Good morning Oppo

"JR1" (type35bugatti) 04/07/2016 at 09:23 • Filed to: None

0

30

Another day and another dollar. Unless of course you are in school in which case it is another day another opportunity to learn about things that may or may not be interesting.

Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras > JR1 04/07/2016 at 09:25

1

Unless youre in college where it’s

“Another day, another dollar added to student debt”

cletus44 aka Clayton Seams > JR1 04/07/2016 at 09:29

0

Morning! Man, Exner designed some weird stuff

jimz > cletus44 aka Clayton Seams 04/07/2016 at 09:32

0

Indeed:

Though that was kind of copying the 1959 Lincoln:

thank god that styling trend died quickly.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 04/07/2016 at 09:32

0

I’ve got to say, I really do like the ‘59 Imperial and coral-colored cars in general. It’s probably my favorite year - a bold-looking grill that looks like the early 50s DeSotos and the best version of the fins. The ‘60, unfortunately, looks like a beluga that’s been eating raw cannabis out of a paint bucket.

JR1 > cletus44 aka Clayton Seams 04/07/2016 at 09:33

0

He had some great designs and some really bad designs

JR1 > jimz 04/07/2016 at 09:33

0

The front the Lincoln and Chrysler weren’t that bad!

JR1 > Supreme Chancellor and Glorious Leader SaveTheIntegras 04/07/2016 at 09:34

0

I thought about adding that too haha

JR1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 09:35

0

See I prefer the 60 to the 59.

jimz > JR1 04/07/2016 at 09:38

0

I bet you like stacked rectangular headlamps too.

stacked rectangulars always remind me of this:

cletus44 aka Clayton Seams > JR1 04/07/2016 at 09:40

0

But you can never say they weren’t distinctive. You can just glance and say, that’s an Exner car.

JR1 > jimz 04/07/2016 at 09:41

0

No!

JR1 > cletus44 aka Clayton Seams 04/07/2016 at 09:42

0

Very true they had presence

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 04/07/2016 at 09:48

0

The “mouth” formed by the grill is too “relaxed”, mostly. The ‘58/’59 is still bound to ‘50s styling and hasn’t let itself get freed up, but that weird dip in the front bumper... My sense is that if the car car easily be imagined saying “ayy lmao” there might be something amiss.

The ‘61-’63 floating headlight thing is really weird, but there’s at least one good year in there for everybody, probably. I have things I dislike on each, but they’re all styled well...

If I had to choose one it would probably be the ‘62.

kanadanmajava1 > JR1 04/07/2016 at 10:02

1

The ‘59 models have better looking grille but I still like the single headlight version used in certain states on 1957 the most. It just looks awesomely weird. ‘57 and ‘58 still had the awesome 392 cid early hemi that would be essential if I would be searching for an Imperial. Maybe I would forget the originality and just pick my favorite parts.

Too bad I currently have way too many projects going on...

JR1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 10:04

0

62? That I think is one of the worst years. For me it would be a 60 or 61. Oh well. Different strokes for different folks

JR1 > kanadanmajava1 04/07/2016 at 10:06

0

I didn’t realize they still had to have single headlights in certain states for a while. That is very odd

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 04/07/2016 at 10:16

0

All three of the floating headlight ones do have a neat feature - semi-hidden signals. Up in the “eyebrow” over the headlights.

Mostly with the ‘62 I prefer the grill, because it commits to a design aesthetic a little more consistently. The corner chrome sweeps hockey-stick into the grill very nicely.

The tailfins are a bit too subdued and probably a step in the wrong direction, but for me the ‘61's are a bit too much. By the ‘63, they’ve monkeyed with the roof, and the tailfins are just kind of there. I think the ‘62 might have looked a lot better with the lights on the side of the fin and inset, but that’s just me.

I like the fin, but not the way the light is attached to it so much. They ran into the same problem as on the ‘61 Fury, in that they got done styling first and then added the light as an afterthought.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 04/07/2016 at 10:20

0

If I’m not mistaken, the country-wide adoption of double headlight legality was in ‘58, which pretty much every single manufacturer was chomping at the bit for. Chrysler jumped the gun on it being legal everywhere with several models, including the 300 and the Imperials. Ford, when they restyled for ‘57, apparently designed the underpinnings for two headlights for the next year, but stayed with just one for the ‘57 model year, which is why a ‘57 Ford looks kind of odd.

JR1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 10:26

0

Oh I don’t mind the integration on the 61 Fury I think it looks very clean. We just can’t agree on anything today

JR1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 10:27

0

That explains why the 57 looks so odd. The 58 does the front in a lot more justice

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 04/07/2016 at 10:28

0

Best of the ‘64-’66 tank body years - the 64?

JR1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 10:29

0

Yes!

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 04/07/2016 at 10:34

1

Yep. It’s an almost identical fender pressing with the same width of the headlight arch, and that big clunky front grill and bumper piece disguises very cleanly the fact that all they did was swap away the bumper, the grill, and the under-grill valance, which is a separate piece, and switch the top valance. All those pieces on the ‘57 which were designed to provide visual continuity to the popular ‘56. They probably saved money on the ‘58 going to one big lump, too.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 04/07/2016 at 10:47

0

Another note one the ‘58 - you can see how the outer fender stamping barely changed between a round tail and a long rounded light inset. Mostly just a slight tweak to a brazed/leaded trim and a trunk-lid swap.

Which is why Ford’s slogan for the ‘58 “there’s nothing newer in the world” is a spectacularly blatant lie.

JR1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 10:48

0

Was the buying public really so naive?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 04/07/2016 at 10:51

1

Well, fuckit, there wasn’t a thing wrong with the ‘57, the ‘57 itself didn’t need much change from the ‘56, and the ‘58 looked new enough so people shopping for the new look weren’t out of luck. That’s all it was about most of the time anyway, the look. They had to spend time setting up for the larger platform on the ‘59-’62(?) regardless, so it’s good they gamed it out ahead of time.

kanadanmajava1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 10:57

0

Lincoln did fine job pretending to have dual headlights in 1957. The lower “headlight” isn’t actually such but it looks like one. In Chrysler’s products similar tricks were more obvious.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > kanadanmajava1 04/07/2016 at 11:14

0

I don’t know that much about the ‘57 Premiere/Capri line - was the lower unit an oversized parking light? That’s what I’d suspected but I wasn’t sure. I was not aware that some of Chrysler’s other dual-light models than the Imperials had a filler in the non-dual light sales locations, but it makes sense. Did those same locations use a filler on the 300C?

kanadanmajava1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 12:13

0

I think that Chryslers (or Desotos) didn’t get the “fake lights” but single version instead. I do believe that a 300C with these is very rare and you don’t even see regular 300Cs very often. Most single light versions were probably modernized with dual lights while they were still new.

ranwhenparked > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/07/2016 at 19:34

1

That’s right - Ford also had a single lamp version of the 1958 Edsels ready to go, in case the last few states didn’t get their quad lamp bans overturned in time (Ford and other automakers had been lobbying pretty heavily for it).

It would have been an even more ungainly looking 7" oval that would fit right into the existing hole for the quad lights.