(first posted 4/23/2015) Ignore the fact that this is a ’57 Chevy, a vehicle that has transcended the mere word ‘icon’, if that’s possible. Yes, those flamboyant grafted-on Cadillac-ish fins on this boxy station wagon make that a bit challenging. The ironic thing about the tri-five Chevies (1955-1957) is that their very deep intrinsic goodness was not their flashy styling, but their superb underlying utility, especially the station wagons.
The original 1955 is by far my favorite for its very clean lines and Ferrari-esque front end. And of course, it also debuted the brilliant new V8 engine. I’ve paid my homage to the ’55 Chevy here; although not yet the wagons. But while finding a ’55 Chevy wagon curbside has seemingly become impossible, I’ve just recently run into two ’57 wagons still on the streets.
Well, the irony of the tri-fives is that although the styling got gaudier every year, their build quality improved with each year. That’s made the ’57s the most prolific survivors, as well as having been very sought-after used cars in the years immediately after their introduction as folks were discovering the horrors of their leaking, creaking 1957 Fords and Plymouths as well as Chevy’s own flabby-floppy 1958s. In those two years, the Big Three ushered in all-new bigger, wider, lower, longer–and crappily-built–cars. It put a lot of folks off big Big Three cars for good, and they headed to Rambler or hunted down a good used ’57 Chevy, which was the last right-sized, well-built big American car. That’s how and when the reputation of the tri-fives was initially made, not on the pages of Popular Hot Rodding.
The space utilization on these smaller, shorter, taller and narrower wagons was drastically better, with the possible exception of hip and elbow room. Check out that rear-seat leg room–and those seats were still tall. And the floor is almost flat. I remember riding to Catechism in a ’59 Chevy wagon (when I didn’t play hooky), and although the rear seat was very wide, the floor was essentially split-level: a very tall and wide center section, where the X-Frame sat, and equally tall and wide areas near the sills. There were two tubs where the feet were supposed to go, but it seemed pretty strange to me, as a nine-year old kid, especially when there were about a half dozen in the back seat. In fact the arrangement reminded me of a twin-tub kitchen sink, but with the section between them much wider.
On the other hand, my friend Mike Dunphy’s family had an old ’57 Chevy 210 wagon just like this one, and it took our Boy Scout pack on several camping trips. It was already eight years old by then, but still in good health, and it stayed in the family until it was replaced by a 1970 VW Westfalia camper van. It was the perfect rig for the job, no matter how many dirty, smelly boys piled in after a shower-less long weekend of camping.
And the rear cargo area seemed to swallow all the even dirtier gear, tents and greasy black pots and pans. And what didn’t fit in back was strapped to the top carrier. I loved that wagon; Something in me knew even then, as a kid, that it was better suited to its job than all the shiny new Country Squires and such.
Like this one, the Dunphy’s wagon was also a nominal six-passenger version. Truth is, three-row wagons really weren’t very common in the 50s; They were, of course, more expensive, and many of them sacrificed a flat floor. That was the case with the 8-passenger Chevy wagons, which were offered only in 1956 and 1957, and only in the 210 version the final year. The third seat faced forward, but had to be removed to create a flat floor. Most folks just let the kids sit back there as if it was a play pen. Why bother with seats?
The hot news for ’57 under all the tacked-on, Harley Earl-mandated chrome trim was the new 283 cubic inch version of the V8. The 162 hp, 265 inch V8 was still standard for stick-shift V8 models, but the Powerglide -equipped V8 versions had a 185 hp 283 under the hood as standard. And that was just the starting point; there were 220, 245 and 270 hp versions sporting either one or two or four-barrel Carter AFCB carbs, and of course the legendary fuel injection versions, with 250 and 283 hp. Probably not too many found their way into wagons.
This top-trim Bel Air is sporting the Powerglide, which in 1957 made for an excellent combo, given the 283’s ability to breathe and rev, which largely mitigated the lack of an intermediate second gear. Depending on axle ratio, Low was good to 60-70 mph.
This 210 wagon sports a floor-shifted manual. As best as I can tell, there’s a three-speed shift pattern on it, so it’s a floor-shift conversion. Sadly, Chevy did not offer the new BW T-10 four-speed in anything other than the Corvette until 1959, when it even promoted a properly optioned Chevy sedan as an alternative to a sports car.
