Phil Patterson writes: The myth of excessive rust on forward look Mopars is
blown way out of proportion. I've seen too many 55to64 chevys and 64 to 74 ford
with rusted broken frames and headlights hangin by the wires to think any of
them are much better. The only problem was the finned mopars did tend to rust in
the headlight eyebrows. You've got to remember though, most of these cars are 40
years old or older, any of them will be in rough shape if they haven't been
taken care of.
C. Brion Kidder wrote:
> The latest edition of Classic Auto Restorer magazine just arrived today. To
> my sheer joy and elation, the featured car was the `60~`62 Chryslers (I have
> been dreaming of owning a reddish-pinkish 1960 Saratoga for no fewer than
> nine years, but I can't find one to save my soul).
>
> But as I read the article, I got the impression more and more that the cars
> are more trouble than pleasure--persistant rust zones that degrade the very
> frame of the car, noisome brakes, on-again-off-again luminescent dash
> lights...
>
> So I have to know: Am I wasting my time searching for a dream car that will
> turn out to be a nightmare? Is that the reason I can't find a `60 Saratoga
> because they were crap from the start? Or are the early `60s Chryslers
> simply well-kept secrets that run like dream cars with no problems at all?
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network