8 minute read
Recaps Letters
EMAIL YOUR THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS TO: tmcgean@hemmings.com
I JUST READ TERRY MCGEAN’S COLumn, “The Dawn of Modern Motoring” in the June issue of HCC, and with regards to performance, I couldn’t agree more. The 1950s was the decade that gave us the modern passenger car. In my view, the 1949 Ford represents a ground-breaking revolution in automotive styling. The Whiz Kids (as they were called) at Ford ushered in a new era of design by moving the engine forward, thereby evening up the front and rear portions of the car, while also incorporating the fenders into the body. It was the precursor to the modern automobile, and every car since the ’49 Ford is some iteration of this first in class.
Advertisement
I have attached two photos, a 1948 Ford and my own 1949 Ford Custom convertible, to highlight the stark contrast. Ford sold 430,000 automobiles in 1948, and 1,118,000 in 1949, an increase of 160 percent, vaulting the company back into first place among all manufacturers.
Thank you, HCC, for such interesting articles, memorable stories, and gorgeous pictures. Jack Schewel Lynchburg, Virginia
A SPECIAL THANKS TO PAT FOSTER for the excellent article on the Quantum Sports Car (February, HCC #209). During the late Seventies/early Eighties we were active in the Saab Sonett Club of Southern California. With over 50 members, some with several Sonetts, the “pride and joy” of the club was Bud Clark’s Quantum. Yes, Bud is one of those “private collectors” Pat mentions in the article. Bud restored and maintained the car to its original glory, exactly like the one in the picture. Though Saab engineers ultimately rejected Wal Kern’s masterpiece, the Quantum was the inspiration for Saab’s original Sonett 1 (of which six were built). Frankly, the Quantum was much more attractive. I had the opportunity to drive Bud’s Quantum — front-wheel drive, two-stroke mid-engine, light, nimble, and exotic looking — what wasn’t there to like? I seem to recall that the Quantum was the first automobile to be designed with Computer Aided Design (CAD), something that is taken very much for granted today. Phil Zarrow Springfield, Tennessee
I ENJOYED TERRY MCGEAN’S COLumn in the June issue very much (“The Dawn of Modern Motoring, ” HCC #213). He really impressed upon me that he is a man much in the same mindset as me when it comes to the classic car.
Often, I see the same tired sentences typed on internet forums:
“They don’t make them like that anymore. ”
“Those old cages were bulletproof — all that steel protected you in an accident. ”
“Things were great ’til the Feds ruined everything. ”
I love old cars. Love them. My entire life has been spent dreaming about them, trying to buy one or another, turning wrenches on them, cursing at busted knuckles in 30-degree weather, or, more happily, enjoying a summer evening or fall afternoon on a leisurely tour in whatever was the chariot of the moment. I can safely say that I’ve “wasted” more time on old cars than I will be comfortable revealing when accounting for myself in whatever afterlife awaits me. I’ll shuffle my otherworldly feet and blush like a schoolboy when the deity says, “How many hours?”
That said, I am a person who recognizes that the good old days were not always good. The driveability of these old cars was nowhere near what it is today. The comfort, convenience, and ease of driving a modern car is taken for granted. You arrive, crisp and air-conditioned, your seats cooled, your body un-jounced, your ears free of noise fatigue, your clothes unseasoned by hydrocarbon fumes. You had a conversation on the way via Bluetooth. We get used to it so quickly.
Driving that ’51 Chevy Terry recalled gave him a taste of what a trip was like in the old days — shifting and steering and negotiating the curves and hills was work! You were engaged in the effort of driving. Muscles got used. Coordination and dexterity were put to the test. It required judgment about the ability to pass that truck given the conditions. Have I enough gear, or enough go? It’s fun… right? Well, sure. It’s fun as long as I’m not trying to live in the modern world at that moment. Driving a car like that is best reserved for when the experience is about, well, driving a car like that. Short distances. Town and country driving. Leisurely speeds. Wrinkled and slightly exhaust-tinged clothing.
Terry hit on a key detail, though: This began to change right about the time that 12-volt charging systems, ball-joint suspensions, and V-8 overhead-valve engines became the norm. By 1965, it was possible to have a car with all of the basic modern conveniences: air conditioning, power steering and brakes, decent handling, comfortable seats, and, of course, automatically shifted cars with ample power at the right foot. The car became modern — today, we still use the same basic functions to map out the controls of our cars. There’s no such thing as a “gas pedal, ” in the real sense of it; we have a pedal which emulates a gas pedal. Gauges with needles, which emulate analog instruments. Shifters which pretend to have linkages. In effect I still feel like we are setting up the basic user experience to match what we strived for in the late ’50s and early ’60s.