This 210 wagon brings back memories of another one that left a lasting impression. In 1972, when I was hitchhiking up the coast of California, I left Big Sur early in the morning after camping there for a week, and got picked up by a local who was heading to Monterey do do some shopping. He was a typical representative of the type that lived there back then: a woodsy beat intellectual, and already a bit of a relic from the time when his ’57 wagon was built, and not from the hippie era.
He obviously knew the road very well, which is of course probably the most famous stretch of Hwy 1, as it winds high on the cliffs above the rugged Pacific Coast. The road was deserted on that April weekday morning then, and he hustled the ’57 Chevy wagon through the curves with great speed but remained totally in control. He was an excellent driver who knew exactly when to brake, shift, and how fast each curve could be taken without drama. That ride made a very deep impression; he was living my dream. And now I live it out in the mountain and coastal forest roads of Oregon in my xBox wagon. Not quite Big Sur, but the steady parade of tourists in Mustang convertibles there rather ruins it for me anyway.
As I was writing this I decided to Google “Big Sur 1950s” and came up with these shots from the 2011 movie “On The Road”, but in this case it’s a Plymouth wagon, not a Chevy. Close enough.
So yes, the ’57 Chevy wagon is one of my favorites, despite the pointy fins. Make mine a ’55, please, only built like a ’57 and with a 250 hp fuelie 283 and the non-available four-speed. One can dream.
My fondness for the ’55 might explain why I fell so hard for our Peugeot 404 wagon.
Its similarities to a ’55 Chevy wagon are all too obvious.
Or maybe the pointy fins are what this wagon is all about; a symbol of America getting caught up in the transition from substance to artificiality. Well, that’s the theory that ’57 driver from Big Sur would undoubtedly have subscribed to. But since the the rest of the car came first and the fins last, the ’57 wagon wears them like…the bad joke that they were. And doesn’t let them get in the way of doing the dirty work it was really made for, except perhaps for getting in the way when trying to load its back side from any angle but straight in.
The more I look at this splendid time capsule, the more in love I fall. Auxiliary gauges made from an old Nevada license plate? Check. That floor shift? Yes. The 283 under the hood? Gotta have.
There’s even one of those bean-bag ashtrays on the metal dash; The time warp is so complete, one never knows when the urge to light up might strike.
For all I know, this could be the very same ’57 wagon I rode up Hwy 1 in–the patina is certainly about right, as is the attitude.
From some angles, the iconic ’57 Chevy looks like it was a bad other-side-of-the-Iron-Curtain imitation. Or the infamous The East Glows. Or a Humbug-Woolycroft 18/90 Super Snoop Estate Major. It’s a Checker Marathon wagon hiding behind the lip implants, eye lid lifts and butt enhancement, and its not exactly happy about all the cosmetic body work. But it hasn’t lost its functionality, nor sold its soul; that would happen soon enough. And it’s as ready and willing to do the dirty work as ever, whether that involves hauling a pack of smelly scouts or ripping through the curves of Hwy 1. Or just sitting there, basking in the memories.
Sorry, Paul, I thoroughly disagree with you on just about everything you say about the 1957 Chevy. To me, it’s the most desirable of the tri-fives.
For the record, the fins are not “grafted on” like you said, ala Studebaker Lark, but are integral to the body panel, stamped that way.
Gaudy? I suppose, but everything works about the design, and it hasn’t become an icon for nothing!
However, the model and trim I prefer is the 4-door hardtop two-tone 210 – you provided a photo of one. I especially like one in white top, red middle and white lower as featured in the March 1974 Hot Rod Magazine, but Turquoise would be beautiful as well as rootbeer brown.
I think he meant grafted onto the basic design, not literally grafted on as a separate part, and he is right.
Yes; that is what I meant. GM wasn’t quite as poor as Studebaker; they could afford to tool up a new stamping
I don’t mind patina, as long as it’s only surface, and there are no holes in the body work. As long as the car is safe to drive, that everything on the car works like it should.
I, um, have reservations about that roof. Patina’s okay, but better be safe than wet!
The last of the old-school Chevrolets. It is hard to imagine the drubbing these took in the market – the Ford outsold it for the first time since, what, 1935? The stylists who worked on it hated it. But it proved to be the Energizer Bunny of used cars by maybe 1960-61.
