The Forward Look Network
The Forward Look Network
Search | Statistics | User Listing Forums | Chat | eBay | Calendars | Albums | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

convertible question (may ruffle feathers)
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forward Look NON-Technical Discussions -> 1955-1961 Forward Look MoPar General DiscussionMessage format
 
w.weiland
Posted 2018-06-03 7:26 AM (#564451)
Subject: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)


Elite Veteran

Posts: 895
500100100100252525
Location: Lordstown, Ohio
I would like thoughts,input good bad ugly nice on this. Lets say one always wanted a 59 dodge convetible. or a 58 desoto convertible. BUT all they have is a solid nice 2 door or 4 door one. lets say they stumble across all conv parts (odds of that????) And the make/build one. You feel its wrong? Acceptable???? I know its been done, probably more times then we know
Top of the page Bottom of the page
mikes2nd
Posted 2018-06-03 8:32 AM (#564456 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)


Expert

Posts: 2802
2000500100100100

nope, its your fricking car. Take a sledge or shotgun to it.

im sure plenty here will be like OMG ITS NOT THE ORIGINAL FENDER BOLT But honestly, if you want a 59 Dodge and cant afford or find one, make one

I wouldn't try to make one out of a 4 door, I know the guy in WV has that Desoto 4 door to convert project, did you get that?

Also to me it comes down to how good of shape the car is and does it make sense to cut up, change drastically.



Edited by mikes2nd 2018-06-03 9:15 AM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
wizard
Posted 2018-06-03 9:02 AM (#564458 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Board Moderator & Exner Expert 10K+

Posts: 11390
500050001000100100100252525
Location: Southern Sweden - Sturkö island
Nothing wrong with a clone as long as it's marketed as a clone if it is for sale.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-03 10:28 AM (#564469 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
I think it's wrong as hardtops are the best looking cars and express Forwardlook best as the roofline is a vital part of it. Cvt's are just ugly with the roof closed. And this is way more work that just adding an X-frame and cutting the roof off. From what I heard cvts used heavier steel in the sills and other places. Its cheaper (time is money) to buy a real one.
I personally would take a 4d HT over a cvt.

Edited by 1960fury 2018-06-03 4:20 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
LostDeere59
Posted 2018-06-03 12:57 PM (#564476 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Veteran

Posts: 299
100100252525
Location: Hilltown, PA

I know the purists will be enraged, but I've always felt that a good use for unappreciated 4 doors is to remove the roof and make a good weather cruiser out of it. No top, just nicely finish the cut edges for appearance and safety, and enjoy the low-dollar no top experience.

Obviously this isn't for everybody - you need a garage to keep it in on rainy days/winter months, and anytime you take it out you risk getting caught in a summer downpour. But that's what bridges and overhangs are for

My only advice for something like that - use a full frame car. Unibodies depend on the roof as structure, so taking the top off of one (without reinforcement below) will lead to sticking doors and worse . . .


Gregg
Top of the page Bottom of the page
BigBlockMopar
Posted 2018-06-03 1:15 PM (#564478 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert

Posts: 3428
2000100010010010010025
Location: Netherlands
Seeking rainshelter under a bridge... Park with the bums with your roofless car!

I've had a '65 Chrysler 300 2-dr Hardtop which was converted to a permanent open car.
Never been able to drive it but the car still 'felt' kinda sturdy.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Lancer Mike
Posted 2018-06-03 1:17 PM (#564479 - in reply to #564476)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



50002000100010010010010025
Location: The Mile High City

It is all up to the owner of the stuff.  Inviting the world of opinions in on that decision is not the way to go.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-03 2:24 PM (#564484 - in reply to #564479)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



5000500050005000200010025
Location: Parts Unknown
It took me an endless amount of time and energy to find my convertibles.
The story of my Adventurer arriving as chunks, strapped to pallets is told
here in the these forums, but I cannot express how much work and frustration
went into bringing that car just to the point of a correct chassis and body.
I found the Fireflite in my search for parts for the Adventurer and my direction
changed, but there was a long stretch of time where I gave the full green light
to the idea you are proposing. I seemed have no trouble finding Firesweep
convertibles, or badly rusted long body ragtops to steal the body/frame parts
from.