This is why I think that the desirability
’72 era cars has held so well. There are many cars from the era that a person can climb into and enjoy a comfortable, fatigue-free, relatively painless experience on modern roads, at modern speeds. The current shift from the ICE is a huge question mark looming over the cars of this era. Will they be relegated to the mindset of the brass era — curious and primitive anachronisms that are fun to look at but alien and difficult to operate — or will the desire of many to remain connected to the driving experience (and the current level of engagement in that experience), keep these cars fresh and desirable to a new generation? This remains to be seen. Bob Belloff Via email
GREAT WRITE UP ABOUT THE EXPERIence with a ’51 Chevy’s cold starts and driving characteristics (“The Dawn of Modern Motoring, ” HCC #213). We had a ’50 Chevy in the family for 10 years, and it was pretty much the same car as the ’51. Terry McGean’s column brought back great memories of the car, but I want to add a few behavioral traits that we learned to deal with.
Terry was right about the proper use of the choke. Our car always started but the slow cranking kept you guessing. With straight 30W oil (as multi-viscosity oils were not available then), the challenge was even greater. We would keep the clutch down while cranking, to take the drag of a cold transmission off of the starter. Once the engine started, it tried its best to stall. You had to stay with it every second, giving it little shots of gas as it sputtered and spit, to avoid a restart until it warmed up. We were never sure of how much battery we had left after the initial start. And there was no driving that car until it warmed up.
Despite all the quirks, it was a reliable car. We kept it tuned properly. When warmed up, it drove great, and many times I wish I still owned it! Many thanks for the nice memories. Al Sandler Via email
I WAS THRILLED ABOUT THE ARTICLE on Studebaker Golden Hawks in the June issue of HCC, but was very disappointed to see the pictured 1956 version being such a drab-looking dark solid color paint scheme! I owned a gorgeous ’56 Golden Hawk in the early ’60s that was an eyepopping red and white, which made it stand out from any angle. I have never seen a solid-color version; I just naively thought they were all two-tones.
I loved that my car was so rare as that made it even more noticeable, and as a typical recent high-school grad at the time, we all wanted to be noticed! It’s funny because I don’t recall knowing how rare it was while I owned it; that only occurred to me much later in my life. In fact, I have only seen three others in the ensuing 66 years. The car was extremely dependable for all the miles I put on it, and I really hated to let go of it when the time came. Later, I owned an equally rare 1967 Shelby G.T. 500, but that’s another story.
Anyway, keep up the excellent work as I thoroughly enjoy your magazine. It’s most definitely one of a kind. Dale Knowles Vashon, Washington
TO ANSWER PAT FOSTER’S QUESTION in the March issue (“The Packard Balboa That Might Have Been”) about whether such a car could have been successful, I’d have to say, “No, not as depicted in the article. ” For those of us old enough to know, Packard was America’s finest remaining brand of high-quality cars after the Great Depression, and we greatly lament its passing. Talk of resurrecting the brand has come and gone more than once. The mockup model I saw about 20 years ago was ugly. The recreations built with modern engines, etc., fabricated in Oklahoma or Texas, are right up my alley, but now sell for well over $1 million. I believe they’ve been advertised in Hemmings Motor News as 1928 models.
The Balboa Packard shown in Pat’s article reminds me of Hudson’s attempt to dress up a Nash body for its last two years of Hudson production. It didn’t fool me in 1956 (“Hey, that’s a dressed-up Nash”) but I like them now. Sorry, Pat, but that’s what I see when I look at the Balboa; a dressed-up Studebaker, much like the 1957’58 Packardbakers. The Balboa would have to lean more toward the ’56 Packard’s appearance and look less like a GT Hawk. Its front was pretty much okay, but the top would have to be more like that of a ’57 Turnpike Cruiser or 1958’60 Lincoln Continental, and the rear would have to retain the ’56 Packard’s hips. Oh, let’s not forget the Packard Hawk, a clever and nicely done rhinoplasty job on the Studebaker for 1958. But it is fun dreaming “what if, ” right? Jane Honn, Sr. Alamosa, Colorado