Of 1950s cars that added a fin to an existing design, I don’t think any ever did it more elegantly than this, so there’s that. Really, I don’t think I have a favorite among the Tri5s – I think each of them has merit, each in its own way. Now, we just have to convince Lee Wilcox to get his out of mothballs. 🙂
Your two examples are almost perfect. If I were going to own a 57 Chevy wagon, it would have to be one of those two colors.
JP the license plate gauge panel may have taken me over the edge. By the time the weather gets hot I intend to be working on the car.
Well written Paul. I think I prefer the 55 to the other tri fives although it’s hard to not favor something you have owned for so long. 1954 has always been my favorite over the tri fives but no V8. I probably can’t kill the 283 or the glide but think I may have to go with a manual conversion.
Love the story.
When you consider these weighed a little over 3K lbs, the same or less than modern Accords & Camrys, it’s amazing how good the space utilization is; nowadays, you need an “outlier” model like a limo or Toyota Comfort for that sort of backseat legroom.
I know the Shoeboxes were great cars, but however hard I try, I simply can’t warm to their styling, even the ’55. It’s just not as bad as its contemporaries. The earlier ’49 Ford & Hudson Hornet are much better.
Space utilization is usually more a function of size than weight.
I should’ve mentioned the Toyota Avalon instead, it’s certainly a Yank Tank:
2015 Avalon L 192 W 72 H 62 wb 111 curb-weight 3461
1955 Chevy L 197 W 73 H 62 wb 115 curb-weight 3425 (max)
The ∆4″ wheelbase answers to your point.
There we go, that works.
A good writeup Paul ;
Too bad the goofball who owns this Wagon is deliberately destroying it ~ one day that rusty roof will perforate and it’ll get broken for parts . a sad thing even though I don’t like the ’57s much ~ too gaudy .
The ’55s were so clean and looked perfectly balanced from any angle , even the dash boards were cleaner .
Make mine a Stovebolt 235 with three on the tree and over drive so it’ll skip across the Mojave Desert like a flat rock across water =8-) .
Pops bought a brandy new 1967 Peugeot 404 Wagon in dark blue when he was visiting there , I too loved it’s well balanced looks and spectacularly good quality ~ it lasted for years of Yeoman Duty plus multiple fully loaded cross American trips until my goofball Sister allowed her druggie boyfriend to drive it , he of course lied and said he’d checked the oil and didn’t , ran it dry and seized up the engine in the New York Expressway one rainy night .
While I admire the design “purity” of the 55, but when it comes to the wagon models of the Tri-Fives….I’ll take a 57 every time. It’s because of those fins, and in some models the abundant chrome trim, that the 57 wagon outshines a 55 or a 56.
Strangely, I don’t think any of my 10 uncles owned a 57, though 1 owned a 56 and 1 owned a 58…as did my parents. My Mom thought that our 58 was THE worst car my father bought (until our family got a 69 LTD with a 390), while my uncle with a 56 would own Chevys for the next 50 years.
Probably the only drawback to these Tri-Five wagons is the colors schemes were somewhat conservative.
When someone says Chevy this is year that I see in my mind. My aunt had a turquoise two door. I remember riding in it with the white St. Christopher statue on the dash and “Blue Velvet” playing on the radio.
Wow, how could I not love this story, Paul! My biggest regret on cars was our family letting my avatar go away. How I’d like to have it now!
Regarding the ’57 wagon, one personal memory: a friend and I hitching a ride in one back to the school bus that would take us home from an altar boy summer outing.
Of the Tri-Fives I’ve always prefered the ’56 models. Must be the “middle child” in me 🙂 .
I do think the ’57 fins work much better with the wagon design than the sedan. Brother had a ’56 convertible around ’66 that was white w/red interior 265 3 on tree, was a great looking car. When I look at these interior shots these are so similar to my ’65 C10 283 3 speed floor shift conversion with the metal dash and rubber floor mats, and close to the ’70 C10 that was a 307 3 speed first converted to 3 speed floor and later 4 speed, which greatly improved it’s towing ability. The tri 5’s really were built like trucks, although they did have the inferior X frame they were still durable beasts. Amazing how similar all these Chevy’s were even through a 15 year time period. Great write up as always.
No X frames on tri-fives. That started with the ’58s.
But you’re right; these were built like trucks.
Yeah tough all rite, a school friend slammed his 57 headon into a tree new bumper, bonnet grille some primer and it was all good again, that was in the 70s when wrecking yards were loaded with unwanted tri5 chevs.