If I had my "bast case scenario, I'd rebuild the car I "wanted" out of a same
car (wasted mess) and a pile of good parts, but was faced with trying to find
a proper set of build tags to closely represent the car I was building. I figured
I could build the car, enjoy it, and keep on looking for tags for as long as it took.

Something to consider is cost. What would a "bitsa" project cost, vs. spending
large up front the buy a whole car ? A bank loan and a cost-up-front car might
prove way less hassle and cost than a project put together with bits and pieces
of pure unobtainium. How much is that hassle worth in finding parts that just do
not exist ?

I agree with Sid that 2HT's, whenever possible, should not be parted out to
build convertibles, but there IS a threshold of how badly a 2HT is messed up
to make it a good donor car. What I do not agree with Sid about is convertibles
being ugly. The top-down length from A-pillar to fin tip is a mile of pure, unob-
-structed fin. Toss on an antenna at the tip, and George Jetson never knew a
finer moment of Sputnik-inspired awesomeness. With the top up, the 57-61 cars
had a well-integrated top frame shape. Granted, that 2HT roof is WAY more
sleek and cool, but look at the 55-56 convertible tops and one quickly sees how
smooth the new-for-57 ragtop was.

For those of us that just like seeing the entire world of open vistas and sky above
us as we drive, the 2HT is unquestionably the best manifestion of the sideview of
a Forward Look car, but you just cannot beat top-down driving. That is one sacrifice
I have gone to great pains to make.

If you decide to pull the trigger on this, call me. I did a lot of research on what
is what to do it as factory correct as possible. One thing you don't want to do is
miss the little things and end up with an amateur finished product, when it would
be just as easy to get it right.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
Chrycoman
Posted 2018-06-03 2:45 PM (#564485 - in reply to #564479)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert

Posts: 1680
1000500100252525
Location: Vancouver, BC

Even a full frame car will give you problems. There was a reason convertible frames (as well as 1957-58 Imperial 4 door hardtops) had that large "X" . Convertibles also had reinforcements in various locations. For example, the outer sill panels were different on the convertibles as well as having inner reinforcements.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-03 2:50 PM (#564487 - in reply to #564479)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



5000500050005000200010025
Location: Parts Unknown
It took me an endless amount of time and energy to find my convertibles.
The story of my Adventurer arriving as chunks, strapped to pallets is told
here in the these forums, but I cannot express how much work and frustration
went into bringing that car just to the point of a correct chassis and body.
I found the Fireflite in my search for parts for the Adventurer and my direction
changed, but there was a long stretch of time where I gave the full green light
to the idea you are proposing. I seemed have no trouble finding Firesweep
convertibles, or badly rusted long body ragtops to steal the body/frame parts
from.

If I had my "bast case scenario, I'd rebuild the car I "wanted" out of a same
car (wasted mess) and a pile of good parts, but was faced with trying to find
a proper set of build tags to closely represent the car I was building. I figured
I could build the car, enjoy it, and keep on looking for tags for as long as it took.

Something to consider is cost. What would a "bitsa" project cost, vs. spending
large up front the buy a whole car ? A bank loan and a cost-up-front car might
prove way less hassle and cost than a project put together with bits and pieces
of pure unobtainium. How much is that hassle worth in finding parts that just do
not exist ?

