. Cadillac has definitely gotten better, as well as most of the big American three with a few exceptions (I like both the F bodies and Mustang better ten years ago than the current ones), but overall it seems like everything else has become worse.
Today there’s more brand formula, as I mentioned, Lexus and Acura are basically the same car in different sizes. There’s less bodystyles, only sedan or CUV. Less colors, silver, white, black. And as mentioned, interchangeable interior designs.
What I find the most annoying is the size and class similarity. Honestly, in traffic when I am riding along with a Lexus, an Altima, a Malibu, a Kia, and a BMW, they all are 4 door compact notchback sedans with maybe an inch or two in length difference. One or the other may have more electronic touchscreen gismos on the inside, or automatic parallel parking, or power folding rear view mirrors, but really I don’t know how they manage to convince anyone to pay more for the “premium” cars except by the possiblity of impressing people with your nameplate that means you paid more for it. It used to be that your luxury car would really stand out compared to your mainstream car.
“The Plymouth had the worst brakes of any car I have ever owned. ” Ever drive a ’67 Mustang with standard drum brakes? Also pretty frightening..
I really like the pure flamboyance of it… Campy, yes but a double taker…
Ditto my old Mk1 Ford Escort (UK model) with all round unboosted drums. It was a light car, but the middle pedal didn’t cause braking so much as gentle deceleration… I rear-ended another car soon after buying it, fitting a brake booster helped.
Brakes like those fitted to these cars are why I learned to drive not using them Escorts the English ones dont have brakes I’ve driven many just because it says disc brakes dont expect it to stop it wont I had a MK2 1600 great for sliding around on gravel but rubbish to drive to work just keeping it running was a full time job autolite electrics not lucas and they’re worse.
Great piece on a really fascinating car. About 12 years after you bought Felicia, I found a 1959 Fury sedan with the same powertrain. Mine had 60K on it as well.
Your 60 with the unibody was undoubtedly much tigher structurally than my 59, the last of the bof Plymouths. Mine creaked like an old sailing ship, and leaked a bit in the rain. Did the 60 still use the “Centerplane” brakes where each brake shoe had its own wheel cylinder? I remember the brakes on mine as decent (and MUCH better than the 9 inch drums on the 71 Scamp that followed my 59). I think the system theoretically gave more optimal contact between both shoes and the drum, but was offset by more places to leak, and higher cost.
I remember my 59 as being one of my favorite drivers ever. It drove like a much newer car. This was the one that made me despise my college roommate’s 62 Bel Air. When I owned mine, there was a girl in my dorm who had a baby blue 60 sedan (probably a lower-trim Savoy) and another kid with a 61 Lancer. The old Mopars seemed to out-populate GM stuff of their era because of a deep-down durability. Like the old nursury rhyme, when they were good, they were very very good but when they were bad they were horrid.
In their 1960 sales brochure Plymouth referred to the brakes as being “Total-Contact Brakes” with two hydraulic cylinders per brake on the front wheels. Brake linings were bonded rather than riveted.
In any case I must have been comparing, in my mind, the Plymouth’s brakes with those on the 1964 Dodge taxis that I worked on. Before we put a new Dodge into revenue service, one of the things we did was remove the auto brake adjusters on all four wheels and replace them with manual star adjusters. Taxi brakes were bigger to begin with (all Dodge/Plymouths should have had them) and they worked really well.
On any taxi we ever put on the road, the self-adjusters were removed before the first fare went in the car!
Have the drum brake self-adjusters EVER worked on any car over, say, 8 years old? Never in my limited experience, at least.
That type of arrangement is called “double leading shoe”, which is intrinsically superior. Motorcycle front drum brakes usually used them (on the faster bikes, anyway), and my Peugeot 404 wagon had them on its very large front drum brakes.
FWIW, those big drums on my 404 wagon were superior that the rather modest discs on my 404 sedan. Perhaps not on fade on repeated long stops (which I never had to do), but in every day use. They were un-assisted, but quite sensitive, and very progressive. Just about the best brake feel ever.
Of course, the overall size and width is still a key factor in drum brakes as well as the dissipation ability of the drums (fins, etc.)
There is a Manual on these on the Imperial Club’s website. It was interesting reading, I had never understood how the end of the shoe not attached to the wheel cylinder floated on its mount so that the entire lining area of the shoe was forced against the drum. Anyone interested can read it here. http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Lit/Master/096/index.htm
When I owned mine, my car-mentor Bill told me that these had been moderately troublesome from a service and adjustment point of view. Mine developed fluid leaks. It was no fun filling that master cylinder that was directly under the power brake bellows. I had not been aware that these survived the end of the Forward Look cars in 1959. They certainly did not survive Lynn Townsend the accountant taking over at Chrysler.
That’s a bit different yet, and both ambitious and complex. The Peugeot’s double-leading shoes had their cylinders mounted conventionally.
The principle of double-leading shoes is/was well understood, and accepted as being somewhat superior intrinsically. But Chrysler approach to also having the cylinders more centrally mounted is new to me. Makes sense in principle…
Love this. Love Kevin’s memories. Thanks Paul.
1 . Cars like this are only graceful at any sort of Havanna Cuba background sightseeings today.
2. Cars like this are the living monuments of Detroit’s nonsense and pre announced the decline of it , both the big city and the name of the car brand.
3. Cars like this are reason for big garbage slums and pollution.
4. Cars like this aren’t automobiles , they’re just a ridiculous expense to pursuit some narcissistic complex behind of ” Who has it bigger ?”