That I’ll teach me to post before my morning coffee. Right as usual, Paul.
As for styling, I agree that the ’56 would be the preferred version. A bit more subtle everywhere than the truly gaudy ’57. The ’56 grille seems, in retrospective, more modern, lower and wider. And I prefer the (likely more dangerous) ’56 steering wheel.
Locally I periodically see a green ’56 150 two door wagon – a real spartan car that must have at one time been a delivery car for a local business.
In about 1985 I looked at, but did not buy, a ’57 four door wagon. Despite some rust that could have been addressed (Illinois car) I especially did not like the Powerglide. I do not regret passing on the car.
Someday…yes it’s a Handyman. And yes I WOULD trade it for a Rolls-Royce. Which I would then promptly SELL, buy this back and take the leftover $$ to turn this into MY CC!
What if the Rolls was in the same shape as what you have. I have ’58 Chev. the year no one wanted, Now they want them, getting harder to find. I have a 4 Dr. Wag that looks to be the same shape as yours, but is more complete. Yes I would sell, if the price is right. Best on your some day, they don’t come around too often. You must make it happen.
Building permits for my garage reno are about to be submitted. I have an estimate from a local pole barn company and tracked down a line of two-post lifts.
Chevy’s L83 5.3/6L80 combo is what I’m looking to do, and a number of new parts have become available since 2018. Spindles that’ll take a modern Corvette hub, for example. I just bought a set of upper control arms that look original but have extra caster built in for better handling.
Taking time but it’s coming together.
Where is it located ( STATE How much do you want for it. Does it run. chas108
Posted April 23, 2015 at 10:31 AM
This post got me interested in seeking out the On The Road movie. Though, either attention to detail is somewhat lacking in that film, or the CHP Crown Vic shown in your second screen capture is supposed to have traveled back to the 50s through a wormhole …
Me too. I missed it when it came out, and I’ve read mixed things about it, but it seems worth checking out.
Those are shots from the set, not the actual movie, but I’m guessing you managed to figure that out yourself. 🙂
No mention of the 1956 Plymouth Belvedere station wagon in the ‘Beat Museum’ photos?
Yes; from the text:
“As I was writing this I decided to Google “Big Sur 1950s” and came up with these shots from the 2011 movie “On The Road”, but in this case it’s a Plymouth wagon, not a Chevy. Close enough.”
Paul, you’re right, I missed that. At least I got the year and model in there for us MOPAR lovers.
A resto shop near me has a mid-green 1960 T&C wagon in a lot across the street. The paint is faded on a good body, and the interior is tired, but the lines…and oh those fins raking aft…perhaps I’ll take a picture or two…
Good point Paul on the rapidly changing bodies and frames on the Big Three’s ’57 and ’58 offerings.
We were lucky – my mother bought the ’55 Chevy new and kept it for 6 years since we didn’t rack up the miles rapidly and it was garaged. Also being a school teacher, she didn’t have to drive it on the worst winter days when school was closed.
We skipped over the wild and crazy years and replaced the ’55 with a ’61 Bel Air. I remember the gigantic rear floor hump caused by the X-frame and the deep footwells. We kids climbed over that hump so often that the carpeting was worn through by the time that car was traded in.
CC effect going well caught this 57 on its daily commute recently LHD same colour sheme, did the one you shot emigrate?
The ’57 Chevrolets looked better from the driver’s seat than the 55’s did – in a 57 you looked across a flat hood and had the left windsplit to aim with, while the view from the 55’s office was more rounded and lumpy.
As an owner in the 1960s of a 2dr 57 210 and a 2dr 57 Bel Air I obviously diagree with your views of the 57 styling. As does most of America. Plus I wouldn’t touch a Pug except with a back hoe. Different strokes.
There were a few Tri-five Chevies at the Portland Swap Meet, but the one that sticks in my mind is the 210 or Bel Air Sedan which the seller wanted $10,000 for and it looked as rough as the leading car. There was also a Shooting Brake 56 for sale with 1986 Colorado license plates the seller wanted $6,000 or so dollars for. Good article and these sure are nice looking cars even the 57.
That 210 really reminds me of the ’57 210 2-door sedan we had. Same Dusk Pearl and Ivory two tone combination and black and white interior. I originally wanted a Nomad, but they were priced to high, so I settled for a sedan. Any tri-five would do, but the ’57 was the right deal at the time. I had always wanted one since I was a child. Having owned it for over a decade it was time to move on, at a very tidy profit, to an overseas buyer.
