balthazar

Found some in-depth FoMoCo specs for 1949. Tho that is the next gen of HD trucks, there is some spec carry-over pertinent to my COE. The famous Ford F-Series debuted for 1948, so my truck pre-dates this. The COEs in the first gen were either "1-5-ton" or "2-ton", but going by the 1945 registration card I got with the truck, it's registered loaded weight was 15,955 lbs. According to the '49 specs, this matches up with the heavier duty COE, rated for 16K lbs GVW. I take this to mean mine is the '2-ton', tho in '49 parlance, that means 'F-6'. Today I guess that would align with the F-650 (there was an F-7 and F-8 in '49, also).

Even moreso, it shows where their FOCUS is.

Case in point RE serviceability : '87 Mustang, sprung heater core leak, required to swap it out: remove seats, center console, dash, purge A/C, THEN you could access the heater core. I changed one in my '64 Catalina one night hanging out with the guys at the gas station- took like 20 mins. But the 'coffin nail' for me was, engineering a vehicle ('09 Malibu) that requires a dealer service department to change the headlight bulbs. Inexcusable, and all too much a 'snapshot' of where engineering is too often looking these days.

Older mercedes coupe, probably a 'C', the ones with the 4 La Crosse-esque headlights, rust blossoms all down the sides. What's up with MB corrosion protection? '53-56 Ford F-100, rusty, project parked in driveway with full-size skeleton in pass seat.

I looked into hopping it up. Who don't like moar powa? Factory motor is a 239 CI V8, 2bbl carb, 100 HP. It's tiny, and they DON'T respond readily to hopping up unless you get well beyond bolt-ons. General ceiling for power is 200, but that requires fistfuls of money. Beyond that there is a diminishing rate of returns where longevity suffers. • I did add dual exhaust. Might be good for 5 HP • I looked @ bolting some high CR aluminum heads on. My truck is sitting at 6.75:1, AL heads are 8:1. Speedway Motors has Edelbrock flathead heads available, currently marked down to $676 (from $860). Unfortunately, that 1.25 point CR bump is only good for maybe 10 HP, which is an unworthy swap for my dollars. • I'm not motivated to pull the motor & do a full modified rebuild. • Regardless of what I do to the motor, the truck - while not overly heavy @ 4330- is hampered heavily by the gearing : 5.83 (in high range; 8.11 in low). If I were 'loaded' I'd have a custom ring & pinion made with something closer to a 3.00 ratio (would have to do the math)… but that's not happening either. Soooo, it's 'embrace the charm' and putter along. I have the B-59 for (future) speed contests.

^ There's a potential for that there, yes, except no OEM engineers cars for easier service. Also would be nice if swapping the batteries was somehow cheaper than swapping a IC V6 out.

• Straightened front bumper reinstalled; relatively level now. • Made some of the wiring at the tail lights, temporarily wire-nutted together, permanently spliced/shrink tubed. • Glove box used to hang open, cleaned out hinge area so it can actually close (still need a makeshift latch). • Working on last floorboard around column/ brake/ clutch. Fighting me- pedals scrape (they all go thru the floor). Undue wiggle in brake pedal, going to pull assembly & clean/check bearings. New bearing is $1.98 • Checked with local, very long time NAPA dealer. Has a brake lathe, turned a set of drums for me before. I thought he may have turned the COE's fronts, but he said he hasn't turned any drums in nearly 20 years. Then I recalled he turned my B-59 drums, and those were a good 15 years now. Anyway, NAPA Joe must be well into his 80s- he worked the local Ford dealership service dept, and that's been closed since circa 1959. Joe claims 'no one turns drums anymore', but perhaps this was just 'support' for him saying no. He did offer to sell me his brake lathe, but when I asked how much he squinted and said $3000. Mmm, yeah; no. The last rear drum obvious had water sitting in it- there's 2 rough spots where the drums were parked against the shoes, maybe for years. A shame, because the other drums were all excellent- no turning necessary. No problem, a buddy who's a truck mechanic -even tho his lathe is broken- knows another guy who does 'em.

Dodge/mercedes Sprinter, with the typical rust blossoms all down the sides. Has Daimler learned about galvanizing yet? Cadillac ELR, as sparkly as a fresh cut diamond. Slogging thru commuter traffic.

Liberty was $15K. 3.7L feels pretty decent; these have 3.70 gears… the flip side is that the MPG isn't stupendous (rated : 16/22). I do really like the overall proportions & driving it (the test drive loop plus the 10 miles home is all I've done with it yet). Edmunds :: Pros : Considerable off-road capabilities; useful towing capacity. Cons : Sluggish V6 with poor fuel economy, outdated 4-spd auto, sloppy handling, subpar interior materials, poor headlight illumination. It's definitely not sluggish, MPG is only going to be 19-20 in central Jersey, 4-spd is what it is, interior materials are fine. Haven't checked the headlights yet.

