balthazar

Whew; survived another one!

Good catch on those early ‘60s coved Fords. I started looking at pics in '65-66 for some reason. Ford is an interesting study RE their big cars. For a while they really spiced them up; circa ‘57-66... but for some reason they pulled back from that. - - - - - Merc was as prolific in using contrasting cove panels as Dodge was for MoPar. Of course, the '69-70 Marauder option took the practice into it's own, unique arena. Merc's senior cars ran coves (seemingly merely copying Pontiac rears from roughly 3 years earlier) but did not extend the painted contrast treatment to the big cars: The '66 Merc is the image of a '63 Pontiac and the tan (I believe it's a '67) is not far off a '64 Pontiac.

Over at Ford, the big cars didn't get a paintable rear cove until 1 year only: '71. But Ford didn't ever paint it.

Th only official announcement from Rivian worth a slice of fruit cake is that vehicles have shipped and private ownership has begun.

Buick followed the same suit as Olds. Both the senior '61s and the '61 Special intro'd a rear cove, and it continued somewhere in the lineup thru '67. But it was only on the '66 Riviera that it got contrast-painted. (the identical '67 got polished trim there instead). Below '61, '61, '62, '66 Riv :

Olds had a serious rear cove on the '61s, and on the top-tier Starfire, it got silver contrasting paint. They dropped the treatment in '62, probably because the '62 SF had the widest/longest applique of textured mylar paneling down both sides ever put on a car. Probably felt it would've been overkill. The Starfire ran from '61-66, and the painted cove only reappeared for one year; '64 [pics in order of model year] :

Don't have to tell me the V8 is the way to go. More folk must be comfortable in the early part of the 21st century than the media lets on.

It's commonly stated that pre-net engine ratings (1971), that manufacturer's often overstated HP ratings. It's important to know that OEMs also UNDERstated many engines, notably their top-tier engines, since they were regularly competing against each other in sanctioned events. The NHRA invoked 'factoring' that re-calculated HP ratings after verified stock cars performed 'too well' for their ratings. The Chrysler 426 Hemi, rated at 425 HP, was immediately refactored to 480, and the FoMoCo 427 'Hi-Riser' was refactored from 425 to 465. Noted racer & car tester, one Roger Huntington, did his own calculations on the Pontiac 421 SD. Rated at 405 HP, he deduced via it's performance times it was putting out at least 450 HP. Something to keep in mind before 'poo-pooing' vintage ratings.

I’m happy as a bug; I bought Visa at $27. It’s not up $38/share, its up $160/share.

Firebird ~

Cameron WV. Must've been built right next to a RR track- the front of the building is maybe 6 feet wide.

Not remotely... but I would like to see the numbers. I would guess by combing new truck inventory that the 5.3 is 75% of production, with the 2.7, 4.3, 6.2 and 6.6 taking up the rest.

Doubtful anytime soon. How's the 2.7T in the Silverado selling, BTW?

College roommate had a ‘76 Cutlass coupe with the 6. It was really clean, red w/ a white half top. Don’t recall if it had A/C. We drove it from Detroit to NJ for winter break in an awful storm that had 80% of the interstate traffic being semi’s.

At GM, the first rear coves were on Pontiac & Olds. Pontiac never contrast-painted it, and Olds used a brightwork panel to fill theirs: Now, Cadlllac technically had a rear cove too for '59. It's close to the Olds in concept... but it feels quite different... like it's more part of the 'bumper assembly' than 'in the sheet metal'. I love the extravagance of rear grillework : Why should the 'jewelry' of a car be restricted to only the nose?

• Correct; those cove-painted pre-'68 GTOs are customized, not factory. But they take the treatment so well. • The big '68 Pontiacs got a new nose but kept the same rear fascia. '67-68 is like an inversion of '62, but a lot less refined; it's kinda clunky. I prefer, '64 for tails that dip into the bumper, very very well done. Here the same thinking was used as in '62; a delineated cove, with the Bonne & GP getting die-cast panels applied there :

Pontiac, unquestionably the style leader throughout the 1960s, had a number of coved rear end treaments; '59, then '61-67, but they never contrast-painted them, despite (IMO) some of them really calling out for it. '67 Grand Prix : Below is '62 [from top to bottom: Catalina, Bonneville, GP] : In the case of the '62s, Pontiac certainly didn't ignore rear details- the Bonne & GP getting unique die-cast trim panels... and the GP did have black paint between the chromed bars. The '62 GP is probably the closest Pontiac came to a contrasted cove panel. Just picture, if you will, that the '62 decklid came to a edge and fell straight down to the rear bumper. Not as engaging or detailed.

Yes: the current ‘stang & Challenger do continue the feature. The Camaro I feel does not because I don’t see any other way that panel could be done. Mustang has an indented, ‘framed’ panel, the Camaro really doesn’t.

Chrysler (the brand) only did it one year/model; the '68 300 : I see a bunch of pics with the panel either black or silver, and I've seen both on a red car, so not sure the protocol here. Dodge used it well; Charger '68-72, Coronet '68-70, Challenger '70-74 :

^ And that brings up a few more examples (good or bad) to support design attention to the posterior: this is the era of the continental spare, whether one of those outlandish aftermarket kits, or the sublime integration of the '56-57 Mark II or the Chrysler FliteSweep decklid :

'64 1/2 Mustang had a cove panel, but that generation never offered a contrasting color: Studebaker may have been the first; the '56 Hawk had a painted cove :

This is a "cove", a sheltered inlet where land meets water. It's indented / concave shape is obvious. In automotive terms, the 'cove panel' was a widespread stylistic treatment found at the rear of a vehicle. While other locations have also been termed the same (the '56-62 Corvette's side scoop comes readily to mind), I would like to focus on the rear of vehicles. Part of the reason for that is; at one point the rear of vehicles got as much design attention as the front, roughly the mid '50s into the late '60s. But that standard fell by the wayside, and most modern cars wear quite bland rears. Like the geographical feature, the automotive cove panel would be a framed / concave section of the bodywork. One example would be the groundbreaking '65 Corvair : To further define the treatment, I'd like to focus on painted cove panels. From a production standpoint, it took at extra assembly step to mask off and paint a secondary color in such a relatively small area. The above Corvair was the Corsa trim [either quad carbs or turbocharged], the other trim 'Vairs had the same cove but painted body color. Of course the sheet metal as struck for the body allows the paint contrast, but while a number of cars had a similar feature they seldom offered it contrast painted. That extra step added flair and interest, and usually marked specialty models.

Nothing specific. There were 2 series for '36 at GMC; the T-14 & the T-16L. T-16L (3/4-ton) was only 1 model, a bare chassis. T-14 (1/2-ton) was 3 models; the bare chassis, a cab/chassis and a pickup. • Calendar year registrations for '36 GMC were 26,980. • However, T-14 serial numbers for '36 ran from T-14-001 to T-14-11251, thusly narrowing '36 T-14 production to 11,251. As T-16L serial volume was 9,750, the remain volume (26,980 - 11,251 - 9,750=) 5,979 must imply heavier series GMCs (1-ton & up). There would also be a slight difference found in model year (serial) vs. calendar year (registration) numbers.

Another cool, period, industry-wide trend was the cove panel. I'm surprised it never made a wide comeback, tho the Mustang & Challenger have it. Instead we're over-saturated with 'sagging pants / the diaper':

Technically, its a flying buttress design. I think I’ve seen a few call it ‘tunneled’, but never either ‘finned’ or ‘frenched’, despite those 2 being just as logical as ‘tunneled’.