[Land-speed] Not a quick question...

[joseph lance]

Ed;

I couldn't agree more about the early Fords. The first car that a drove on 
the street at age 13 was a 1932 Ford Model B with the 4 banger.  The whole 
car was very crude compared to the 34 Plymouth I played with three years 
later, it had an IFS (1949 before Ford had that) and hydraulic brakes which 
Ford didn't have until 1939. The Plymouth handled very well compared with 
most cars (especially the Fords) through the 1940s and with a later model 
six and a cam, aluminum head, dual carbs, Mallory ignition, and dual 
exhausts was reasonably fast. Too bad I never put in a 265 cid Chrysler six.

The Golden Years for me were the 40s-early 50s when low cost things like 
milled heads, homemade intake manifolds, dual exhausts, and tuning skills 
(no electronics) led to measurable and satisfying performance improvements 
in a wide variety of cars and 7$ heavy-duty Monroe shocks made a big 
difference in handling. Engine conversions (big Chrysler sixs in Plymouths, 
Jimmys into Chevys, OHV Cads and Olds engines into Fords) were easy and 
straight-forward--we were always tracking down old LaSalle voltage 
regulators for that GM engine to Ford battery polarity switch. Buying an 
early GM OHV junk-yard V8 was always more affordable for us guys than 
flathead Ford stroker kits and other new equipment. And milling the heads of 
those early OHVs only cost $6 bucks a head (took some tinkering to get 
things lined up on top of the engine afterwards)-- replacing the hydraulic 
lifters with solid lifters and adjustable rocker arms was fairly cheap.

But that's only because those cars were so bad when they came from the 
factory. I would argue that when it comes to store-bought cars, right now is 
a "Golden Age"---there is a tremendous variety of high performance cars with 
excellent handling, good brakes, and high reliability (especially compared 
with that junk we bought from the 60s-90s). Even so, it's nice that they can 
still be "improved" with a little work and aftermarket stuff. Still fun with 
some innovation, work, and a little (or a lot) of money!!

Lance


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Weldon" <23.weldon at comcast.net>
To: "J.D. Tone" <gmc6power at earthlink.net>; "Keith Turk" <kturk at ala.net>; 
<land-speed at autox.team.net>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Land-speed] Not a quick question...


> JD-- I can't argue with you on the motorcycles or airplanes.  Or even the
> Cord.  But Deusenbergs??  Overpriced museum pieces full of 1920's
> technology!!  They couldn't hold a candle to the Cadillacs and Packards.
>
> And '32 Fords?  They were a mess. The low end Chrysler and GM products 
> were
> much better cars.  And Ford?   A new engine rushed into premature 
> production
> release full of goofy ideas some quickly abandoned in later models and
> others like the distributor design cussed at by mechanics for the next 27
> years.  A quick cosmetic rehash of the previous year's models with 
> virtually
> no engineering improvement of the chassis.  Disappointing sales.  Maybe 
> the
> "Golden Age" for Henry's iron foundry and the beginning of the idea of
> making "everyman's" car capable of high speed performance.  But the first
> decent Fords after the model A really didn't get built until 1939.
>
> Sure the Deuce became a hot rodders favorite.  But that was just an
> aberation derived from the ease of mounting a later high powered engine in
> its lightweight chassis with the resources of any amatuer mechanic.  Look 
> at
> all the changes a street rodder needs to make to turn them into decent 
> road
> cars.  And streamlined?  Yup.  Like a brick.  So why am I so hard on 32
> Fords?  Cause I've owned one for 37 years.....
> Ed Weldon