I have to admit that I have no affection for our family’s 1957 Chevrolet Two-Ten wagon. Its color scheme was handsome enough, Highland Green (dark metallic) with Surf Green roof and side spear. But ahead of its Powerglide was the ancient Stove Bolt Six, complete with its known weakness: inadequate oiling of the valve train and the resulting heat and fatigue. Ours punched out two valve caps and broke a valve stem in its 40,000 miles. It happened, all three times, during 100-mile trips in the hot summertime San Joaquin Valley.
This car was also among the few California cars I have seen, other than those that lived in the salt spray from the Pacific Ocean, that rusted out. The left rear door held water; whether it was because its drain holes were not properly punched through, or because the were plugged with welding slag, we never found out.
I prefer the 55 myself but I have to defend the 57. America getting caught up in the transition from substance to artificiality is a pretty harsh statement. The 55 was a great looking car but it’s not like it was stark dull European function over form itself, it was Ferrari like in areas sure, but could be quite laden with chrome in Bel Air form, not to mention the two tone which the 57 didn’t even have. Plus looking at many immediate postwar designs(the ones still based on prewar bodies) they were tarted up in much much tackier and obnoxious ways than the 57 Chevy was to the 55, The Lincoln Continental immediately comes to mind as an example.
As much as you’d like to reject the Hot Rodder stigma these have been known for, for what is now the majority of the years the design has existed, they are still hugely popular for their styling. There’s been plenty of cars built in the last 60 years that have been better in every functional way than the tri-fives, BUT pretty much zero of those cars with that level of all around function will ever turn peoples heads and remain endearing way the 55, 56 or 57 Chevy’s do. Quite the paradox, since Isn’t that then artificiality trumping substance? Is that really actually a bad thing to this extent?
I’m also really struggling to come up with cargo that the fins would impede, it’s not like they were actually that much more flat on the 55.
A bit late to comment, but I’ll still offer my 2 cents regarding the tri-five Chevies.
As a European teenager, I wasn’t particularly interested in cars, and in my country you can only drive at the age of 18 anyway. In my early teenage years, my interests (besides girls of course) was mostly focused on aviation, including assembling plane models. One day, I got my hands on the 1990 Monogram catalog (Monogram is a manufacurer of model kits, mostly planes and cars). While mostly interested in their aicraft kit offerings, I definitely noticed the front cover showing a ’67 Corvette Stingray and a Shelby Cobra. Inside, more models of various cars were displayed, mostly US cars. Apart from American movies and TV shows, this was the first time I really looked many different US cars, and I liked what I saw. Probably, the seeds of my interest in US cars was planted right then.
Among others, they also offered model kits of all the tri-five Chevies. I liked the looks of all of them, but by far the most good looking was the 1957.
So, as a kid who didn’t know practically anything about American cars and was completely unaware of either the historical aspects surrounding the 1950s automotive America, or the later hot-rodding aspects, the visual impact of the 1957 was enough to be a clear winner over its two “older brothers”. The 1955 and 1956 Chevies design looked to me like just another old 1950s car, but the 1957 was something different. The low-mounted wide grille, the imposing headlights, the fake machine gun muzzles on the hood, the overall design – it’s simply an extremely cool-looking car and you know it the moment you lay eyes on one. Even all that chrome looks like it belongs there, even if I otherwise don’t like too much chrome on a car.
And you’re telling me that the 1957 Chevies were also well built? No wonder everyone wants them. The only downside is that this makes them terribly expensive…
Was there really that noticeable difference in build quality between ’55 and ’57?
… I always liked ’56’s.
Supposedly. Almost all new models, especially if they’re totally new, tended to have issues with build quality at first. And that improved steadily with each passing year.
I guess I hoped not. Well, not really. Hard to fault a ’57. I liked the cleaner ’55’s and ’56’s better. Still would take any Tri-Five over a Batwing Chev. Call me when ’62 arrives.
Actually call me when ’65 arrives.