The '60 225 'special' had lenses pointed at the outside ends. The factory '61 lenses are symmetrical & peaked at the ends : One needs to see them close up. I had a pair of NORS B-61 lenses I sold, and I've seen the white B-60 225 'special' in person.

Ford got very 'GM-esque' for '60 ::

Very similar concept, but no where near interchangable.

'60 DeSoto, with Imperials tails installed- fantastic looking 'jewelry' :

I'm a GM man, but there have been a LOT of really cool MoPars; always liked this '71 :

Guy posts pic of this car on FaceBook group: Has one-off rear clip, was driven by ex-Buick GM harlow Curtice. Here's a stock B-60 rear for comparison : - - - - He claims, due to the steel worker's strike in '60, that this was a proposal for the '61 Buick. The rear clip on the white car is fiberglass, you see. Doesn't pass the smell test. Balthy : "I was always under the impression that this was an "alternate '60" for a GM exec (Curtice rings the bell here), NOT a proposal for '61. It wears a "GM Styling" badge on the front fender, and I believe the rear clip is fiberglass. If this were a (fully finished, drivable) '61 proposal, how have we missed the same concept proposals (or even sketches) of the other 4 GM division's "warmed over '60" '61s'?" Guy : Balthy : "RE the pics above, clearly those were all new front & rear, vs. the white 225 which is 2/3rds production and picks up one of the concept's rear clip out back. That to me is a 'one-off special' rather than the white 225 being a '61 proposal' per say." Guy : "Well, apparently you weren't around in 1960 when the steel workers went on strike and left the automakers scrambling to find steel. Buick dealers wanted Buick to dump the round taillights because they made the car look too much like a Ford. If you didn't live through that era, you should reserve comment." Well, the steel strike was actually in '59- lasted about 4 months. Still doesn't support the initial claim. Balthy : "IMO, the only way this white 225 conv was constructed with a long term steel shortage in mind & actual production is that it was intended to be built as a production fiberglass/steel hybrid body. With GM's fairly extensive experience at this point with full FG bodies (Corvette & numerous concepts), a hybrid body really doesn't seem to make much practical engineering sense, nor does it do much to address the actual steel content in cars. Additionally, the quartet of proposed '60s above shows a GM common practice; to build near-production cars in FG with 'glass' windows to most accurately gauge their aesthetics. I note that all of the above quartet show all new sheet metal designs, which would require all new steel stamping dies for each Division. Were they evidence of similar programs at the other Divisions, wouldn't they have production '60 front clips & greenhouses mated to these non-production rear designs??" Another poster : "I recall reading in several articles in the past that this Buick was built specifically for Red Curtis. It was never intended for production." Guy : "Well, I don't know what drivel you've been reading, but it is in fact a 1961 proposal. This car appeared in Old Cars Weekly in the late 1970s with full details of it's purpose." Balthy rolls up his sleeves : "Current owner stated on CLC board that the 225 conv bears a 'SO' tag dated 1-27-60. GM would be working on setting the styling of the '62s by the beginning of '60, Jan of '60 is only 7 months before the assembly plants shut down to convert to next year production. The timeline is off for this car to be intended for '61 production. Look at '59; Chevy had their near-production, fully finished FG '59 photographed in October of 1957, 23 months before their showroom debut." / case closed.

Or this one :

Pretty positive the rooflines are : 62, 63-64, 65-66, 67-68. Then 69-70 and 71-72. A pattern of sorts.

Was looking over a Ram Power Wagon in the local dealer; 6.4 Hemi, crew cab, Ramboxes, graphics & step plates…. sticker was $60,200. I too would opt away from the Rebel grille (in fact I'd MUCH rather have a 2015), but I admit a soft spot for that vertical POWERWAGON decal.

^ The quarters are very similar but the deckled, rear fascia & bumper were obviously different in '68, whereas in '67, it was just the rear fascia. Nice touch- reminds me how the Eldorado got a (totally) unique rear clip in '55-58. GP had it's own roofline (with the concave backlight, used '63-68) and C-Pillar than the rest of the senior Pontiacs in '68. '67 GP was the same scenario.

Tho not nearly as cool/sweet as the earlier generation, the '69-72 GPs were still quite striking : '67-68 GP, not seen that often (beside in the Godfather) :

Link? Sounds like interesting reading...

Automotively, the G is an embarrassment. Other than the Wrangler, no other vehicle in production today is as incredibly dated. No doubt financially, it's like 50% pure profit, so the accountants love it. I guess the buyers must like it pretty well too, to drop that much coin on a 1978 mercedes built with 1965 technology.

Naming a kid 'prius' is akin to naming them 'Adolf'.