I agree with Sid that 2HT's, whenever possible, should not be parted out to
build convertibles, but there IS a threshold of how badly a 2HT is messed up
to make it a good donor car. What I do not agree with Sid about is convertibles
being ugly. The top-down length from A-pillar to fin tip is a mile of pure, unob-
-structed fin. Toss on an antenna at the tip, and George Jetson never knew a
finer moment of Sputnik-inspired awesomeness. With the top up, the 57-61 cars
had a well-integrated top frame shape. Granted, that 2HT roof is WAY more
sleek and cool, but look at the 55-56 convertible tops and one quickly sees how
smooth the new-for-57 ragtop was.

For those of us that just like seeing the entire world of open vistas and sky above
us as we drive, the 2HT is unquestionably the best manifestion of the sideview of
a Forward Look car, but you just cannot beat top-down driving. That is one sacrifice
I have gone to great pains to make.

If you decide to pull the trigger on this, call me. I did a lot of research on what
is what to do it as factory correct as possible. One thing you don't want to do is
miss the little things and end up with an amateur finished product, when it would
be just as easy to get it right.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-03 4:58 PM (#564491 - in reply to #564484)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
Doctor DeSoto - 2018-06-03 2:24 PM

What I do not agree with Sid about is convertibles
being ugly. The top-down length from A-pillar to fin tip is a mile of pure, unob-
-structed fin.



Maybe, but I said with the top closed. Below is what I mean. The roofline of a cvt is pure ugliness. Not flowing unobstructed lines, looks more like a camel and a "C-post" fat and ugly like on a new car. Not to mention the looks of the interior from the inside and the other drawbacks that go with a cvt like bodyflex, higher weight, more noise, etc.



(58cvt.jpg)



(58cvt2.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments 58cvt.jpg (136KB - 2 downloads)
Attachments 58cvt2.jpg (82KB - 4 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-03 5:03 PM (#564492 - in reply to #564491)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
And here a drop dead gorgeous coupe



(1957-plymouth-belvedere-2-ht.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments 1957-plymouth-belvedere-2-ht.jpg (42KB - 2 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-03 5:10 PM (#564495 - in reply to #564492)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
And another one. That oughta be enough to cure the need for a clumsy cvt. Who needs a cvt if you can have THAT. Beauty in perfection

Edited by 1960fury 2018-06-03 5:12 PM




(moonbeam at night.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments moonbeam at night.jpg (152KB - 2 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
57burb
Posted 2018-06-03 5:49 PM (#564497 - in reply to #564487)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert

Posts: 3334
2000100010010010025
Location: DFW, TX
Doctor DeSoto - 2018-06-03 1:50 PM

What I do not agree with Sid about is convertibles
being ugly. The top-down length from A-pillar to fin tip is a mile of pure, unob-
-structed fin. Toss on an antenna at the tip, and George Jetson never knew a
finer moment of Sputnik-inspired awesomeness.


I always thought the '57 Desoto advertising captured that mile-long fin rather well.



(desotoadlow2.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments desotoadlow2.jpg (9KB - 4 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page
57burb
Posted 2018-06-03 5:52 PM (#564498 - in reply to #564497)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert

Posts: 3334
2000100010010010025
Location: DFW, TX
There is no question that "top up" FL convertibles are not as swoopy as the coupes, or even four door hardtops for that matter.

But they are really impressive with the top down, like all '50s convertibles are.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-03 7:35 PM (#564504 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
What sets the 50s automobiles apart from the rest is the roof. Fins were still there in the 60s or even 70s. It's the roof. Lots of glass, fragile roof posts, sweeping lines. It's called googie. No convertible can match or express that. Never. The HARDTOP is THE icon of the 50s.
Lets face it, most people don't want a cvt because it's so pleasant to drive one, or for its looks, it's a "I want to be seen on the Boulevard" thing.... To each his own, some people are car guys, some aren't. If I had the money, I'd turn cvts into hardtops.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
w.weiland
Posted 2018-06-03 7:46 PM (#564505 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)