In The Great Tri-5 Debate, presenting the case for the ’57 will be the renowned defense attorney Mr. Gasser…
Here mine 1957 Chevy station wagon 210 townsman 6 Cly 3 speed on the floor
I live in Fairbanks Alaska email@example.com
I took this picture a week ago 8/6/2018
Like them or not, there’s no denying the ruggedness of these compared to their main 1957 competition. The Ford’s rusted quickly in comparison and I suspect is the main reason so many fewer seem to be out there. The Y-block has nothing like the hop up potential as the SBC either, so that’s part of it too. If I somehow came into a good deal for a ’57, I’d sell it buy a ’55…
I just had a d’uh moment. Of course they built a 2 door and a 4 door wagon.
Those Beat Museum photos contain, of course, a 1956 Plymouth wagon, not trying to disguise itself as a Chevy.
Wonder how that slipped through?
It’s common knowledge around here that GM utterly dominated Ford from the time Alfred Sloan’s marketing savvy overtook Henry Ford’s stubbornness in the 1920s until the launch of 1986 Ford Taurus. Though the GM vs. Ford rivalry has seesawed back and forth since then, I think a solid argument can be made that Ford has been America’s strongest automaker when the past 35 years are examined in their totality. (In fact, due to the impact that the 1986 Taurus had on the GM vs. Ford rivalry, one could even argue that said vehicle was/is more important than the 1991 Explorer.)
I was very surprised to learn that Ford actually outsold Chevy back in 1957; that must have been one of the very few years of such an occurrence from the 1920s to the late 1980s. So to bring what I wrote in the first paragraph on topic, I wonder if Ford could have actually overtaken GM back in the late 1950s–or at least gone toe to toe with them–had the ’57 Fords actually been well-built.
I am curious to read everyone’s opinions on this matter. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that GM would have remained #1 (by a comfortable margin) even if the ’57 Fords were superior to the ’57 Chevys in terms of quality. A big reason for this assessment is that Roger Smith’s reign of incompetence was still decades away. And the “Quality is Job 1” philosophy of the Caldwell and Petersen Eras elevated FoMoCo’s competitiveness years before the Taurus hit Ford dealerships.
I wonder if Ford could have actually overtaken–or at least gone toe to toe with–GM had the ’57 Fords actually been well-built.
The Ford brand was very competitive to Chevrolet in the ’50s, essentially tying Chevy in ’54, and coming within a couple of percentage points of market share in other years. So Ford beating Chevy was not really a fluke in ’57, thanks to their new car vs. the older Chevy. Ford dropped quite a bit in ’58, because the Chevy was all-new, and the Ford in its second year. Then they essentially tied in ’59, because Chevy’s styling was presumably a bit too wild for some compared to Ford’s more conservative styling.
But all that changed dramatically in 1960. Big Ford sales dropped a huge amount, for two reasons: presumably its pretty radical styling didn’t appeal, and the ’60 Falcon ate very deeply into big Ford sales. Big Ford sales were very much lower than big Chevy sales all during the ’60s, and didn’t challenge Chevy until the end of the decade.
As for the full Ford line market share, it floundered against Chevy until 1965, when the Mustang made Ford very competitive again, tying Chevy for market share in 1966. But the Mustang boom didn’t last. And as such, Ford slipped some and had to contend itself with #2 mostly for the time being.
That ad. The tagline bothers me. “See your Authorized Chevrolet dealer”, with the Authorized underlined.
So, there were unauthorized Chevrolet dealers? 🙂
Guess that was just typical meaningless advertising language of the period.
This was a great story, but I want to see the Humbug-Woolycroft 18/90 Super Snoop Estate Major. 🙂
As a college student in ’74 I used to hotwire my roommates ’57 2 door wagon..done in grey primer .and move it around the neighborhood…especially after a night of..uumm……praying at the altar of adult beverages and other assorted substances. I got an inexplicable kick out of being able to take his car without his key.
Also had a 4 door ’56 before college.canary yellow with black tuck and roll interior ( I didnt do it) I tend to like the ’56’s the best though I wouldnt kick a ’57 out of my garage. The ’55’s look somewhat dowdy to me.
Like to have a Nomad but like everything thats not rusted to bits, prices have gone way north of what I would pay.
The patina wagon pictured is mine as of last week! It hasn’t yet been delivered and I can hardly wait. The motor has been replaced by a later model 350, which is fine by me. And, now 7 years after this piece first appeared, the roof still doesn’t leak! According to seller, of course, but he seems like a very upstanding guy and has owned this original paint canyon coral and white example for 25 years. I plan to replace the holes with new metal and leave the rest after applying preservative. They’re only original once.