Elite Veteran

Posts: 895
500100100100252525
Location: Lordstown, Ohio
To me conv are over the top. And they should be top down as much as you can. Its just like skirts,.... skirts belong on women only,...not cars talk about pure ugly (this is my view and my view only) Just like red, to me thats the most hideous color one could choose, i say that cuz every car my dad and myself restored was/had to be red, YUCK!!!!!
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-04 12:20 AM (#564511 - in reply to #564505)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



5000500050005000200010025
Location: Parts Unknown
Let me write this again, slowly, ... so it is easier to understand ...

Many of the 2HT Forward Look cars were the pinnacle of sleek. In my
opinion, the 57 Fireflite in the penultimate example of perfection, with
the forward-thrusting roofline mimicked in the side sweep trim and
insert color. 58 Plymouth is right up there too. The 60 lineup, across
the board was pretty awesome. But what we are talking about here is
art. The sleek design is everything Sid describes.

Comparing them to convertibles is like comparing apples and oranges.
Like Sid, I abhor the personality that wants the car as a tool to be seen
in. That has never been my interest. If I wanted to be seen, this car of
mine woud not have stayed hidden away in the back of my shop for 20 years !
Rather, I wanted that mile-long unobstructed fin. I also wanted the unobtainium
factor. And seeing it just sitting there is thrilling to me. What a beautiful car !
Like owning a 57 Chevy convertible, or owning a 58 Fireflite convertible, one is
a guaranteed attention getter for the instantly recognizable car that it is. The
DeSoto, sure it gets attention, but it is much more of a "head scratcher" sort of
"What is that ?" kind of attention than a "Look-at-me!", "big shot" thing.

I like ragtops because they are the hardest to find examples of any given
car. I like the oddity. I like odd cars. DeSoto fits that bill perfectly. It ain't
no Ford. It ain't no Chevy. It isn't even a familiar Mopar name. It's weird !
Having a DeSoto convertible is the final statement in having a really good
looking, weird car. Does the 2HT better embody more Googie ideals ? Yes.
But the ragtop has that element of no roof overhead that no closed car can
duplicate. The FL 2HT's got as close as anyone ever has, but there is nothing
like top down driving. There just isn't. And if a person doesn't understand,
no explanation will help. There is nothing like it.

Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-04 7:33 AM (#564516 - in reply to #564511)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
Doctor DeSoto - 2018-06-04 12:20 AM

Let me write this again, slowly, ... so it is easier to understand ...

Like Sid, I abhor the personality that wants the car as a tool to be seen
in. That has never been my interest. .................... I also wanted the unobtainium
factor. ........................ The DeSoto, sure it gets attention, but it is much more of a "head scratcher" sort of
"What is that ?" kind of attention than a "Look-at-me!", "big shot" thing.

I like ragtops because they are the hardest to find examples of any given
car. I like the oddity. I like odd cars. DeSoto fits that bill perfectly. It ain't
no Ford. It ain't no Chevy. It isn't even a familiar Mopar name. It's weird !
Having a DeSoto convertible is the final statement in having a really good
looking, weird car.


Doc, do you realize this is a contradiction? If you love a certain car, you love it, period. If you love it for its rarity or because it makes other people scratch heads, then it's not the car you're in love with. It's an ego thing.

You basically say, if they build 58 Desotos as plentiful as 57 Chevys you wouldn't want one. WTH? I love 60 Furys, when I fell in love with them, at the age of 7, I didn't even know if it was popular or a rare or anything and I didn't care.
I loved it looks, later, owning one, I fell in love with its deeper values, like the mighty, indestructable 383, excellent roadabilty and bulletproof engineering of the whole car. And to this day, to me, it is the car that symbolizes far out 50s design best, even though it isn't perfect from any angle, other cars are doing better in that respect.

I couldn't care less what other people do, think or drive and if they repopped, now in 2018, billions of 60 Fury coupes, I couldn't care less. I would keep driving my 60 until hell freezes over. It's called love.

Edited by 1960fury 2018-06-04 1:55 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Doctor DeSoto
Posted 2018-06-04 9:42 AM (#564521 - in reply to #564516)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



5000500050005000200010025
Location: Parts Unknown
As a wrote above,

"If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand"

I swear, Sid, you only come to this site to argue and "prove"
you are "right".
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-04 1:51 PM (#564530 - in reply to #564521)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
Doctor DeSoto - 2018-06-04 9:42 AM

As a wrote above,

"If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand"

I swear, Sid, you only come to this site to argue and "prove"
you are "right".


No, its called discussion and unlike you I regularly post on technical subjects, sharing my experience from actual driving and maintaining these cars, trying to help others. Okay, that experience and knowledge you can't have, but 99.9% of your posts are only about you. You are only here to present yourself, or what you think you are or, better, what you want to be.

There is nothing to understand. What you wrote is here clear to see for everyone. If your preferences are influenced by other people (that is exactly what you wrote) or something that has absolutely nothing to do with the object per se, than it is not about the object and only about your ego. It is as simple as that.

Edited by 1960fury 2018-06-04 1:53 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
hemidave
Posted 2018-06-04 2:52 PM (#564533 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert

Posts: 4395
20002000100100100252525
I personally would not prefer to own a 30s to early 70s car unless it is a convertible. I do like some of the hardtops and sedans, but I would not bad mouth any particular body style ( conv. vs ht. ). The only non converts I own are a 69.5 lift off hood Superbee and a '68 Hemi Dart, only because they did not offer those in ragtop configuration. I like the rooftop of a convertible and can choose to lower the roof anytime I want. It's tough to beat top down motoring.

Edited by hemidave 2018-06-04 3:28 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-04 3:46 PM (#564535 - in reply to #564533)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
hemidave - 2018-06-04 2:52 PM

but I would not bad mouth any particular body style ( conv. vs ht. ).


Yes, but it's not convertibles that are regularly cut into pieces for a hardtop and I just expressed my personal feelings about something that looks like a bumpy tent on an otherwise fine car.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
60 Imp
Posted 2018-06-05 7:56 AM (#564581 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: RE: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)


2000500100100100100
Location: North Australia
Has anyone used a convertible to fix a hard top car? I bet there has, somewhere...

Here is a DeSoto parts car for sale now!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1956-DeSoto-Fireflight-Pacesetter/173347653...

Steve.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
firedome
Posted 2018-06-05 1:07 PM (#564597 - in reply to #564451)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert

Posts: 2932
200050010010010010025
Location: NY & VT
For those that love the top-down, open air, wide world experience it's called... a motorcycle!! Nothing beat my '73 Trident 750 or 20 some other bikes in that regard!

When I want to drive a car, or if it's really bad weather, it's a hardtop or sedan. Had 8 converts, been there done that, moved on. If it's sheer art & beauty you're after, the 2 dr hardtop roofline is incomparable.

Edited by firedome 2018-06-05 1:11 PM
Top of the page Bottom of the page
1960fury
Posted 2018-06-05 2:12 PM (#564605 - in reply to #564597)
Subject: Re: convertible question (may ruffle feathers)



Expert 5K+

Posts: 5266
50001001002525
Location: northern germany
firedome - 2018-06-05 1:07 PM

For those that love the top-down, open air, wide world experience it's called... a motorcycle!! Nothing beat my '73 Trident 750 or 20 some other bikes in that regard!

When I want to drive a car, or if it's really bad weather, it's a hardtop or sedan. Had 8 converts, been there done that, moved on. If it's sheer art & beauty you're after, the 2 dr hardtop roofline is incomparable.


I second that, and besides, with all the windows down you have all the air and vision you want in a 2 or 4 door hardtop, unless your have another pair of eyes on the top of your head.
I rode in a ragtop, it is just unpleasant from a certain speed onwards. It's just for the boulevard cruiser. I will never get that cvt craze.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [50 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread


(Delete all cookies set by this site)